Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 December	19 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gro CRM

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

removed prod, but none of the concerns was fixed- fundamentally doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- basically G11-level spam. I was going to request a speedy deletion, but I see that this has already been attemped, so it's a straight "Delete" then. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gro CRM considered for deletion

Hello jcc,Rentier,K.e.coffman

The Gro CRM page I created is being considered for deletion. I read the concerns. I am in the process of updating the page further. Any suggestions or guidance would be very helpful. Thanks! Shanescott127 (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Shanescott127 06:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam article on a non-notable product. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:GNG, topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore it is not presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and article is WP:PROMO Hagennos (talk) 06:30, 25 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) 21:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekran System

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

doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE ; a search for sources finds only PRWire articles which doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both the sources and the article are purely promotional. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE, WP:GNG. Rentier (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:GNG, topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore it is not presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 07:45, 23 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.

RateGain

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

nothing has changed since January when this article was deleted at AfD, now a confirmed UPE sock has republished it, the same things apply- all provided sources are reprinted press releases not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH (a lot are venture funding reports), or from non-notable promotionalism only websites jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:16, 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 Speedy delete, G11 by DGG. (non-admin closure) !dave 10:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotic Media

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

non-notable, reviewing the sources we see that most are trivial mentions, republished press releases or in one instance, the CEO has offered their comment to a self published blog, showing that this company is fundamentally non-notable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional spam on a completely nn company. Sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP; fluff copy includes:

Neurotic Media uses a patented B2B2C business relationship[7] across its chain of content owners, merchants,brands and consumers! Etc.

I requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 23 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) 21:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Ogden

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

Almost-unsourced BLP. Has been PRODded before, and dePRODded in March 2017 with "Needs expansion but enough to work on". The only source is one which verifies that she is CEO of CEPR but adds no other info. The rest of the content was added, unsourced, when the article was created by an editor who has made 5 edits, 3 of them about this person. No indication of notability, no sources to support most of the article. No useful ghits found. If we remove the unsourced BLP content we are left with "is the CEO of CERP". A redirect to Centre for Economic Policy Research would be appropriate, as she is mentioned there in infobox. PamD 21:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inclined to agree with nom on this one; there is absolutely zero sourcing in the article to establish even a glimmer of a chance of passing WP:GNG, or even verifying the minimalist claims of fact made about this individual. My own searches turned up nothing more than the usual personal social media, and the occasional listing of a past or present staff position, but nothing that looks like a reliable, secondary source, and certainly nothing which established notability. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS, SPA-created, all OR, and on down the line. Agricola44 (talk) 17:20, 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! 08:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Church (Demotte, Indiana)

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

Fails WP:GNG without multiple independent sources covering the subject in detail. References are either human interest stories from a small media outlet, published by the church itself or a brief mention in an architectual magazine. TM 18:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable small town church; nothing of any particular notability. Quis separabit? 19:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't a notable topic for all the reasons stated above, I also don't see a reason why someone would need this information in the first place. This article is not only written sounding like promo, but I think the most likely reason someone would make an article like this is to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion and recognition for their company. Definitely not meeting WP:PROMO or WP:GNG. Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I have been working to edit the article so that it does not sound like a promo wp:promo can be changed and fixed. Definitely would be open to advice and help in making it less promotional and more neutral. Considering the fact that the church is larger than the entire town that it is in (Wheatfield Indiana) and almost the oldest continuously operating community institution in Demotte or Wheatfield Indiana, and in addition to local sources it is published with a major write up in a nationally circulated magazine (RCA today) I would argue that it does meet the notability standards. If this article is not notable than all small town articles like Demotte's Wheatfield's and others would need to be deleted. User:johnjurohill —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This church and this article have historical significance. It's an organization that has been a pillar of it's community since the late 1800's. It's longevity alone should justify this article. There is also a miriad of published sources from local papers to national magazine publications that have noted the significance of First Church and it's contributions within its sphere of influence. Let's fix the promotional language and stick to substance that actually informs about this organization. User:grantolomeo —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is the first church, not the second or third, so that must be notable. Just kidding, this clearly fails GNG, so Delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG,ORG, etc. etc. etc. It also seems to violate PROMO. If the article creator wants to put a link to the church's website on Wheatfield, Indiana, with a little bit of the non self-promotional parts of this article on Wheatfield, that'd be fine. South Nashua (talk) 17:30, 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 07:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitriy Sosnovskiy

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

Contested Prod - Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA PRehse (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete He has none of the three required top tier flights and I don't see the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. He hasn't had a fight in close to 3 years, so him meeting WP:NMMA seems like a leap of faith.Sandals1 (talk) 19:51, 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 keep after improvements. ansh 666 07:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Braddy

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

Delete: as non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 17:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article and found sources. She was considered a very important drummer of her time by several writers and was known as "The Queen of the Drums." Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –What the article needed was improvement and it got one. Compare this revision when nominated for deletion and the current revision. The sources are enough to show meeting WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:35, 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 07:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avijit Arya

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

Article on a non-notable marketer, commissioned from a paid editor. The article is based entirely on puff "profiles", interviews, advertorials and other low quality, non-independent sources. Searches turn up no significant coverage in independent sources. Melcous has cleaned up some of the more blatantly spammy text, but this is still a clear attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. – Joe (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has made significant contribution to the digital marketing industry when you google him. Should qualify under WP:BASIC References are secondary sources. There are a lot advertorials but articles do come up for him on yourstory, economic times, businessworld. I am fairly new here but I would think those are recognised publications. Also, he is a reknowned speaker in the digital marketing field. Wikilover2604 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have to look a little deeper than the titles of publications; for example, I presume this is the "Economic Times" (actually Times of India economic section) hit you were referring to, as I could find no other reference which matches that assertion. That page is nothing more than a "corporate dossier"; essentially a self-filed questionnaire about the man's favourite bars and travel vistas. That's not a reliable source, nor in-depth coverage, both of which we would need to retain this article. The "BusinessWorld" page is another example; it's not constituted by coverage of Arya, that could provide evidence of his purported notability: it's a blog post/editorial by him, about balancing work and family. I've looked at every source I could turn up that looked even initially promising, but in the end virtually all were promotional/non-independent, and none of them were WP:reliable sources under our policies. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. A WP:BEFORE source shows up a bunch of self promotion, much like this seems to be. Melcous (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sourcing does at first look as if it may barely pass muster for GNG, until one reviews the actual content of those sources, and it becomes obvious that none of them are WP:reliable sources under our policies, but are instead advertisements and other non-independent and non-secondary fluff. Albeit with some of it masquerading (poorly) as indendent media coverage. and even these promotional pages say next to nothing of substance about the man, aside from to list his educational history and mention his role in a family-owned hotel business. The rest is all vague, hagigraphic assertions about the man's supposed "revolutionary" role in the development of online marketing (strange that such a giant has evaded all indpendent business news media attention); these statements almost all hit a spot between grandiose-sounding and so indefinitely worded (and ambiguously attributed) as to be nonsensical--for example "Avijit Arya has to his credit testimonials accredited by the finest, attested to his exponential experience..." and "Thus, his acute understanding of the entire industry and related verticals!". Clearly lacking the necessary in-depth, independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources to establish WP:Notability at this time. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO due to the lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing fails requirements for being indepdent of the subject and indepth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 22 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) 21:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Vernal

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

Deletion per WP:ENT. The person is an actor, but does not meet the criteria for notability of actors. Being an actor does not make him inherently notable. _{Adotchar| reply here} 15:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NACTOR and ENT. Quis separabit? 17:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This have long way to meet WP:ACTOR and generally lacks coverage in reliable sources failing WP:GNG –Ammarpad (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ENT, quick google search only brought up an IMDB, listing. Nothing really notable on news articles or anything else. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 03:10, 23 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. Second NAC close, feel free to revert if wrong... (non-admin closure) !dave 18:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pyongyang Declaration

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

Searches for this mostly bring up a different "declaration" involving the Japanese government, which seems to enjoy some notability; there are also a fair number of false hits on various things the NK government has "declared". This particular declaration seems to have no footprint outside a bunch of communist partys who have said that they signed it— and Pyongyang blowing its own horn. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Possibly rename to Let Us Defend and Advance the Cause of Socialism Declaration (or something along those lines or maybe tack on a (1992) - seems this one - Japan–North Korea Pyongyang Declaration is possibly more common for "Pyongyang Declaration") for this last hurrah (so far) of the communists in the face of the collapse of curtain. Some sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would second Icewhiz's findings on sources. Historical Dictionary of Pyongyang (number two on the list above) in particular is a great quality source. Historical Dictionary of North Korea also has a dedicated entry, as does A Handbook on North Korea

Searching with the date helps though – incidentally – Kim Jong-il ascended to the rank of marshal on that very same day. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You based your entire search on Google Hits, and google result is not the end since it searches for occurrence of letters everywhere they occur. Beside the above source here are more [8] and [9] also likely more may be found in Korean language or print sources. Renaming is fine but that's not focus of AfD, so after closing it any editor can rename it to more appropriate name. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:27, 22 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) 21:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Raven (gastropub)

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

Non-notable restaurant. Article reads like an advertisement and the sources are routine for a restaurant. TM 14:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: Nor is Wikipedia a web host. Oh, hey, look, this restaurant has its own website. Seriously, the article creator merits a trout slap for this one. Ravenswing 19:44, 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. ansh 666 07:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metacomic

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

Basic definition with no references. PROD was contested without comment. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a basic definition is not a reason to delete; it just means that the page is a WP:STUB. The lack of references is likewise not an issue as the nominator should search for those per WP:BEFORE. It's not as if they don't exist; for example, The Routledge Companion to Comics has a chapter about the topic. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated by Andrew D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerntrash (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 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 07:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Buckz

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 10:27, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 13:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Article has no sources and gives no indication of notability.Sandals1 (talk) 02:26, 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 07:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Once Was Gold (Braeden Wright album)

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

Album does not meet notability and only has references to iTunes and self-pub. Artist article was Prodded in August. There is a Forbes article [10] and some random blog article [11] but they are interviews. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 13:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: as the article for the artist was also deleted under a PROD, doesn't this now qualify for a speedy deletion under A9? The claims of critical reviews on Metacritic appear to be bogus, and "Spinnup" is not a record label but a digital platform allowing unsigned artists to upload their music. Mr. Wright's album appears to be nothing more than homemade demos uploaded to this platform. Richard3120 (talk) 18:21, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sportlobster

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

social networking site which has since ceased operations and moved to a new platform. Uhooep (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is poor, outside press releases we have interviews and that's about it. The 'article' in The National is a de facto interview too. I don't think this suffices for this to pass WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 13:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. Received $3M in funding which strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above - references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:29, 22 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 that the result of the previous AfD was correct. No need to relist this one a third time. ansh 666 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtray Heart

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be sufficiently INDEPENDENTLY notable to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was deemed notable last year and nothing has changed. Even if you don't believe it warrants its own article, there are better alternatives to bringing articles like this to AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 27 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) 00:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Michig, the article was deemed "keep" last time around in September and nothing has changed since then. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments after the last relist. Relisted again for more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 13:48, 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. No objection to recreation if notability is met after release of new album (or if he becomes notable some other way), but as of right now he doesn't. Let me know if anyone wants it restored to user or draft space. ansh 666 07:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Mask the Slump God

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

Four previous versions have been deleted here and at Ski Mask The Slump God. I do not think that notability has yet been established. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ski Mask has shown his own notability like XXXTentacion beyond the Members Only collective. See "Catch Me Outside" and his other popular songs. 67.169.149.118 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.169.149.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - At best, this is a case of too soon. True, Ski Mask has worked with notable artists like Lil Pump but notability is not inherited and there is no indication any of his recordings have yet made a notable chart or garnered a significant award.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ski Mask the Slump God's upcoming release would be his second release under Republic Records, thereby meeting the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. This might be a case of too soon, but I believe that the supposedly near release date would also warrant the article avoiding deletion for at least a week or so to allow time for the project to drop. 66.30.161.208 (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 66.30.161.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete – will likely be notable after next album is released as per WP:MUSICBIO, but this doesn't even have a release date yet. PriceDL (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 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 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus' Son (song)

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

Does not appear to be INDEPENDENTLY notable enough to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So why didn't you consider merging it to the album? --Michig (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In fact, not a single reason exists to delete this article. The notability box at the top of the article was added by one user, without a bit of discussion (there's none on the article's talk page), without any reasoning or justification and contrary to WP rules.

The article is about a single by Placebo, a highly notable band, with an entire, well-developed "article space" devoted to them (discography, albums, singles, other releases, members, former members, etc.). There is a Wikipedia article for every single Placebo have released, all of them fulfilling the WP guidelines for articles of this kind, including references to external, independent sources writing on the subject.

To be certain, all WP guidelines are unequivocally met. The article satisfies all of them and more:

Its subject is notable.
It is part of a series of articles, encompassing a chronological progression, which all need to exist, side by side, for the reader to be able to receive complete information on the subject.
It is easy for the reader to understand exactly what the article is about and how to reach it. If the reader is not interested in the subject, there is no reason they will encounter this article. However, if the reader is interested in the subject, they need this article and will be interested in the information it provides.
The article has existed on Wikipedia for well over a year by now, helping readers get the information they require and not generating any notability issues, except for one "notability box" added mistakenly by only one user, without any discussion and contrary to WP rules.
Last but not least, the article is referenced with external sources, unrelated and independent from the band. Those sources have written about the article's subject. Additional sources, if necessary, can easily and quickly be added.

In summary, the article fully satisfies the notability guidelines. It seems that even mentioning a possible deletion of this article was simply a misunderstanding, caused by not attending to the fact that the article is notable and does reference to external, independent sources. This article provides readers, both new and well-acquainted with the subject, the knowledge they need, in an organized, informative manner. It should certainly be kept. A.R. (talk) 03:24, 28 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) 00:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Place for Us to Dream, per WP:NSONG. While some staffers at PopMatters weighed in with their opinions of the song, the vast majority of other sources mention the single as part of the upcoming album, mention that the song was played in a concert, or simply announce that the song has a video. An article built solely on WP:SUBJECTIVE opinions and the fact a promotional video was made is a poor article. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this is notable or not, but it would seem to me that if it is notable it should be possible to find a source that says the blindingly obvious - that the title is a quotation from The Velvet Underground's "Heroin". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:23, 24 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 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pyeng Threadgill

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

Non-notable Toypadlock (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. There is definitely coverage of this subject beyond what is presented in the article - for example, "REVIEW / Singer Pyeng Threadgill bridges classic, contemporary jazz with an easy subtlety", Neva Chonin, San Francisco Chronicle (July 4, 2006) and "Contra-Tiempo’s ‘Agua Furiosa’ has too much to say", Rebecca Ritzel, The Washington Post (February 14, 2016). bd2412 T 18:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced in reliable sources including Allmusic, BARE, and reviewed here, here, here, here, etc. Notability criteria are met. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – She is notable as she passes some of the criteria set at Wikipedia:Notability (music) –

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 13:38, 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. ansh 666 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CityFalcon

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

Fails WP:GNG. The coverage appears to only be routine coverage and press releases. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated. There are many popular sources that refer to the article topic.Gevlare (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Routine coverage" is what defines passing GNG. This topic is a 2014 startup, so fails WP:SUSTAINED. At first I thought the topic might be a publisher, but I don't see any publications. I also noticed four Ghits on Google scholar that might indicate future promise. Unscintillating (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable tech startup going about its business. "Graduated from Microsoft Accelerator in 2015" strongly suggests "non-notable" and WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 26 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. Note that WP:AfD is not cleanup - the quality of the article has no bearing on the notability of the subject. ansh 666 07:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Pollard

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor political functionary, not elected, fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY, Keep. running searches produces WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no evidence in this AfD that this topic fails either GNG or NPOL, and being a minor political functionary is not a metric that we consider. As per NBIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Unscintillating (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable political figure whose article is backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- sources are there, its not unusual for a leader of a state political party to be considered notable. As per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success." (and her party has had electoral success in Oklahoma).--Rusf10 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very minor political career. This is a poorly written article, lacking citations. Perhaps if it was cleaned up it would be more notable. Jooojay (talk) 08:48, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Mae Brunson

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

Looks like she is not quite yet notable beside Long Beach Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. Besides LBP, sources seem to be webcruft and local papers with trivial mentions. Notability claim is also problematic: "creative visionary" and "social innovator" are vague and there's no convincing demonstration of notability as an author or public speaker. Seems to be a fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable (also has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 22 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 Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli–Palestinian War

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

There is no official definition of Israeli-Palestinian war and this disambiguation page does not add any meaningful information. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. The term is not used, and is specifically wrong for the various Gaza conflicts/wars which did not involve the West Bank. It could be arguably be used to describe to the Second Intifada (to which some refer to as a war), 1948 Arab–Israeli War, or 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine - however it is not used for these conflicts either. Furthermore that article creator has 45 edits and thus is not extended-confirmed and is not supposed to edit ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vague, incomplete and subjective. Kierzek (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict where this is more or less covered. It's certainly a plausible search term for the conflict. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It seems rather simple a solution to me to just make this page a redirect to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as some users might have tried to be searching for that page in confusion with this one.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 16:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not redirect because the usage of "Palestine" to describe a series of conflicts between Israel and Hamas is misleading. And delete because everything found here is well covered and easily discovered in Gaza–Israel conflict.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict per reasons listed by Kierze and Tavix above. This topic is covered on the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" page. It's definitely a plausible search term for the conflict. It's a simple solution to just make this page a redirect to the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" page. Many users might try to search for that page in confusion with this one. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and let the ostriches keep their heads in the sand, denying the existence of Palestine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict. A number of users happen to confuse these terms, a redirect would help this situation. Lorstaking (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict as duplicate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 22 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 07:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Odbody

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

Article contains essentially no information not already present at It's a Wonderful Life. If the trivial "quotes" section necessitates a separate article, here it is - otherwise this should be redirected. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, the iconic character of Clarence Odbody, the guardian angel from the 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life, also received his own self-titled film in 1990 which further adds to the topics notability and detail. The page had been stable since 2007 until an undiscussed good faith blanking and redirect on December 31, 2015, and I brought it back and am improving it with promised help by a film-knowledgeable editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep, the character has been discussed in depth in many literary sources. There's also this, not sure what to make of that.★Trekker (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Randy Kryn. Where Clarence is concerned, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to an extensive degree, as exemplified within Category:Fictional characters, with articles for George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life), Mary Hatch and Mr. Potter. Clarence Odbody is, indeed, an iconic character who, in addition to being the central figure in the above mentioned Clarence (1990 film) and The Last Temptation of Clarence Odbody, receives detailed write-ups in twelve books [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] which recount It's a Wonderful Life. Clarence's entry can certainly be expanded with specific particulars gleaned from those books but, even in its present state, it already establishes Clarence as, arguably, the most renowned guardian angel in all of fiction, with a stand-alone mention in Wikipedia's own article, Guardian angel#In film. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In its present state it is entirely superfluous, consisting of a summary from the main article plus a few random quotes. Contrary to a common misconception , notability does not mandate an article if the material is already completely covered elsewhere. I agree that if there's worthwhile added-value material in these books, and if someone would actually go to the trouble to insert it, it would likely hold water. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a stand-alone page because of the 1990 film Clarence which would have more detail about Odbody's "life" as an angel. It's a Wonderful Life is set in 1945, and Clarence in 1989, so it is an addition to the named character's fictional biography. That, plus the links and book mentioned above, indicate more notability to an already notable character. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough in-depth coverage, as shown in above sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to It's a Wonderful Life. I see that I'm going against the majority here, but I truly do not see what independent notability has been demonstrated for this fictional character. Most of the sources cited by Elmidae are about the film, not the character, and nobody else in this discussion has pointed us to anything more useful. And at least one of ~~Elmidae's~~Roman Spinner's sources isn't even about the film (it mentions the character just once, and only in passing). Also, the existence of the other articles doesn't tell us much, because Mary Hatch is even less informative than the instant article and George Bailey (fictional character) is atrocious, being written in the form of a real-person biography. The better approach would be to merge all of these articles into a single List of characters in It's a Wonderful Life but, in the meantime, we lose nothing by redirecting this one back to the main article on the film (which, by the way, already mentions that second film in its "Spin-offs" section).
As for the argument that Clarence is an "iconic character", don't most iconic films have iconic characters? If this argument were to be accepted as correct, we would end up with separate articles for each of the main characters in almost every popular film. And most of them would look essentially like the one here -- little more than a duplication of material from the parent article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the 1990 Clarence film which should have much more information to add to the page. Won't have time to see it for a couple or few days, so if anyone else has the time... Yes, most iconic films have iconic characters, sure, but It's a Wonderful Life is a top-level iconic film, [which reflects] on its [major] characters, including Clarence.~~, are as iconic as they come.~~ The reasons to keep the page are numerous, as pointed out by all of the positive comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you mention only Elmidae's sources in your "merge" reasoning, and not Roman Spinner's links. Roman Spinner shows the prevalence of books written about this film. All of these books very likely feature Clarence as one of the main characters, thus one of the main subjects of the book. They probably show that Clarence's character is unique in film history, at least to that point (1946). Clarence would likely be the first topic in a "List of guardian angels in popular culture", a page I'd like to see if it doesn't exist, that'd be a fun one. So, I Just wanted to point out that Roman Spinner has kindly pointed out some of the sources which very likely back up the popular and academic recognition of this character's uniqueness and notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for commenting. I doubt that either one of us wants to engage in an extended debate, so I'll make my response brief. First, I have no doubt that the spin-off film can be a source of additional in-universe detail, but I don't see how that addresses the concerns raised in the nomination. And second, when I think of fictional characters that are "as iconic as they come", I think of the likes of Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Perry Mason and James Bond. Good ol' Clarence? He's not in their league.

Thanks again for the comment. Have a happy holiday season. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You're quite right. I really did intend to identify Roman Spinner's post. I'll correct that now. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and best holiday wishes to you and yours too. And you are quite right, he's not as iconic as the top-tier iconic characters. I got carried away there, and will strike the language. He's pretty notable though, and of angel characters in film, especially the subclass of guardian angels, he, among them, does seem to be of iconic status (or at least the character seems to be notable enough for the page to stay). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may hammer a bung into this barrel of Iconic good cheer... the point here is not whether a character is more or less iconic than Bogey or Mary Poppins, but whether there is relevant material to present about them that is not yet covered in the main article(s). That has not yet been demonstrated, and the supplementary sources noted above indeed seem to all just cover the film in its entirety (very likely all saying the same things, too). Clarence Odbody offers no added value, and there's no indication that is going to change. Can one of you proponents present an example of an in-depth treatment of the character that one could mine for such? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation of the book sources will add to the page and the notable character. And because of your post I just watched the 1990 Clarence film which adds information not covered in the main article to both the back-story and biographical material about the character. And realize that there are thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands, of Wikipedia articles about film, anime, television, comic book, and video-game characters who don't have close to the amount of sourced material that this page has. You say that the books Roman Spinner links very likely all say the same things, but since we haven't researched them, time limited by the Christmas season and all, there are likely many nuggets of information in there. What's also important is that compared to the many other character pages accepted as Wikipedia articles, especially those about fictional film and television-based angels and guardian angels, this page's topic is both more notable and well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is our source for all seasons, we'll lay aside the question of whether Christmas is the proper time to deny Clarence his iconic guardian angel position in fictional history. It may be noted, however, that among the four central characters, George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life), Mary Hatch and Mr. Potter have had no existence outside of It's a Wonderful Life, while Clarence has gained a wider horizon. Although best known for being portrayed in It's a Wonderful Life by elderly character actor Henry Travers, redirecting Clarence Odbody to that film would overlook and diminish his standing as the title character in 1990's Clarence where he appears as a much younger guardian angel in a storyline independent of It's a Wonderful Life. Added to the fact that John Jughead Pierson's 2011 novel, The Last Temptation of Clarence Odbody (which, for one day six years ago, had its own Wikipedia article) also places him as the title character, it becomes clear that Clarence is a notable fictional entity in his own right, separate from It's a Wonderful Life, and has earned a place among Wikipedia articles based on his own merits. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I have to question including a listed birth date as this article does, at least in the manner it is done there. Also have to admit I have added my own spin to the general corpus of "It's a Wonderful Life" related-fiction. Although to be fair, the way I did it gave short shift to Clarence. What we really need is someone able to find the 12 or so books Roman Spinner links to above, and link in important information from those books into this article. It is clear that there is scholarship out there, now it needs to be integrated into this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 26 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 Stubify. There seems to be a strong consensus that what we have is not fit for purpose and a sense that the article is being used to exaggerate the importance of the subject. There is not quite a consensus to delete outright (I have ignored the SPAs) so I'm going to stubify this and ask that this be rewritten from the good sources only. After that we will be better placed to see if this article can stand up or not. If we have issues with SPAs and COI editors coming in to push the previous mess we can either move it to draft or have another discussion (hint if its go 2 and the pov pushing is continuing the community tends to delete and not exercise much AGF). Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Wrestling

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling (in fact, it's the same promotion with other name). Most of the sources are from their own website (defiant wrestling or What Culture), their own youtube channel or Cagematch (which covers every wrestling event in the world). I don't see any third party sources enough to establish their notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to re-issue what I wrote on the talk page for this article. The notoriety of the article should really be argued over the following references, as the majority are primary, or just link the source.

"WCPW rebranding as Defiant Wrestling, Wade Barrett to be new GM". WON/F4W - WWE news, Pro Wrestling News, WWE Results, UFC News, UFC results. 2017-09-30. Retrieved 2017-12-13.
"Adam Pacitti's Big Announcement: WCPW Is Born". Huffington Post. 2016-05-26. Retrieved 2016-05-26.
"WhatCulture, WhatExodus? C5 Is The New WCPW?". Last Word on Pro Wrestling. 2017-09-19. Retrieved 2017-09-19.
"What Culture Wrestling Departees File Docs For New Business Venture". Pro Wrestling Sheet. 2017-09-19. Retrieved 2017-09-19.
Greer, Jamie (30 September 2017). "WCPW rebranding to Defiant Wrestling". LWPS. Retrieved 30 September 2017.
Jarrel, Tim (October 1, 2017). "WCPW rebranding to Defiant Wrestling3". Pro Wrestling Unlimited. Retrieved October 1, 2017.
Hamilton, Ian (October 20, 2017). "Last episode of Loaded". Back Body Drop. Retrieved October 20, 2017.
Currier, Joseph (2017-08-26). "Daily Update: Mayweather vs. McGregor, Charlotte, WCPW World Cup". Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Retrieved 2017-11-01.
Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take a look on the Pro wrestling MoS, reliable sources. Last Word on Pro Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Sheet, LWPS, Pro Wrestling Unlimited, Back Body Drop (a blog) aren't reliable. For the entire article we just have 3 sources. (one of them, a small note about the world wrestling cup). As I said, 99% of the sources aren' reliable or are from their websites. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I didn't look at the list, but I deleted all other references that are clearly primary or ones that I knew didn't count. I have been leaning Delete, but with how exceedingly long the article is, and the sheer amount of references that are to be ignored are overwhelming. The question is, would a small article with those three sources be sufficient, or is the article doomed without more third party references. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found these

PWInsider
PWInsider
This Crave article has some coverage
Not sure about this
More youtube drama here and here

Not sure if that's enough but they did get in some news for the YoutTube stuff. Again, it's not great.★Trekker (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes WP:GNG. -- TheCorageone1^Connect 15:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — TheCorageone1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep No delete, the article as reliable sources. - RigaPietrev12^{User talk:RigaPietrev12 comment added 15:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)} — RigaPietrev12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep The article as reliable sources and has a very good writting - Spinarok15 comment added 16:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — Spinarok15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- These three users hasn't previous editions. Also, they don't have arguments. Looks like someone is cheating. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, trying to cheat at least.★Trekker (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, maybe, stub. WhatCulture is so notable it is a red link and yet their in-house wresting YouTube channel makes yet another attempt to grapple its way into Wikipedia. This has 68 supposed "references". 18 are YouTube videos and should be ignored entirely when assessing notability. Others are inside sources of various sorts, which again convey no notability. There are also blogs and fansites. Then we have some more independent ones that are OK for verifying content but convey no notability as they try to cover everything. (I believe Cagematch falls into this category.) Finally we do have a little that merits consideration. The Huffington Post article is on topic and goes some of the way but it is not "significant coverage by reliable sources" in itself. The pastemagazine.com article looked promising too but that fails to even mention the subject of this article (under any of its names). That seems to be as good as it gets. At the other end of the spectrum we get references so far off topic (e.g. residentadvisor.net, which doesn't even mention the topic here, never mind support the claim that 100 people attended a WCPW event at all) that one has to wonder if they are only here to artificially bulk up the numbers as if quantity can make up for a lack of quality.

There is also some spin going on here. Despite the clear desire to put in as many "references" as possible, nobody found room for real RS coverage of the genuine (albeit not exactly earth-shattering) related controversy here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41764308
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/adam-blampied-youtube-what-culture-women-nude-photos-sexual-harassment-apology-twitter-statement-a8023001.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/27/british-youtuber-adam-blampied-apologises-manipulating-women/

If people would prefer to pass over that matter in silence then I'd be prepared to see Blampied omitted entirely (as he is not the subject of the article or particularly notable in his own right) but I don't think that he can be mentioned omitting the one thing he is actually slightly notable for in connection with this subject.

If this is to be kept at all it needs to have all the nonsense stripped out. The unreferenced tables need to go. The "referenced" ones probably need to go too, being fancruft and trivia. The bracket diagrams? I mean, I feel sorry for whoever clearly spent a lot of time to make nice diagrams (and by all means publish it somewhere else to avoid wasting it entirely) but I don't see it having a place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository for minor sports stats. Once stripped down to just what RS sources support it is just about possible that there could be a valid stub here but I remain to be convinced. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - In fact, the Blampied scandal was discovered after he left the promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wasn't sure if that was the case or whether it was related his leaving and it became public later. Either way, it pertains to his time there and it is pretty much the only thing he has much RS coverage for in connection to this subject. Having him in the article invites that elephant into the room. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't help noticing that all three Keep !votes above my Delete are from what look like very recently created single purpose accounts. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah WCPW shills seem to think that wikipedia is filled with easily fooled people. Same thing has happened before in WhatCulture related AFDs.★Trekker (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found two more Crave articles here and here. Still, not sure if that helpes much.★Trekker (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is a huge mess, however in between the mess there is enough to make it pass WP:GNG. The article obviously needs to be cleaned up, but its does pass GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 20:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you find the notability? Only a few reliable sources talk about the promotion, this is not significant coverage by reliable sources. Most of them are about YouTube policy and how affects WCPW. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @HHH Pedrigree: I have participated in many AfD. For the most part, I have seen across these, if there are 3 separate RS that have articles on the actual item itself, not a passing motion, that this is enough to pass GNG. As your comments have indicated, there have been a few RS that have written about it. Therefore I would conclude that this is sufficient to meet GNG. Per WP:CORP's nutshell An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. There is no disputing that it has received some level of coverage as you stated above, the question becomes what qualifies as significant. In my opinion the article shows enough sources to meet this. - Galatz ^Talk 23:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make a point here that I have no real want either way in this discussion, but the sheer amount of shills are making the discussion very easy to be against the article. I think I would be a lot more on board if WhatCulture itself could be proven to meet GNG; as surely the parent company should inherit notability from it's subordinates. A lot of the issue here, is that there are very few proven media sites that acknowledge Defiant as a brand, but word of mouth is mostly why it is so well known. I'd like to say, irregardless of the result of this vote, a copy should be stored to be worked on, should the AfD discussion end in a delete vote. All it really needs is one or two news sites to have a mention of it, and everything is fine. As of right now, it all screams self-hype.
However, if the article does get accepted, I feel as though work needs to be done to shorten it, as right now, there is far too much information in it for a simple promotion article. Right now, it's around one and a half times the size of the Ring of Honor article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because the article includes History, 5 championships, roster, list of events and tournaments. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee's point about WhatCulture being a red link is a good one. If that was found to be notable (which remains to be demonstrated) then having an article with a section in it for the wrestling promotions would be acceptable so long as it wasn't overdone and fell foul of WP:COATRACK (So no detailed fancruft coverage!). I'm less keen on the idea of making a draft because that was done with the WCPW articles and all it accomplished was to encourage people to waste their time working on drafts with very little hope of success. Of course, if anybody wanted a copy in order to publish it on a fan wiki somewhere then, subject to licence compatibility, that would be fine. In fact, that is what I recommend the fans to do. If they make their own fan wiki then they can do whatever they like without them bothering us or us bothering them. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article is a mess, but it should be kept and re-edited because, it can have some unreliable sources but it as some reliable sources such as PWI Insider per example and it featured important wrestler such as Jay Lethal, Kurt Angle, Noam Dar, so for me is a keep. --TheUs3r12 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree with everything DanielRigal said. There's a tendency to treat every little indy fed like they're WWE and get into the intricate details of their championships and tournaments. We shouldn't! If they're covered in reliable sources then we should cover them, we should not if we have to rely heavily on primary sources. I thought Progress Wrestling was the worst offender but the fact that we've deleted this article multiple times may give it an advantage. We could trim all the fat and leave a stub in place but I'm not sure that's beneficial. I also don't care which wrestlers have wrestled there, that's WP:NOTINHERITED. I would have suggested a merge to WhatCulture but that can't happen for obvious reasons.LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't feel the nominator's points (in the original nomination and in response to other comments) have been convincingly countered and LM2000 correctly states that notability is not inherited from some of the well-known independent wrestlers who have worked for the company. The Wrestling Observer and PWInsider have printed information about the group but part of their function is to carry as many results from as many shows as possible so simply having shows mentioned in both publications is no proof of notability. I'm also troubled by the sheer volume of single-purpose accounts associated with this article and What Culture Pro Wrestling - there's no real way of knowing if they're passionate fans or spammers working for the group itself. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the end it doesn't matter what these shills are, they're not coming with convincing arguments either way.★Trekker (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In the past WCPW articles I have had difficulty telling fans from spammers. There is also a middle possibility which is that some are fans being canvassed somewhere else and sent here without knowing about Wikipedia. We should not bite their heads off unless we see clear signs of deliberate sockpuppetry or other abuses. As you say, if other people could present a convincing Keep argument then this wouldn't matter. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability is not inherited from the notable wrestlers who have worked for the company, and there's nothing better here. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- DW often gets some notable wrestlers (e.g Kurt Angle) to wrestle for their brand. Meanwhile they don't get that much attention but still get some all the same. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITED) from its wrestlers. Any company could book big name wrestlers as long as they are willing to pay their booking fees. And you can't just say the company gets attention, you have to prove the attention is enough to meet guidelines. Nikki♥311 13:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see that there is still some back and forth reverting and reinstating the strikethrough on the SPA !votes. I don't see the point to this. Maybe we should let them stay, so long as the critical comments beneath are also allowed to stay, and let the closing admin decide what they are worth. It is not like they are likely to be mistaken for anything other than what they are and we want people to see that we gave the Keep side a fair hearing. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:47, 25 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 07:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Souvik Pal

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:GNG. No claims of notability are made in the article and the only mentions of this person that I can find are on social media. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NOTABILITY and GNG. Quis separabit? 17:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 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, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Yip

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

fails WP:RLN and doesn't seem to meet the GNG Mattlore (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I PRODed it on that basis (rationale:Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT for rugby league. Papua New Guinea did not participate in the Pacific Cup in the 1980s), unsure why Fleets contested it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails to meet lowest threshold of notability as any kind of athlete. Quis separabit? 17:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PNG played in tests and he is a former Kumul whose playing days go back further than the first Pacific Cup in 1975. https://postcourier.com.pg/taram-says-decision-not-good-youth/Fleets (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RLN & WP:GNG. There is a James Yip listed as a former PNG player here, but couldn't find anything which shows this player is notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 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 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Pukuntap

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

fails WP:RLN and doesn't seem to meet the GNG Mattlore (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PNG internationalFleets (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a player with this name on RLP or PNG's past player list here, so appears he fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 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 WP:NPASR. ansh 666 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nike HyperAdapt 1.0

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

Does this really need a separate article? The details can easily fit in the Self-tying shoes section. If it is to stay separate, then it should be added to the Nike navbox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing adequately demonstrates notability. Possible merge suggested by the nom can be considered by editors working in this topic area. Why not start a discussion on a talk page before going for the jugular here? ~Kvng (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely disagree with Kvng that the sourcing demonstrates notability. There are two references, one an article in Wired that relies completely on interviews with the designers and is not intellectually independent therefore fails the criteria for establishing notability. The second reference from sneakscore fails WP:RS since there is no information on who is behind this website or who wrote the review. The entire article is promotional with no indications of why this show is notable. Fails WP:SPIP and fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was satisfied with the two sources cited. If that doesn't do it for you, feel free to do your own search. I just did and found three other bylined sources in the first couple pages of news results: [24], [25], [26] ~Kvng (talk) 00:39, 23 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 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Software broadcasting

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

Not a notable term. The only reference is both promotional, and doesn't use the term. Google search results are for Live streaming software. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Software as a service; and make a copy to Wiktionary. WP:NOTNOTABLE for Wikipedia. --Ne0 (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange three-stages instructions for the closer actually –Ammarpad (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose any merge/redirect, as this is original research and there are no references to support this definition. There is no such thing as "software broadcasting" in Software as a service. The article claims Software broadcasting is a way of delivering business software so that it can be accessed from anywhere, and on a subscription basis. This claim doesn't have any sources to support and verify it. The only case in which I have seen the words software and broadcasting used side by side (but not as a compound term) is in the content of discussing broadcasting (streaming) through software instead of tradition hardware based broadcasting.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge/redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is not notable term. No reliable sources coverage of the concept. I am against merging because we shouldn't merge what is not reported by independent sources and thus fails our basic inclusion criterion which requires such. Its only source is the promotional corp where it comes from. The present lone source in the article doesn't even justify the content. Ammarpad (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree entirely with Ammarpad.--greenrd (talk) 07:27, 23 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 WP:NPASR. ansh 666 07:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sonic Dawn (band)

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

No reliable sources for the band HINDWIKI • CHAT 00:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article now has several references to reliable, independent sources, including print media, national radio (DR) and online magazines. The band has charted nationally in Denmark. The band is certainly one of the most prominent exponents of psychedelic rock from Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonWalsh420 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a release on the independent record label Heavy Psych Sounds is notable in psychedelic rock. Their roster includes Nick Oliveri, Wo Fat, Nebula and other famous underground artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GonzoWiki (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC) — GonzoWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vesta Johnson

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Coverage in reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Lace

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

None of this has been published or anthologized by a major press, and I do not see any significant critical attention. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't find mentions in large papers, indicating that WP:NBIO or WP:NAUTHOR is likely failing. —Paleo Neonate – 08:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability made on the new page on a contemporary writer, aside from a list of publicaiotn. No secondary sources appear in a news search, and the first page of a general search shows no secondary sourcing. Worse, the small press that published the books doesn't bring up secondary sources when searched. I didn't dig deep because it's rarely productive when early searches produce nothing. She has published a little fiction in small literary mags. That's not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an unsourced CV. Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Virginia Cancer Center

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

Lack of notability, and Promotionalism, trying to make it appear more important than it is. This is not even one of the Comprehensive Cancer Care Centers, the highest level in the US. The references consist on unspectacular placings of various lists--there is also a good deal of PRto be found in Google. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Most of the NCI-designated Cancer Centers have articles. Regardless of whether it's a Comprehensive Cancer Center, it's still one of the NCI-designated Cancer Centers, which represent approximately the top 4% of cancer centers in the country. The references show that it passes WP:ORG, and 11 of the 18 references are not affiliated with UVA. Natureium (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that list, almost all of the ones that have articles are Comprehensive cancer centers, the highest level. Of the 13 at the same level, only 3 actually have articles of their own : Markey (University of Kentucky), UT San Antonio, Massey (Virginia Commonwealth University) . I intend to nominate the other two also. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it would be nice to have employment and budget figures, I don't see that the article is unduly promotional. The talk page has no report of attempts to resolve concerns. The nominator added a "Merge" tag to the article in November, which proves that WP:ATD were known at the time of the nomination, and that as per WP:Deletion policy, the talk page is the place to resolve concerns. Unscintillating (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 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 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes running via B Class roads in Sri Lanka

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

Fails WP:NOTTRIVIA and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Prod removed by unreg user without citing any reason Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft lacking significant secondary sources discussing this set of routes to establish notability. It fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOR at the least. What a bizarre choice of routes!Charles (talk) 22:28, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British-American University School of Law

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

Non-notable, edits by suspicious IP (promo) and no references. References on Google are marginally minor at best, if at all. Cahk (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched about this and only saw a few mentions on forums and social networks. Could find one link[27] but that is not so enough, and results are mostly[28] those who have copied from Wikipedia. No reliable references for establishing notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs in the article, the article was created 3 years ago and only ever had one reference which didn't support notability. Schools of this kind are rarely notable. Szzuk (talk) 20:41, 22 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 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka bus routes

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

Every single bus route for one country. Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOR as there is a distinct lack of sources. A list that is almost indiscriminate as well Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft lacking significant secondary sources discussing this set of routes to establish notability. It fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOR at the least.Charles (talk) 22:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Raza Khan (Pakistan)

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

No notability. It was created by an account with only 3 edits and that too in this article. sami ^talk 08:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet basic GNG. --Saqib (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication the subject meets WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed. Purely promotional. Someone has mistaken Wikipedia for LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 17:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Prof not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It is similar to an article that I created a while ago. The end result was, that according to WP:Academic criteria no.6, only principals/presidents or professors who have significant notability can be mentioned. Ma'az (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete that such a weak article on someone who is not even near notability or passing the guidelines for academics has survived 4 years is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Actually, criteria 6 only applies to people who are presidents of universities/tertiary colleges, and maybe heads of truly major subdivisions of them, such as top ranked law and medical schools. It also only would apply to such institutions that have a certain level of academic respectability and cultural impact. It almost never if not totally never applies to secondary level educational institutions, for this criteria to apply the place has to be clearly and without debate not a diploma mill, and deep issues of actual campus governance and organization should also be studied. While I can see for example in the US some community college presidents passing this criteria, I think if someone wants to make an argument to delete an article on the president of a community college, arguing that it is not a "major academic institution", they should be allowed to present arguments for this position, and we should not assume that term default includes all tertiary institutions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 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 keep. ansh 666 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uxía Martínez Botana

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

This article lacks a neutral point of view, it's full of mistakes and/or lies based on self-published sources. The most blatant one is the affirmation that she's one of the World's Top 10 bass players, totally made up by her or her manager. This is the original source: http://www.notreble.com/buzz/2011/12/26/top-ten-bass-not-bass-discussion-new-signature-basses-and-gear-plus-the-top-videos-columns-of-the-week/ and it only says that her video was the 7th most popular article on that blog on that week. Any other interpretation is invalid and all the other references prove nothing, as they have not been verified. Also, I find the article generally poorly written, exaggerating her achievements and her picture is copyrighted. Stevialover (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a) The nomination doesn't mention a single point from WP:DEL-REASON. AfD is not a mechanism to improve articles (WP:AFD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP). b) In case WP:N should be raised: the field of classical double-bass players is narrow and not widely covered by the general press or even musical magazines. Wikipedia has currently 5 female double-bassists (an underpopulated category), and <90 classical double-bassists altogether, so improving the encyclopedia's coverage of this field appears to be called for. The subject of this AfD has received sufficient coverage in independent and reputable sources, and she is the principal double-bassist in notable ensembles and orchestras. She satisfies nos. 1, 4, 6, 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the article creator has tried too hard: the "among the 10 world's best" claim is just what the nominator says it is even though it has spread all over the internet. However, the article without this and other inadequately cited content would still satisfy notability requirements per previous !vote: Noyster (talk), 11:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's multiple sources stating that she's one of the top 10 bassists in the world. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator showss clearly he want the article to be improved but AfD is not place for cleanup. You can use {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} tags to achieve what you generally highlighted in your statement. This should be speedy closed, as notability is clear. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator here. Fair enough, I mistook AfD for cleanup, I apologise. Still, it's pathetic how you all fell for the World's Top 10 statement when I clearly showed you the original source and you posted 3 other sources that fell for it as well. Quoting Goebbels, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth". Stevialover (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevialover: No. Nobody is playing down your observation here. The reason the discussion takes different route is that AfD is generally for unsalvageable, non notable and articles that totally failed verifiacation. When next you encounter statement like above which is not in concord with the source, consider being bold and remove it. In milder cases put {{not in citation}} tag next to the statement so as to alert other editors, but don't just open AfDfor such cases –Ammarpad (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for this discussion. I've just rephrased the line about the No Treble article and added some info about the new Deutsche Grammophon CD recorded by the Brussels Philharmonic. Please, check it out. As for the message that this article "considered for deletion", could you remove it, giving to the fact the problem is solved. Pavel-Kataev (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, don't worry, it will soon be closed since you withdrew. But it may not be appropriate for me now since I participated. But it will be closed. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it'd be great! Also, I'd like to note that comments by @Stevialover: were rather offensive. I think, the Wikipedia is not a place for destructive criticism. Hope, we all want to give verified information and improve it if necessary.Pavel-Kataev (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavel-Kataev: We are different people from all over the world, our approach to issues and tone of expression must differ. You should assume good faith about others. If you've more to say write on my talkpage or his talkpage, not here, please. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 23 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 W. Christopher Winter. ansh 666 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleep Solution

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. NikolaiHo^☎️ 05:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively with W. Christopher Winter. The book came out in April 2017, and I've found only rather brief reviews by the Evening Standard and run-of-the-mill Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus Reviews and a handful of articles on sleep and/or Winter that quote him or namedrop his book. A reminder to Nikolaiho that WP:GNG and refer to existence of sources anywhere, not the existence of sources in any Wikipedia article, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ARTN. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the author's article, not yet notable for standalone article. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjo mayoral election, 2006

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

I see no indication that this single mayoral election in a mid-size city is specifically notable in any way that would mean it needs its own individual article. There's no parent article like Mayoral elections in Sanjo to merge & redirect or I'd do that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, couldn't find much more than routine local coverage, also the rest of these should also be considered. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too small to have own article that is referred by only routine coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:14, 23 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 speedily deleted by Bbb23 per CSD G5 (Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanishk Sajnani

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; individual remains only "Wikipedia-notable" with respect to one event. Previously deleted per discussion; I don't have access to the prior version to assess the level of change. (Also, note that the changes to the prior AFD discussion arise from an issue with the new-page curation toolbar; I am reporting at the village pump.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles should not be based on recounting the contents of a blog.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Made some changes after nomination in AFD - Added another Reference/Citation, Image with caption & updated website.Nexa9911 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since last AFD of the same subject, 3 additional- unique refrences have been added (Sourced at different time/dates & for different events),thus proving notability.Nexa9911 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be written as a promo and many of the references seem to be sourced from the individual itself. Fails WP:PROMO . An example of what is stated earlier

Air India, SpiceJet, Cleartrip, Mobikwik & Faasos were the only companies I ever corresponded with. Never informed the rest of them about any Loopholes. For the same reason, I never mentioned any technical details in this article. Compromised list may still include some E-commerce websites, Home services, Travel agencies, Educational Institutions, Government applications, etc" Hagennos (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article "SEEMS" to be written as a promo and many of the references "SEEM" to be sourced from the individual itself.

An article shouldn't be deleted just because it "SEEMS" to be something. A simple Google search will show-up numerous media outlets covering him(exclusively or otherwise). The subject's profession is that of a Security researcher, who publishes his findings through a blog. So, obviously his media coverage would also involve parts of his written research. Thus, references can't be said to be sourced from the Individual himself. Also, If the article seems to be promotional, Wikipedia suggests someone re-editing the article rather than completely removing it.

The user Hagennos(talk) has quoted the subject from his last blog(for reasons not known). Here is his statement from the latest Inteview " Right now, I’m doing some security research & upgrading my skills in the InfoSec domain. My upcoming blogs will hopefully make some positive impact on the Industry. Also, some market research for a potential product may be in the timeline." Nexa9911 (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Still Delete Can you point to two intellectually independent references from the press (ones that don't rely on quotations from the individual, or has independent analysis or opinion)? Because when I looked, I couldn't find one. Hagennos (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Still Keep Dear Hagennos (talk) First of all, most of the refrences from the press rely on information from the Individual himself/herself( Oral in form of satements, Visual in form of photographs or Written in form of blogs).Secondly, even if there are no refrences having independent analysis or opinion, Wikipedia official policies doesn't see it as an issue. Nexa9911 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than WP:PROMO. MT Train^Discuss 16:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first there was an issue with the notability. Now, the article is being said to be promo. Is wikipedia full of deletionsists or what? Nexa9911 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still not notable. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:13, 24 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) 21:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Ricciardi

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

I've been trying to find better sourcing for this article since I came across it (I don't remember exactly why, but somehow I ended up at it). I did some minor cleanup, etc. and have asked for the opinions of others at User:Oshwah/TalkPageArchives/2017-12#Blake Ricciardi, WT:BIOG#Blake Ricciardi, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business#Blake Ricciardi, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California#Blake Ricciardi and WT:FASH#Blake Ricciardi. There's been no response from anyone at the relevant WikiProjects and the only other suggestions I received was the subject of the article in not likely Wikipedia notable. I can find anything which shows how this person meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG; I'm finding the this person does exist, but most of the mentions are from primary sources or trivia in nature. If there7s some Wikiproject notability guideline that this person meets, then fine and the article then might be worth keeping; otherwise, I think it should be deleted. I've also looked for a possible way to redirect or merge the article, but I cannot find any good candidates for such a thing -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any independent coverage either. The reference in the article are all WP:INTERVIEWS which are generally regarded as primary sources. Therefore no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. He doesn't have any reliably verified achievement to meet WP:ANYBIO also. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delte a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 25 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) 21:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liquivore

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

Despite the claim on the talk page that this is a legitimate term used in science, I can't find the slightest indication that that is the case. I have searched: Google, GScholar, PubMed, the Animal Biosciences section of Annual Reviews, Science Magazine & its related publications, ScienceDirect, and World Scientific and haven't come up with so much as a single hit even using this term, let alone describing it in an in-depth fashion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - especially now that the author has kindly provided a built-in disclaimer cutting off all claims of notability at the knees... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scientific name for the topic at hand is extra-oral digestion, "also known as external digestion, extra-corporal digestion, extra-intestinal digestion, or pre-oral digestion".^[1] An article should be written on this; it could start as a section of digestion, which is currently so biased towards vertebrates that extra-oral digestion is barely alluded to. However, the article under discussion has no reliable citations, and the text isn't substantive enough to be worth moving or merging. FourViolas (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cohen, Allen Carson (Apr 1, 1998). "Solid-to-Liquid Feeding: The Inside(s) Story of Extra-Oral Digestion in Predaceous Arthropoda - American Entomologist". American Entomologist. 44 (2): 103–117. doi:10.1093/ae/44.2.103. ISSN 1046-2821. Retrieved Dec 18, 2017.

Delete Initially, I was mixed, thinking "well, it's a stub, but seems reasonable that it would be added on to" then I saw this stinker was made in 2006 and I too could find roughly zero references that this was even a thing. I would of said "merge" but I don't really think there's anything worth merging here, which sucks. :D Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of well-written articles about notable fictional words, but it's important to draw the line between fact and fiction. We can't take a fictional concept and apply it to the real world as a legitimate scientific term. Fictional liquivores seem to be too obscure to be considered notable. –dlthewave ☎ 05:25, 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 redirect to PDC World Darts Championship. ansh 666 07:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 PDC World Darts Championship

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources and no evidence of any of the information added to this former redirect. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than being deleted, I think it should be just changed back into a redirect. Whoever has changed this has put in the competitors based on who would qualify now however who qualifies depends on the rankings next December and not now.(Rickyc123) (talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. A big tournament - but lets get 2018 out of the way first. No need to delete the info some of it may be useful. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree that the redirect should be restored, per the reasons above. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. It is reasonable and traditional to keep an article for the next occurrence of a major event, but multiple occurrences are not normally useful.Jacona (talk) 23:15, 25 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 07:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Distribution Company

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

Stub that fails WP:NCOMPANY, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, see also WP:CORPSPAM. Previously prodded by User:Atlantic306, did not improve much since. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possible merge to Summit Entertainment or Lionsgate as there is not enough content/notability for a stand alone article Atlantic306 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- film distribution companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark by a mile. There's nothing to merge as the article lists no sources. Not sufficiently notable for a redirect, in any case. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Resources

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Renata3 with the following rationale "Fortune 1000 company traded on NYSE". Long ago I used to think that being listed at a stock exchange suffices, but this was not accepted as part of WP:NCORP, so we need better keep arguments - and I am not seeing any serious coverage outside the usual smattering of business directory entries and press releases. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Fortune 500 2015: Rank 649. New Jersey Resources". Fortune. 2015. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes that New Jersey Resources was ranked 672 on the Fortune 1000 and had $3,738,000,000 in revenue and $142,000,000 in profit.
2. Sherman, Ted (1994-01-07). "More Customers, Newer Markets Help Boost NJR's Annual Earnings". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  New Jersey Resources Corp., parent of New Jersey Natural Gas Co., supplies some 330,000 customers throughout Monmouth, Ocean, Morris and Middlesex counties. But in recent years, the company has looked well beyond those horizons to increase sales.
  Since 1991, the Wall Township-based utility holding company has sold more than 33 billion cubic feet of gas to customers in six states outside of New Jersey.
  ...
  "Life here truly is, and should be, an efficient load factor," remarked Oliver G. Richard 3d, chairman and chief executive officer of New Jersey Resources.
  ...
  As a holding company, New Jersey Natural has long looked beyond its regular utility business for growth. Trying to diversify in years past, New Jersey Resources already has a number of unregulated ventures, including Paradigm Power Inc., which invests in natural gas-fueled cogeneration and independent power projects; Commercial Realty & Resources Corp., which develops commercial real estate; and NJR Energy Corp., which engages in energy-related investments.
  While results from the diversified businesses have been mixed, the company has had more success selling gas in unregulated markets. In 1991, virtually all of the company's sales were to core residential and commercial customers. By 1992, the company sold 11.8 billion cubic feet in off-system sales outside the state. Last year, those sales jumped to 21 billion cubic feet.
3. Johnson, Tom (2005-08-23). "Gas unit powers utility company's growth - Stock of the Day. New Jersey Resources". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  It has been a good run for utility stocks the past three years. The sector is up 23 percent during that time frame and one of the steadiest performing players has been New Jersey Resources.
  The Wall Township-based owner of New Jersey Natural Gas, which provides gas to 450,000 customers in central Jersey, is heading for its 14th consecutive year of earnings growth, one of the longest streaks in the sector.
  ...
  In a research report, Morningstar.com analyst John Kearney said New Jersey Resources "exemplifies the stability and consistency that risk-averse, income-oriented investors look for." The company also benefits from a good relationship with regulators - an affinity it enjoys largely as a result of not having sought a rate increase for its delivery costs in 10 years.
4. Mydans, Seth (1984-02-18). "NUI to Continue Merger Bid". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  In an unusual takeover battle between two New Jersey utility companies, the NUI Corporation says it will continue its attempt to merge with the larger New Jersey Resources Corporation despite a lopsided defeat in a proxy battle.
  The defeat is expected to be confirmed at a shareholders' meeting Tuesday of New Jersey Resources, which delivers natural gas to 220,000 customers in Monmouth and Ocean Counties and parts of Morris and Middlesex Counties.
  ...
  At the Feb. 2 annual meeting of New Jersey Resources, NUI sought to place on the company's board its own slate of candidates, who would support the merger. Both utilities resorted to an unusual amount of publicity for companies their size, including radio spots and full-page ads in the financial sections of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
5. Mattioli, Dana; Cimilluca, Dana (2017-04-04). "Utilities New Jersey Resources, South Jersey Industries Hold Merger Talks". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  New Jersey Resources Corp. is considering a combination with South Jersey Industries Inc., a deal that would bring together two natural-gas utilities in the state, according to people familiar with the matter.
  Details of the talks couldn’t be learned and it is possible that there won’t be a deal. As of Tuesday morning, New Jersey Resources had a market value of $3.4 billion. South Jersey Industries was valued at $2.8 billion.
  New Jersey Resources, based in Wall, N.J., provides natural gas and other services to homes and businesses from the Gulf Coast to Canada, according to its website. It is the parent company of New Jersey Natural Gas, which serves more than 486,000 customers in Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Morris and Burlington counties. New Jersey Resources also operates a 6,700 mile natural-gas transportation and distribution network serving almost 500,000 customers, according to the website.
6. Napoliello, Alex (2016-04-08). "Amid increases in executive pay, N.J. utility company proposes steep rate hike". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  New Jersey Natural Gas -- which serves approximately 512,000 customers in Monmouth and Ocean counties, portions of Burlington, Middlesex, and Morris counties, and one borough in Sussex County --requested in November 2015 a 24-percent rate increase, or a $21.69 uptick in an average customer's monthly bill
  ...
  Kinney said executive compensation and returns on investments derive from the entirety of New Jersey Resources, the parent company of NJNG, which has several subsidiaries that reach customers outside the Garden State.
  ...
  From 2008 through 2015, the company has seen its customer base grow by 1.5 percent annually, and has already invested approximately $806 million in its natural-gas transmission and distribution system.
7. Johnson, Tom (2005-03-31). "Through ups and downs, energy chief holds steady - NJR executive's winning streak sets a sector standard". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  None of that has deterred Laurence Downes, an unflappable and soft-spoken executive who for the past 10 years has led New Jersey Resources, a natural gas company with $2.5 billion in revenue last year.
  ...
  Downes is fond of telling audiences the company - the owner of the state's second-largest gas utility, New Jersey Natural Gas - is one of the fastest-growing local gas distribution businesses in the country. Shareholders who invested $1,000 in NJR in 1952 have seen their investment grow to more than $800,000 today, he is quick to point out.
  New Jersey Natural Gas, which has 455,000 customers in Monmouth and Ocean counties, accounts for about 80 percent of the parent company's earnings. And yet the utility has not raised the rates it charges to deliver gas to residents and businesses for more than a decade.
  ...
  Downes came to New Jersey Resources in 1985 after working on utility bonds at a bank, a job he came to enjoy.
8. Sherman, Ted (1993-05-14). "Regulators Attack New Jersey Natural for Its Continuing Cost Increases". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  The management of New Jersey Natural Gas Co. has come under sharp criticism by state regulators over the company's steadily rising gas costs in the wake of a new request for higher rates.
  The Board of Regulatory Commissioners (BRC) this week called for changes in the utility's management structure. The board said the company's gas costs have gone from the lowest in the state in 1985 to the highest of the four natural gas utilities serving New Jersey, and wants the company to explain why rates are climbing. The Wall Township-based company serves 325,000 customers in Monmouth, Ocean, Morris and Middlesex counties.
  ...
  New Jersey Natural is organized under a parent holding company, New Jersey Resources Corp., which was formed to allow the company to diversify into a number of unregulated, non-utility businesses. But while New Jersey Resources has several subsidiaries involved in energy, cogeneration and real estate ventures, the overwhelming bulk of revenue and income comes from the utility.
9. Napoliello, Alex (2016-04-13). "Shore mayors, local officials slam NJNG's steep rate hike". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  
  ...local mayors and officials who gathered Wednesday morning to speak out against the 24-percent rate hike proposed by New Jersey Natural Gas. As reported by NJ Advance Media, the utility company that serves half a million people mainly in Ocean and Monmouth counties proposed the steep increase as its top executives have seen their overall compensation skyrocket in recent years.
  New Jersey Natural Gas says the rate increase is its first since 2007, and is necessary to mend its ailing infrastructure. It also contends its uptick in executive compensation has no impact on the rate increase.
  ...
  A NJNG spokesman, Michael Kinney, said executive compensation and return on investments derive from the entirety of New Jersey Resources, the parent company of NJNG, which has several subsidiaries that provide other services.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow New Jersey Resources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Resources was ranked 649 on the Fortune 1000 in 2015. A 2005 article notes that New Jersey Resources' New Jersey Natural Gas division was New Jersey's second-largest gas utility. In a 2005 analyst report, Morningstar's analyst John Kearney said New Jersey Resources "exemplifies the stability and consistency that risk-averse, income-oriented investors look for". Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, analyst reports are acceptable sources.
In 2016, it served half a million people. A 2016 article noted the company was harshly criticized for a proposed 24% rate hike. The company has received sustained coverage between 1984 and 2016. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Cunard (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a utility with 500,000 customers is of sufficient public interest; so a stub article is okay at this point. Sources presented above are suggestive of notability, plus WP:LISTED helps. It's a "keep" for me, on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Cunard for the thorough research on sources indisputably about the company, exceeding the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 23 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 Diving plane#Cars. ansh 666 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper canards

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

Glorified dicdef. Untouched since 2006. Probably easier to nuke and start again, with content merged into a larger-scoped article. Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know next to nothing about performance cars, but to my layperson's eye this topic appears to be covered in either Spoiler (car)#Other common spoiler types or Diving plane#Cars. Either way, the nominated page reads like an essay, so fails WP:OR. Hopefully a motorhead can suggest whether delete or merge is more appropriate. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diving plane#Cars, which the article actually says they are. Some content may be mergeable, but would need sourcing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not cleanup. Agree with all the tags; the article needs much improvement. But a quick search finds these sources: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]], [35]. Article needs to be sourced and rewritten. MB 20:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diving plane#Cars. Without sources, there's nothing to merge. No indication that the term "bumper canard" is notable, as opposed to being one of several names for a notable thing that is already covered elsewhere. -- Visviva (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—as stated above. Partially because it has no sources as it stands. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Diving planes#Cars. Content must be either verifiable or deleted per a core content policy. As per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "core content policies...are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 26 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 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PyTorch

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

Contested Prod - no indication of notability - primarily an advertisement for a new product PRehse (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a couple of references (InfoWorld, O'Reilly) to the article. PyTorch is also discussed on page 2 of this interview. Although these are fairly strong, however, it is debatable whether it is WP:TOOSOON to sustain an article. AllyD (talk) 16:48, 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 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to keep. It's adequately covered in the tech press, with a smattering of more scholarly publications (the bulk of which, however, appear to be on sites like the arXiv and have not yet meandered all the way through peer review). So, it may be a bit soon, but given the people backing it, it seems likely to be around for a while. XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep in light of the new references. —cnzx 21:13, 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. ansh 666 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flex expert system

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

Tagged for notability since 2014, never fixed. Cited sources do not meet the trifecta of reliable, independent, secondary. Mostly self-published. The creator of the article believes it is NPOV, but since he's involved with the product I don't feel inclined to accept his view on that. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very non notable, no secondary coverage given nor can I find any in searching. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:18, 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Flewitt

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

Notability. Coverage is that to be expected of a bloke doing this sort of job. TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 22 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:SOFTDEL as the equivalent of an uncontested PROD; WP:REFUND applies. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Chiang

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

Business exec with not enough sources for GNG. Sources in article are passing mentions, job appointments, and 1 interview. BEFORE doesn't yield much more. Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyahueyni ben HaKof

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

The article, as written here, is self-contradictory. It says he was from the 3rd tannaitic generation (significantly after the destruction of thre second temple) and that he was appointed High Priest 27-25 years before the destruction of the second temple. Looks like a bad translation of the Hebrew article at the time it was written; the edit summary of the very next edit there is that the article needs to be checked by an expert. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent notability. - Galatz ^Talk 12:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Sourcing in Hebrew/Aramiac is probably key here - "אליהועיני בן הקוף" (the transliterations in this article to English is probably a bit suspect based on GHITS) He does have a Mishna mention, and is treated by some later texts - including the Rambam.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - appears in Mishna and some later texts, AfD is not cleanup - at worst we can stub this down to a two liner.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. The corresponding Hebrew language article has the content and sourcing that demonstrates notability. The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Alansohn (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the magnitude of change in the Hebrew article, I think we would be better off starting it completely than starting from what we have. And the name is quite likely wrong, also - the K should be lowercase, since this person probably isn't called "son of a monkey". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might be hakots, [36] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The name is reliably בן הקוף - literally son of a monkey - this is how it appears in the Mishna and later. The meaning 2000 years ago might not have been the same as today, or it might be a fairly ancient mistake. While קוף is a tanakhic word (Appears in Books of Chronicles - אַחַת לְשָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים תָּבוֹאנָה אֳנִיּוֹת תַּרְשִׁישׁ, נֹשְׂאוֹת זָהָב וָכֶסֶף, שֶׁנְהַבִּים וְקוֹפִים, וְתוּכִּיִּים) - I don't think Monkies were common in Judea or the greater Roman world, not would the cultural connotation be the same. It could have come from קייפה. In any event - the name itself passed WP:V - we could go into discussion on what it means in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable on the basis of the sources in the Hebrew and Yiddish articles. I'm curious which of the monkeys he was a son of. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:28, 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 16:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 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 redirect to Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia. If we are going to merge we really need to have some sourced content to merge otherwise its a simply OR. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian commerce clause

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

Does this not just state a clause, rather than explaining any of its historical significance or anything like that? I don't even think a clause is notable unless in extreme circumstances. Its content is covered by Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia . As a sidenote it's been unsourced since 2006. Coin945 (talk) 10:43, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move and Disambiguate~~Merge and Disambiguate - This page does not seem to be discussing a single concept, but two different primary clauses, with notes on different applicable law. But no single clause exists. So the existing page title should disambiguate to Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia and Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, the only true commerce clauses. But the subject of something like Commerce powers of the Australian Constitution (rather than a single clause) which collects and unifies commerce powers as it applies to Australian law could be notable, as for instance this Columbia Law Review Article and This Boston College law review article cover. ~~While the existing page needs cleanup, it could be moved to that title and include treatment of the several sections referenced (51, 92, 98, 99, 102, 104).~~ MarginalCost (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, given the current state of the article, it's probably better to merge any salvageable content into Constitution_of_Australia#Chapter_IV:_Finance_and_Trade, but I maintain that a full Commerce powers article could be notable if it was further developed. MarginalCost (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There was a previous proposal to merge that doesn't seem to have been discussed, but it also hasn't received any objections since March 2016 so I think this could have been a WP:BOLD merge rather than an AfD. I agree with User:MarginalCost except I wouldn't want to see another WP:FORK; commerce powers as defined in the Constitution can be described in the general Constitution of Australia article or in the Section articles. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer but I have pretended to be one on TV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia, which already discusses the interactions with other parts of the Australian constitution. I can't find any references that suggest this is a commonly-used term (or that the phrase "commerce clause" is commonly used in Australia), and the article has been un-referenced since 2006. It is a plausible-enough term to keep a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:24, 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. Despite numerous arguments that sources exist and references to google searches the Keep side have not actually brought specific sources for discussion. The nature of the sourcing has been discussed in detail and its significant that the final 4 votes who all had the benefit of reading the whole discussion and clearly show their own search for sources come down to a firm delete. That's not to say that a sourced article couldn't get written if the sourcing is clarified. On that basis while its a delete, I see no reason to see permission to have another go at this from scratch if someone wants to take this on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MikroTik

AfDs for this article:

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

Page is pure fancruft - almost all unsourced and what sources are used are SPS and including the fancruft-signatures of a ridiculous list of ELs and picture gallery. Barely passed AFD in 2008 and has not developed since. Would need to be completely rewritten to make an encyclopedic article out of this. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's one of the best known companies in Latvia and it makes millions. Normally articles on clearly notable subjects are improved, not deleted, and at a glance it doesn't really look as bad as to be described as "funcruft" ~~Xil (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a rather well known router company whose products are periodically discussed in IT publications. If you think the page needs improved, then improve it, but there's rather a substantial amount of reliable sources out there to draw from. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up at Afd and making hand-waving claims about "lots of sources" is not a useful argument. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would provide more sources for you, but Offnfopt seems to have already done that below. And also pointed out that your "almost all unsourced" claim was misleading and inaccurate. You can question the quality of the sources, but a less drastic solution is to insert better sources. I also don't understand your complaint below about needing articles based on the company, not its products. It's normal to discuss a company's products on a company's page. Check out the #Products section of Apple Inc for an example. And it's especially relevant when the company name is commonly used to refer to the company's products; I hear/read discussions of "MikroTik routers" periodically. The fact that the company's products get substantial notable coverage makes clear that there's enough notable coverage to have a page dedicated to the company and its products. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For pete's sake- look at the actual article.

Here, I is will paste it here for you.

;NO SOURCES IN THE SECTION BELOW
RouterOS

The main product of MikroTik is an operating system based on the Linux kernel, known as the MikroTik RouterOS. Installed on the company's proprietary hardware (RouterBOARD series), or on standard x86-based computers, it turns a computer into a network router and implements various additional features, such as firewalling, virtual private network (VPN) service and client,^[1] bandwidth shaping and quality of service, wireless access point functions and other commonly used features when interconnecting networks. The system is also able to serve as a captive-portal-based hotspot system.
The operating system is licensed in increasing service levels, each releasing more of the available RouterOS features. A MS Windows application called Winbox provides a graphical user interface for the RouterOS configuration and monitoring, but RouterOS also allows access via FTP, telnet, and secure shell (SSH). An application programming interface is available for direct access from applications for management and monitoring.

NO SOURCES IN THE SECTION BELOW

Features

RouterOS supports many applications used by Internet service providers, for example OSPF, BGP, Multiprotocol Label Switching (VPLS/MPLS), OpenFlow. The product is supported by Mikrotik through a forum and a wiki, providing assorted and thematic examples of configurations. RouterOS supports Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) as well as Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6).
The software provides support for virtually all network interfaces that the Linux kernel 3.3.5 supports, except wireless, where the Atheros chipsets are the only supported hardware, as of RouterOS version 6.33.

ONE SOURCE IN THE SECTION BELOW

Release history

RouterOS version 6: May 2013^[2]
RouterOS version 6.38 (December 30, 2016; 7 years ago (2016-12-30))

RouterOS version 5: March 2010

RouterOS version 4: October 2009

RouterOS version 3: January 2008

ONLY SPAM REFS TO MICROTEK AND ONLY IN THE LAST SENTENCE IN THE SECTION BELOW

RouterBOARD

The company manufactures a series of integrated circuit boards, marketed under the name RouterBOARD, as well as accessory components which implement a complete hardware operating platform for RouterOS.
The RouterBOARD line, combined with RouterOS, is marketed at small- to medium-sized wireless Internet service providers, typically providing broadband wireless access in remote areas. Products include pre-assembled small office/home office (SOHO) routers, wireless 802.11a/b/g/n/ac MIMO and TDMA devices for indoor and outdoor use, and also bare routers in form of printed circuit boards (PCBs) for integration into custom solutions. Also, the RouterBOARD line includes a series of Mini PCI and Mini PCI Express wireless adapters, supporting a range of IEEE 802.11 protocols, and designed to be used together with the router boards lineup.
Some RouterBOARD boards and their versions are supported by third-party Linux-based firmware, notably OpenWrt.[6][7][8][9][10]

ALMOST NOTHING BELOW IS ACTUALLY IN THE REF GIVEN AND THE LAST SENTENCE IS UNSOURCED

Cloud Core Router

In November 2012, MikroTik released the Cloud Core Router integrated unit which is based on the Tilera CPU supporting nine to 72 CPU cores, 8 SFP+ (MiniGBIC) interfaces, as well as "fast-path" packet forwarding between interfaces (with independently tested 119 million packets and 80 Gbit/s forwarding rate^[3]). This unit targets the medium-sized network providers as well as try to be a well priced alternative to the other more well-known brands.

PURE FANCRUFT SOURCED ONLY TO MIKOTIK WEBSITE

MikroTik User Meeting (MUM)

The MUM is a conference and exhibition about networking, more targeted at MikroTik device users. Started as a regular gathering of forum users in January 2006, the events are now taking place every few weeks around the world, gathering hundreds of people at every event. The biggest event As of November 2015^[update] was in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, gathering 2650 people.^[4]

THE KEY LAST SENTENCE UNSOURCED; ENTIRELY PROMOTIONAL, "ARGUING" WITH THE SOURCED CONTENT

Vulnerabilities
On June 15, 2015, Brian Krebs, an online reporter, reported that "recently, researchers at the Fujitsu Security Operations Center in Warrington, UK began tracking [the] Upatre [trojan software] being served from hundreds of compromised home routers – particularly routers powered by MikroTik and Ubiquiti’s AirOS." A vulnerability hasn't been linked with this incident and Bryan Campbell, the lead threat intelligence analyst at Fujitsu says while a vulnerability could exist, this could also be the result of unsecured devices that still have default credentials enabled.^[5]^{[additional citation(s) needed]}

References

^ "Setup secure VPN access between client and server".
^ MikroTik RouterOS: What's new in 6.0 (2013-May-17 14:04) Archived 13 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine
^ "Stubarea Blog". Retrieved 5 December 2017.
^ "MUM webpage". MikroTik. 2015. Archived from the original on 1 November 2015. Retrieved 5 December 2017.
^ "Crooks Use Hacked Routers to Aid Cyberheists".

Now... what was that about "the content is sourced" again? People talking here are not dealing with the actual article nor Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. "Unsourced" means that there is no reference - no citation provided, that the content is actually summarizing. The content here is just fancruft added by fans based on what they know about the company and its products. That is all it is. -- Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. (1) People here are talking about this page in the context of an AfD. The criteria for an AfD is not whether the article currently has adequate sources, but whether the subject is notable and reliable sources exist. If you have problems with the content, or feel that it's too promotional, then edit it and improve the sources. (2) Please stop being so patronizing and insulting toward other editors. I know Wikipedia's guidelines, and the criteria for deletion, and the fact that a page is currently badly written or poorly sourced is not sufficient reason to delete it. That's especially true when (as noted below) another editor committed in the recent edit history to improving the page. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing. Nobody has actually demonstrated that there are sufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion of this company. That is the only thing that matters. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edit history shows a different picture than indicated by the nomination, and shows that the nomination is a reaction to an edit comment made earlier on the same day stating, "revert again, same reasoning, company's main product is routerboard and routerOS and previous edits completely blank out all mention of that. Editor doesn't see[m] familiar with Mikrotik, I've been using them 13 years, I'll work on adding refs". Recent previous edit history shows a content dispute, but when it was time for the nominator to use inline cn tags or section-ref-needed tags or take the dispute to the talk page, a continuation of reverts rationalized by allegations of edit warring ensued.
The nomination claims that the 2008 AfD "barely passed", but the raw !vote count was 5 to 2.
The nomination claims that the article "has not developed since" the 2008 AfD. But a casual glance shows close to 400 edits. Year-by-year counts I came up with:

2017 42 edits

2016 26 edits

2015 81 edits

2014 32 edits

2013 28 edits

2012 53 edits

2011 35 edits

2010 21 edits

2009 23 edits

The nomination claims that the article is "almost all unsourced", but there are 22 references and 8 external links. Two are marked permanent dead link, and one is stated to being a master's thesis, and there are some bot edits on the talk page about recovering edits. As well, a bot got tangled up in the recent repeated reverts. But collectively, I don't see that this is evidence of an argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "almost all unsourced" i mean exactly what those words say. Look at the article. Large swaths of unsourced content. Where there are "sources" they are the product website or crappy blogs. The lack of good faith much less competence in that "analysis" is actually shocking.

As to the "sources' they are exactly as follows

Used 2x "Pērn Mikrotīkla peļņa palielinājusies līdz 61,37 milj.EUR". Lursoft. 2016.
used: 2x "MikroTik User Meeting Canada 2015" (PDF). mikrotik.com. 2015.
"MikroTik Routers and Wireless: About MikroTik". mikrotik.com. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
"Setup secure VPN access between client and server".
MikroTik RouterOS: What's new in 6.0 (2013-May-17 14:04) Archived 13 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine
"OpenWrt: Mikrotik Routerboard RB493G". OpenWrt. 2013-06-24. Retrieved 2013-09-27.
"OpenWrt Forum: OpenWRT adapted to fully support RB493G (including SD)". OpenWrt. 2013. Retrieved 2013-09-27.
"OpenWRT on Mikrotik Routerboard 411/750". poettner.de. 2011-05-27. Retrieved 2013-09-27.
"Routerboard 450G and Linux". nexlab.it. 2009-04-12. Retrieved 2013-10-16.
"RB500 Linux SDK". mikrotik.com. 2008. Retrieved 2013-10-16.
OpenWrt: Mikrotik Routerboard RB493G June 2013
RouterBoard: RouterBOARD 493/AH/G User's Manual (PDF), September 2011
RouterBoard: RouterBOARD R52n-M: 802.11a/b/g/n dual band miniPCI card (PDF)
RouterBoard: RB14e adapter card (PDF), October 2013
"Stubarea Blog". Retrieved 5 December 2017.
"MUM webpage". MikroTik. 2015. Archived from the original on 1 November 2015. Retrieved 5 December 2017.
Flickenger, Rob; et al. (December 2007). Wireless Networking in the Developing World: A practical guide to planning and building low-cost telecommunications infrastructure (PDF) (2nd ed.). p. 321. OCLC 227819886. Retrieved 19 November 2008. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)</ref>
Langobardi, Federico (2007). BoulSat Project: Radio network implementation by low cost technology (PDF). Master's Thesis, Politecnico di Torino. p. 78.^{[permanent dead link‍]}</ref>
Bartalesi, R.; Catusian, S; Langobardi, F. (8 August 2007). "Radio Network Implementation by Low Cost Technology: a Case of Study" (PDF). Pisa: Ingegneria Senza Frontiere, University of Pisa. pp. 3–4. Retrieved 19 November 2008.^{[permanent dead link‍]}
Filho, Paiva (16 October 2008). "Secretário fala da implantação da internet grátis". meionorte.com (in Portuguese). Jornal Meio Norte. Archived from the original on 21 October 2008. Retrieved 19 November 2008. Diga-se de passagem, o que há de mais moderno em equipamentos para este seguimento, onde utilizaremos os rádios da Mikrotik.
Štrauch, Adam (7 November 2008). "Mikrotik: seznámení s Wi-Fi krabičkou". Root.cz (in Czech). Retrieved 19 November 2008. Mikrotiky jsou velmi populární u poskytovatelů bezdrátového připojení a ohlasy od uživatelů jsou většinu kladné.
"Crooks Use Hacked Routers to Aid Cyberheists".

And don't forget the ridiculous laundry list of spammy ELs.

External links

Official website
RouterBOARD home page
Official user forum
MikroTik Wiki
MikroTik User Meeting (MUM)
Official YouTube channel
Want Wireless Broadband Today? Try a WISP
Enable Google Safe Search With Mikrotik RouterOS

This is not a Wikipedia article, but rather something awful in that sordid space between fancruft and spam. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To get this out of the way, I'm the editor that Unscintillating made reference to. I'm the one that said "I'll work on adding refs", though my work schedule has been busy so I haven't had the time (just got home from a 12 hour shift). To reply to the above note by Jytdog. Company websites and press releases and technical documents have long been used for references as long as the information being used is not a opinion piece and the information is used to not give favor to that company i.e. the information used is neutral. As a example, lets say Coca-cola issues a online press release and say they're changing the formula to coke and they release another online document that says the new ingredients. We can use both the press release and the document with the ingredients as a reference. We don't have to wait for the New York Times, though in reality they would just be republishing the original information published by Coca-cola with some added flurish. With a lot of technology articles you'll find primary sources are sometimes the only source when it comes to technical reference. Not many news papers or others will publish a article talking about the technical features of Mikrotik's routerOS or as another example the technical details of a file format. This is because most people don't know how the internet works and know nothing of networking protocols. Same goes for file formats, regular people don't know about how to make a software library or program to parse a file, so you would be hard pressed to find a mainstream reference. So for notability, there are plenty of 3rd party results of Mikrotik. 13,000,000 results on google for Mikrotik. 65,200 additional results for the company name in Latvia (i.e. Mikrotīkls). 1,370,000 results for RouterOS, 1,830,000 results for routerboard. You can also find mention of Mikrotik and RouterOS from Ciscopress which is by the publishing company Pearson. You can also find Mikrotik being talking about in a book published by Syngress (i.e. Elsevier). You can also find information on non-English sites about Mikrotik though you need to use the non-english spelling when searching and depending on which language you may need to change the spelling since Mikrotik is used all over the world. A press release from Tilera talking about Mikrotik. You can also find a lot of articles talking about Mikrotik in Dienas Bizness, a long standing Latvian business newspaper. Financial information can be referenced from the Latvia State Enterprise register. If you search for Mikrotīkls 5G, you'll find plenty of news sites talking about Mikrotik and Latavia's oldest mobile provider LMT working together to bring 5G to Latvia. My point being that your comment above that said Quote: hand-waving claims about "lots of sources" is not a useful argument /End quote, there are sources though even though there are sources to talk about the company itself, as I said above, there is nothing wrong with using information provided by a company if it is used properly. I only list this information because you seem to imply with your various comments that the company isn't notable by making reference to the previous deletion request, which was solely for the reason of notability, then you try to claim made up words like "fancruft" as a reasoning for deletion. I still plan on adding references, when I get more time. I'm actually taking away from my limited sleep time just to type this reply. - Offnfopt^(talk) 20:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above, company is notable, fancruft is a made up word and the page on Wikipedia it is used on is a essay and not "Wikipedia policies or guidelines". That essay talks about a subjects notability. After reading that.. essay.. it can be summed up that some individuals seem to think that because they haven't heard of a subject/company/individual it means a subject is not notable. The world is a big place and there are a lot of people and a lot going on that you may not be aware of. Just because you, yourself are not familiar with a subject does not mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia. - Offnfopt^(talk) 20:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, please read WP:42 - I will copy the nutshell here for you:

Articles generally require significant coverage
in reliable sources
that are independent of the topic.

Press releases are not independent. Technical manuals and the company website are not independent. Blogs are not reliable, generally. What are the refs we need per WP:42? Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline (not an essay) that explains how the community implements the policy, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. (for the interaction between policies and guidelines, see WP:PAG)

Our general approach is that there needs to be at least three independent sources with significant discussion of the subject. What are those three refs? What is happening in this AfD is that instead of anybody !voting "keep" discussing GNG, they are waving their hands and saying "this is important". This is what happens in WP when there is online community of "fans" who do not care sbout Wikipedia's mission or its policies and guidelines, and show up to protect the fanpage they have created in WP. This happens sometimes - it is something WP is vulnerable to, as an open, volunteer project. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog please take the time to read my comment above fully. Your question of "What are those three refs?" shows you did not. As I said above, this it taking away from my limited sleep so this will have to wait till another day. Read my above comment and you'll find your "three refs". The world does not only speak English, even though I listed English sources, I also listed non-English sources and how to find more. - Offnfopt^(talk) 20:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did read - you provided too much to read with bad arguments "lots of google hits" but i read the whole thing anyway. What we need are refs with substantial discussion of the company. Discussion of its products is not relevant (notability is not inherited. So the Mikrotik and RouterOS from Ciscopress piece, which is about its product, is not helpful. I ask you again to actually engage with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and just present three independent, reliable sources with substantial discussion of the company. Not stuff with passing mentions. Not "google hits". Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the "fancruft" essay you referenced, that "NOTINHERITED" page has a key notice at the top of the page "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". I've come to the conclusion there is no point in interacting with a individual like you. I've provided the information I wanted for others to see. - Offnfopt^(talk) 14:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination, although it doesn't identify a deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON, appears to be a WP:DEL7 nomination. Regarding the WP:DEL7 nomination, I have identified and removed a social media website from the external links, added one Template:Unreferenced section, and added one Template:Citation needed. I also clicked on Google scholar and see foreign language references. Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the references provided enough to establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This nomination is not for notability. Since notability is not questioned, it is inappropriate to assess notability. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misrepresentation. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All AFD nominations are assessed for established notability by administrators. In fact, the only thing articles are truly assessed for here is notability. Besides that, there's almost no reason (outside of WP:SPEEDY) to delete an article at all. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:CORP - if there are sources out there matching the four main criteria can be easily tested by doing Google News search, which shows plenty of non-trivial, independent coverage in major national and also foreign media that certainly isn't about anything criminal. The article itself doesn't appear to be promotional or fan made - it uses neutral language and lists vulnerablities of their products. Including product descriptions, when article isn't severly overflooded with them, shouldn't really be a problem and it isn't advertising. It would be great, if there was a bit more content on other issues, but article lacking detail is not a reason to delete it. Nor is one user arguing that WP:ITSCRUFT ~~Xil (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promotional article for a barely notable brand. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a well-known brand of small installation/WISP network equipment and has been for a very long time. Try putting at least a token effort into finding sources instead of proposing the whole thing be scrapped and people's effort thrown away because you don't feel like doing it yourself. As an AfD, the "non-notable" argument is patently invalid if one puts in the minimum effort of typing "mikrotic" into Google News and taking a cursory look at the numerous secondary sources present there. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

typing "mikrotic" into Google News and taking a cursory look at the numerous secondary sources present there is an invalid argument at AfD. The requirement is very simple - a few actual RS with actual substantial discussion of the actual subject. Not handwaves. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above google news show plenty of exactly the kind of sources notability guidelines require. And all the guidelines require is proof that there are sources out there. An argument is not invalid just because it doesn't suit someone's agenda. ~~Xil (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You actually have to show them. All that "there are lots of google hits" says, is that there are lots of mentions, and google catches all kinds of crap along with reliable sources. Continually repeating "lots of google hits" just shows how bad the advocacy is and how little any of the Keep voters understands, or even cares about, the policies and guidelines of WP. Jytdog (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are not ordinary Google hits, but results from media sites. And even if somewhere deep down there is "crap" it's plainly obvious that top results are major national media writing about the company in particular. Also a person who nominates "cruft" for deletion "vote" really shouldn't lecture others on policies and guidelines ~~Xil (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find two *intellectually independent* references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that this company's marketing department are competent, but nothing more. Fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the references for the article are primary sources and the product does not seem to have any significant coverage. There are some articles or thesis which mention the product in passing, but overall it seems to fail notability. Hagennos (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to establish notability, and the gestures at Google News above fail even worse. No reliable secondary sources. As for the notion that it can be "inappropriate" to assess notability at AfD, I'm still trying to recover from it. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:LOTSOFSOURCES arguments aside, doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:52, 26 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 07:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Coast

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage exists to make this notable. The article was recreated in 2013 after being deleted in 2008, but the same problem persists. Tagged for not notable since 2015. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a common term, and I find references referring to other locations ([37]) as well. The top Google hit, Tech Coast Angels, refers to the same location, but that article has its own problems. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term was coined in 1997 according to this Los Angeles Times article. It is used in this book. I am not sure if that is enough coverage to make it notable. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can merge into Southern California since Southern California#Colleges and universities mentions this term. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the term is insufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article. A definition at best; not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 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 07:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked pages on Facebook

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

The subject does not meet LISTN, the applicable notability guideline, and it likely runs afoul of RAWDATA as well. Rebb ing 02:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:Listcruft--Rusf10 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - found these two sources:
- http://www.adweek.com/digital/top-25-facebook-pages-september-2014-facebook-for-every-phone-nearing-500m-likes/#/
- https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2015/06/09/the-10-most-popular-celebrities-on-facebook.html

Ꞷ umbolo 11:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The top one or two pages could be mentioned in the main article, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources brought up by Wumbolo are examples of significant and independent coverage of the topic of top Facebook pages. The notability guideline for standalone lists states that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". By this criteria, the list is notable and should be kept. Malinaccier (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Listcruft, and if this list were to be kept I would imagine that many updates to this list would be based off of original research. Grapefruit17 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT. Information can be mentioned on their main pages of the listed subjects. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:16, 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 redirect to Dog crossbreed. This is my first close of an AfD. If I got it wrong and I did a WP:BADNAC, please tell me and I will try not to fuck up second time round😄 (non-admin closure) !dave 09:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiweenie

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable dog hybrid TKK! bark with me! 18:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a feasible redirect to List of dog crossbreeds, depending on the outcome of this RfD. 165.91.13.28 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dog crossbreed. In regards to that giant crossbreed RfD, while we don't necessarily need a redirect for every "let's jam two breed names together" crossbreed name, this is a pretty well known crossbreed [38]. Google News shows many articles about individual dogs that refer to those dogs as chiweenies. As those articles are about individual dogs, not the type of dog they are as a type of dog, they certainly aren't anything that would help us build a separate article on the crossbreed, but they do demonstrate that "chiweenie" is a quite plausible search term, and that's one of the reasons we have redirects. Egsan Bacon (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dog crossbreed. I removed all the of the unsourced and, truthfully, not terribly helpful material. As I look at how scant it is now I don't think it offers much being a standalone article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:43, 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 and redirect to Floating cities and islands in fiction. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the consensus is to delete but from the discussion there is clearly a similar article that is was suggested this was a FORK of. Redirecting to that is clearly sensible although that was an editorial not administrative decision. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of floating islands in fiction

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

Extremely crufty, barely referenced list of WP:OR popculture trivia. Doesn't even really distinguish between floating (on water) islands and floating (in the air) islands. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List with few sources, lots of original research, and lacks a clear definition of what is an "island", and what makes it floating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What they say, If a page is nonsense, delete it. Mon t ey
Delete- "extremely crufty" is right. This is nothing but trivia, poorly sourced. Like most lists of fictional XYZ there's no place for it here. Reyk _YO! 11:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No definable criteria of inclusion, largely unsourced mix of conjecture and random assortment. Also inching towards nonsense –Ammarpad (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Looking at the above scholar references, it's clear that fictional floating islands are a notable concept. The above deletion arguments are critiques of the content, which can be fixed by regular editing, rather than the concept. While I agree with the critiques (floating in air != floating in water, too unreferenced, too much pop culture trivia), none of those, individually or together, justify deleting a notable topic. Cutting it back to the Odyssey reference, or just redirecting to Floating island (fiction) per WP:ATD-R would be strongly preferable to deletion. Jclemens (talk)

Who says notable topic is to be deleted, and how this random collection become "notable"? The articles themselves are in their in their respective pages. Also redirect list doesn't usually serve any purpose because lit I not " topic" is just organizational index. So by failing WP:LISTPURP and containing random collection, deletion is the not appropriate. You an create redirect about later, because redirect such list only give room for someotto revert it to list since the content is still there. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the point of redirection is that so someone can see the underlying content, and either integrate it somewhere else, or restore the article if things change. Yes, people can use that to undo redirects, but with an AfD consensus, that redirect will quickly get protected if done disruptively. But we don't delete stuff just due to AGF failure; if redirection is the policy-based option, we go with it. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree with your fair response. The reason why I favor deletion is because redirect result in AfD is technically deletion but with simple option to restore article. In the recent, I have seen more than 5 articles which closed as redirect but their creators or IPs just removed the redirect and restore the text; many of such have to be taken to AfD again and finally get really deleted. (Sorry I can't find their diffs now, but hope you'll believe me). I also agree the redirect can be protected if understood to be disrupted, but what if not? And there is simpler option to create the redirect with only 1 history after this with larger history got deleted, it just make the process simple, for those who'll keep eye to disruption and those to be called to protect. Also at the same time do the work of the redirect. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Ammarpad says, redirection is easily reverted unlike deletion. That is why I favor deletion over redirection unless it's absolutely necessary (e.g. if there is a lot of referenced data that would otherwise be lost). When a page is redirected, pretty much anyone can reverse it easily without much, or any scrutiny. Ultimately you can probably find a redirect target for half of the articles that go through AfD, but that doesn't mean they all need to be redirected._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just reading the title of this article set me off laughing for a couple of minutes, as much as I'll go into explaining why this article should be deleted, it's perfectly summed up with this word, nonsense. Some articles are oddly obscure but aren't bad, in this case though, the article is pure unorganized cruft and I feel like it was made just for the heck of it. Definitely not meeting WP:GNG, and WP:OR. Grapefruit17 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is "nonsense", then why is this ok? Or this? Or this? Or this? —cnzx 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why this argument never holds weight._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you think distinguishes this case from the ones I've linked? —cnzx 02:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - List of fictional islands, List of fictional ships and List of fictional spacecraft seem to have potential, but need major cleanup to get rid of listcruft and unreliable references. Mythical continents seems like it should be merged with List of mythological places, as it's a list anyway. This list is overly specific though, and was original research from the start._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not convinced of the difference between this list and the others. Sure, it needs better referencing, but I think that "floating islands" is a recurrent trope in literature worthy of a list. Maybe a merge into that article? —cnzx 06:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I understand your point, this list is still poorly written cruft and doesn't meet three very important WP guidelines (WP:OR, WP:GNG, and WP:CITE which I didn't even mention before). Further more the argument of this list's topic being notable or not is pretty subjective, I don't think it's notable but you do. The reason why I believe this article's topic isn't notable is because there's not significante coverage of it (even relative to other literary topics) and there's no cultural significance of floating islands in fiction like there is with Dragons or swords for example as two more notable literary concepts (List of fictional swords, List of dragons in literature). Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another important point I forgot to mention was that by merging this list in question (List of floating islands in fiction) with any other list with a similar topic wouldn't make the reasons I pointed out for why this list should be deleted any less valid, it would just keep a bad list on the site and make the list it was merged with a lot worse. Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you find floating islands worthy of listing, they can be added to Floating cities and islands in fiction. This article is currently listcruft and when you remove all the listcruft from that article I doubt it would even be enough to merit a list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with a merge where all the substantial content sticks around. —cnzx 21:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Floating cities and islands in fiction. bd2412 T 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fancruft, trivia and original research. There's no valid topic here and no sources that discuss it directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced without any defining criteria, pretty much WP:OR. Fails criteria for standalone article per WP:N. Also, we already have an article on this as a literary device (or trope) entitled "Floating cities and islands in fiction". That article already cites generalized examples followed by sections with specific examples. That makes this article is essentially a WP:Content fork. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:32, 24 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 Papua New Guinea national rugby league team players. seems like a good compromise between lack of notability and possibility of being searched. ansh 666 07:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rero

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

I had placed a Speedy deletion tag on Alan Rero which SoWhy removed in good faith since the persona appears to be a player in the national team. I have placed a deletion notice for the second time as it can be good to be a player in the national team but that does not make published information about this automatically available and therefore does not mandate that the person needs a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information and I found a lack of reliable information about this person and therefore tagged the article for deletion. One may feel free to contest the deletion and add more reliable sources to the article. If that gets done, deletion would automatically get averted. Diptanshu 💬 15:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I fixed this nomination and moved it since there was no first nomination. Regards So Why 15:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources show this individual is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:RLN. He has played for PNG but after a search it doesn't appear he passes GNG. Mattlore (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PNG international who played in test matches against the Kiwis and Kangaroos.Fleets (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea national rugby league team players. Doesn't appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, but I think it's feasible someone might search for a player who appeared in a Test match against New Zealand and Australia. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:08, 23 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. Merge discussion can be opened on article talk page if desired. ansh 666 07:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Burnet

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

A person who went to Newington College and then opened a Koala park. He does not appear to be notable as an academic. No disclosed research or equivalent Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Koala Park Sanctuary. Reading the article he doesn't seem notable outside of creating the park(he doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC), so his history with the park could be added to that page(what isn't there already). 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Baby miss fortune 21:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Baby miss fortune 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite sufficient here to support WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: I may be wrong but most of those seem to be about his work with the sanctuary, (and some seem like brief mentions that don't establish notability) which as I state above seems to be what he is notable for and as such the article should be merged. The question is, is this person notable as an academic or something else. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But I think there is sufficient for the subject of this article to stand alone in this instance.

Delete not notable on his own. Not enough notability to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aoziwe's sources establish do notability as a prominent early conservationist with quite a bit of coverage in reliable sources. There is an ongoing problem with this author utterly failing to understand notability guidelines: even here, where the person does actually seem to be quite notable, the article completely fails to explain why, instead mentioning crap like what some English royal thought of his park and him having his photo taken for the Sydney Morning Herald. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: Specifically which sources give in depth coverage of this person? Most of the ones I looked at only gave brief mentions of this person, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder. It would not be difficult to write a pretty solid article on this guy (although Castlemate with his Newington-cruft never does), though I'm ill-inclined to clean up yet another piece of his mess tonight. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to clean up the article, only to indicate which sources given proper coverage. If you don't wish to, fair enough. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Koala Park Sanctuary. I'm with 331dot on this one; I can't see much to establish him as notable himself, but this could be covered quite well in the sanctuary article. A lot of Aoziwe's search seems to reveal routine/passing/duplicate coverage, although if I've missed something I'd be pleased to reconsider. Frickeg (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- an early conservationist with sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. I don't see a reason for a merge, since it's easier to keep a bio under the person's name. The article is sufficiently well cited at the moment, so it's not a TNT-redirect either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E is a reason to merge; if the sanctuary is the only thing they are known for, there shouldn't be a separate article about them. There are claims of significant coverage, but none has been offered yet that I have seen. I too would be happy to reconsider(as Frickeg would above). 331dot (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did the park make the man or did the man make the park in this instance? By this logic perhaps the park should be merged to here. In this instance I think there is enough for both articles to stand on their own. Aoziwe (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aoziwe and The Drover's Wife. The wiki article is currently sub-par, but as a pioneering conservationist and koala expert, there is enough significant coverage on him in reliable notable sources. SunChaser (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? 331dot (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Might be just enough significant independent coverage to pass the WP:GNG, but as others have queried, is he actually notable or is the coverage of the Koala Park only sufficient to give notability to the Park? Remember that notability is not inherited. Kb.au (talk) 19:39, 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: ping me or message me for a restore if sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindik Productions

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Sourcing out there is primarily in Hebrew under הינדיק הפקות. They specialize in hassidic music. Undecided on notability.Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Hebrew, but the source in the article doesn't have the appearance of a reliable source, maybe a blog.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I'm going with delete unless someone can come up with better sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 22 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P. Mansaram

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

WP:BLP of an artist, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media shown at all: the "references" here are entirely primary sources, such as a lecture he gave and unpublished interviews personally conducted by the creator of this article. However, Wikipedia requires sources to be published for proper verification that they actually say what they're claimed to have said, and nobody can ever be "sourced" by simply interviewing them personally or by listening to them give a speech -- so none of the sourcing here is acceptable, and nothing claimed in the text constitutes an automatic WP:NARTIST pass in the absence of any acceptable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -- HindWiki^Connect 23:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The fact, article does not cite proper sources does not mean he does not have claim for notability. Exhibiting and being part of permanent collection of Royal Ontario Museum grants article without any doubts. We just need to find proper links and update the article. I also found mentions of him exhibiting in other public galleries. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, exhibiting at a major museum still isn't an automatic notability freebie for an artist in and of itself — it still has to be supported by reliable source coverage about him, not just "mentions", before it counts toward notability. An artist's notability is conditional on his sourceability — no artist can make any notability claim that exempts him from having to be sourced properly. So it's not a case of "keep it and then maybe we'll find some better sources" — finding the better sources comes first and then maybe we can keep it if the sourcing is improved enough, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the source I've added to the article and it was quite easy to find. Press Release from the Royal Ontario Museum stating they have him in their collection and that they exhibiting them. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be required to make that exhibition a notability claim is not a press release from the museum, but a newspaper assigning a journalist to attend and write about the exhibition. To support notability, sources have to be independent of the claim, not press releases from people or organizations promoting themselves. An exhibition isn't notable until media, independent of the artist's or the museum's own PR teams, choose to write and publish their own unaffiliated content about it. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask if information from Museum about inclusion to permanent collection is not satisfying WP:ARTIST? From my humble opinion it quite makes it a pass. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also searched for him as Panchal Mansaram and found he also included to permanent collection of National Gallery of Canada - [39], as well as exhibiting in Art Gallery of Mississauga - [40]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistorian, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Bearcat is very nice but, with respect, in this case he does entirely misunderstands the way WP:ARTIST works in terms of permanent collections. For exhibitions, yes, there need to be RS. For permanent collections all that is needed is evidence. The Mississauga entry is actually a permanent collection. 104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need something more than press releases to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally out of curiosity, and AGF, did you conduct a search before coming to your conclusion above, or did you simply glance at the article?104.163.153.162 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Does anyone do WP:BEFORE anymore, or are people just going by the "look" of the article? WP:ARTIST is met:

National Gallery of Canada permanent collection
Art Gallery of Mississauga permanent collection (read the text)
The collaborative piece with Marshall Mcluhan (!!!) in the ROM makes "several museums". 104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to what 104.163.155.42 and Arthistorian1977 have stated about museum collections (per WP:ARTIST), I have found the following sources: Canadian Art, Times of India (brief but independent), tecnoartenews.com, mybindi.com, artdaily.org; and the following books: The Critical Vision: Selected Writings, A. S. Raman, 1993, Indian Contemporary Art: Post Independence, Vadehra Art Gallery (catalogue) 2010, Studies in Modern Indian Art: A Collection of Essays, Ratan Parimoo, 1975, Graphic Art in India Since 1850: An Exhibition, The Akademi (catalogue), 1985, Reimagining India: Unlocking the Potential of Asia’s Next Superpower edited by Clay Chandler, Adil Zainulbhai, 2013, P. Mansaram Galerie de Drie Hendricken, 1964 (appears to be a monograph). Some of these are mentions, others more substantial, but combined with the museum collections, other museum exhibitions (international) and the work with McLuhan (widely exhibited), this easily passes WP:GNG. freshacconci (✉) 17:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

good job, thank you. The art itself is pretty cheesy, but the artist is, as you have shown, very notable for that cheesiness.104.163.153.162 (talk) 02:26, 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 after improvements. ansh 666 07:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haworth Press

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Not finding any significant coverage in various searches, just name checks in search results listing it as a publisher and minor passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT~~Delete~~ -- Haworth wasn't notable in 2008. As an imprint (subsidiary) of Taylor & Francis, even less so now. If someone wants to save some text and roll it into Taylor & Francis, do it now. Rhadow (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so is it worth a redirect? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was notable in 2008,as one of the main publisher for library science, but it was also a pioneering publisher for what was then called gay studies, and other then-obscure disciplines . There are references available, particularly for the gay studies part, and I am adding them. And of course, having been notable then, it remains notable. (I agree it became less important after T&F bought it, & one of the refs I am adding added discusses why. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG mostly. Looking forward to seeing the extra sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. New sources establish notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements and new sourcing. Suffiently notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent expansion and new sources are quite sufficient to demonstrate notability. Edwardx (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accord with WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm rather surprised at the number of Keep !votes since not one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability - which is a prerequisite for meeting GNG. References either rely on company announcements or interviews that are not intellectually independent - fails GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Am I missing something? I'm very happy to change my !vote if someone can point out two sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 22 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 have discarded SPA votes which are mere assertions of notability. The keep argument that the products are notable therefore the company is do not overcome policy based voted based on notability standards for companies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lightricks

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

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

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

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

De-Prodded. WP:PROMO content of a startup company that lacks coverage for WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage is on the company's applications (most notably Facetune), and not on the company itself. Article creator also created articles for the new applications Enlight Photofox and Enlight Videoleap this month which I PRODed. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sourcing that demonstrate notability. After removing some advertising hype it seems perfectly fine to me.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilabrand: Note - there is quite a bit of coverage - but most of it is on product releases and specifically Facetune. There is little coverage of the company itself (there is a Calcalist piece of their recent hiring spree, a few odds and ends, but fairly little on the company - which is a 4 year old startup with approx. 200-300 employees).Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

200-300 employees is a very sizeable company in Israel.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

200-300 employees (following a hiring spree in summer 2017) is a medium sized company in Israel, and is a typical size for a 3rd-4th round startup. The problem here is sourcing for WP:CORPDEPTH - there is quite a bit of coverage on various apps (Facetune in particular, releases of others - much of it PR of course) - but little on the company.Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really get the difference. The company develops apps. Hence the focus on what it develops. What else is missing? I am sure more information can/should be added, which is true for all Wikipedia articles. By why delete it? It is a Jerusalem hi-tech start-up, which in itself is notable--Geewhiz (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The app that received attention - has an article (and probably merits an article, it does have secondary coverage that isn't PR driven) - Facetune. Startups in Jerusalem aren't that rare (e.g. Mobileye would be a highly notable example). Startups of this size are rarely notable - with coverage being limited mainly to company interviews and product releases (in this case - since the products are consumer facing, there are quite a few product reviews) - that's not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. Due to the nature of this company, WP:PROMO, is also an on-going issue that will creep back in here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete. Company has enough proven sources that aren't PR releases. They've won an Apple Design Award, Best iOS App of 2015, been used as a Facebook case study. As a member of the tech scene, these are certainly newsworthy accomplishments. A company like Polarr, is Wiki-worthy and this company has accomplished more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kortex (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Kortex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is written as WP:PROMO. Even though there are sufficient references the overall content of the article is written as an advertisement and most of the links are for self promotion. Hagennos (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi guys, I edited the article and added some information and sources. Would love to hear your thoughts. Lightricks two app series (which are based on same image processing technology- this is not a software house), Enlight and Facetune, have tens of millions of downloads, most of them paid (not trivial- not many apps in the world have so many paid downloads), the company has at least $10m revenues last year (see in the article) and they received significant recognition, including last week, when Enlight was chosen by Apple as one of nine apps of the year, and both apps were mentioned in USA Today as some of top paid iPhone apps worldwide. Bottom line, I think what the company has achieved is significant enough to keep the article. However, it might make sense to merge the article Facetune in the Lightricks article. Thanks. --Hmbr (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire line of argument above established notability for the apps (Facetune, maybe Enlight) - not the company. The Usatoday piece doesn't even mention the company name - it might be useful for establishing the notability of the app in question, not the company. Calcalist is a bit more in depth - providing a very short company history (1-2 paragraphs) on the side. Going over the sources in the article:

These are about products, not the company (some are possibly PR release rehashes, and some don't even name the company) - [41], [42] [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50],[51], [52], [53], [54]
Product of the X announcements/downloads. Some do not mention the company, some are one-liner listing of the app names:[55], [56], [57], [58],
Financing round (PR, routine, not grounds for notability of a company): [59].
A bit of coverage of the company "on the side" or in a list (1-2 paragraphs): [60], [61], [62],
Interview (not grounds for notability, and in a blog!): [63]
Actual coverage of the company: [64]

In short - In all of this seemingly long list of references (some of whom have RS issues as well) - there is one in-depth piece (business insider) and 3 1-2 paragraph pieces (all in Israeli press). Coupled with PROMO and COI concerns (see - unblock request by article creator - this was not created "out of the blue"). This is a complete WP:CORPDEPTH fail. Facetune has grounds for notability, others applications are probably TOOSOON, and the company itself is a definite TOOSOON.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on WP:Deletion policy alone which is the sole negotiator on an article, not whether anything can supersede it, because nothing can. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are not only many sources backing up this article but just by doing a simple google search of the company, one can find extensive coverage on it. Although lots in the article is about it's products, that information is still important (arguably the most important information about a company), there's little to no history of the company in the article because it's a relatively new company which doesn't automatically make it non-noteworthy. After reading the whole article it seemed fine, nothing about it seemed bias despite the tag at the bottom. Grapefruit17 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)— Grapefruit17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Care to provide some of this coverage that establishes notability? I've been unable to locate significant in-depth coverage in my BEFORE. The company does have a large internet footprint due to its applications being in various app-stores - which leads to coverage of the applications (re-hashed PR releases, reviews, product of the X, etc.). However what is required is more than passing coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Globes, Haaretz, Business Insider, Calcalist, USA Today and Jerusalem Post are all reputable sources. If the editors who are trying to delete articles would spend as much time on improving them, Wikipedia would be a better place.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which USA Today piece? The one in the article - Facetune app solves need for facial retouching, USA Today? This opinion column doesn't even mention the company by name. The problem isn't verifying the company and its applications exist - but WP:CORPDEPTH. Facetune being notable (or other apps) does not confer notability on the software producer - WP:NOTINHERITED. The sole in-depth piece here is the business insider piece.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an nn private business. These are a dime a dozen, and this one does not stand out in any way. Sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPI. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as thoroughly promotional and thus excluded from Wikipedia by the WP:NOTADVERTISING policy. Rentier (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - It is a notable Jerusalem based company - of which there are not so many... Made the Facetune app. I don't think you should delete it. It is notable not just for being a Jerusalem company but because it is the developer of the most popular paid photo apps in the world! Now the article is less PR. Ovedc (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)— Ovedc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Ovedc: - might I ask what brought you (and I will note other hewiki editors) to this AfD? This company, notably, does not have a hewiki article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Icewhiz analysis of references. Also, references that rely or are based on company announcements fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. References that are company announcements made by partners equally fail. There are no intellectually independent references available - these are references that are published in reliable sources (which most are) but which also provide independent opinion or analysis of the company (none appear to exist). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, looks like an important startup, with wide coverage in the press. The fact that the coverage is about its products is not actually a problem: when writing about a widely-covered product, it is an editorial decision whether to create an article about the product itself or about the company. On the other hand, even after many edits the article is still spammy and poorly written. It is clear that the original article was promotional. So I really hope someone fixes that (maybe me? Depends on available time), including axing some of the content entirely. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you point to two intellectually independent references from the press (ones that don't rely on company announcements and quotations, or has independent analysis or opinion)? If you can, I'll change my !vote - because when I looked, I couldn't find one. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This sources were not cited on the article. Some independent sources are Jerusalem Post, Venture Beat, Digital Trend. Even, Apple Inc and Microsoft corp were cited by those sources. New product announcement is a part of promoting specific products, every company does that. What am i missing here? I don't know, what we are opposing here. -202.134.11.130 (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those 3 are PR product announcements, mostly not about the company, and for the most part sourced/reprinted from a press release. You need sources covering the company indpendentally and critically, preferbly as the main subject of the coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response None of those references are intellectually independent. It is not enough to have a reference from a "reliable source" and meets the criteria for WP:RS, the reference must also be intellectually independent - that means, not regurgitates corporate press release, no articles relying solely on interviews and/or quotations from connected personnel (fails WP:ORGIND and should have independent analysis and/or opinion. What's the opposite of WP:HEY? Perhaps some of the Keep !voters here should take a fresh look at find 2 references... -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:53, 23 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cimls

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as this and this. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrang (2018 Film)

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

Upcoming film with no indication of notability yet. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The disruptive move and lack of reliable sources show clear attempt at promoting this non notable film on Wikipedia by any means. Didn't pass any point of WP:NFILM and violate WP:NOTPROMO. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dear,i think the Maker or creator Already Provide all the Evidence on reference page Which provide notability detail so plz check it out and tell that how to close this discussion and keep the page On wikipedia.–Ankit G Dubey (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2017 (Ist)

Administrator note The above editor was indeffed for misusing multiple accounts to engage in what I believe to be promotional editing. Note also this edit from one of the socks who attempted to stifle an AfD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck illegitimate vote, per Admin note above. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per Ammarpad. -- HindWiki^Connect 14:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per FUTURE -- film which has not been released yet. Wikipedia is not a publicity site. Quis separabit? 17:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article is kept, it should be moved to Sabrang (film), which already redirects to this article, to remove unnecessary disambiguation per WP:NCF. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:59, 24 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 USC School of Cinematic Arts. As a side note, I took classes in this division during my time at USC :) ansh 666 07:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Hench Division of Animation and Digital Arts

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

Sub-division of USC School of Cinematic Arts. I redirected but was reverted by an IP citing OTHERSTUFF, so taking it here. This is an academic division within a larger school within a university. The information is best contained within the school itself. Suggest redirect and merge from history. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The current text is WP:PROMO, even including a lengthy quote direct from the USC web site, and the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument won't fly, so I agree with Tony's original decision to redirect. The USC School of Cinematic Arts article is currently an ugly collection of lists, so including a section on this division would improve that article, but I won't suggest a merge due to the complete lack of creativity and objectivity. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USC School of Cinematic Arts. University schools and departments don't always qualify for standalone articles, let alone divisions of those schools and departments, and this one doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Media Arts and Practice and USC Interactive Media & Games Division are both divisions of this university school. On top of maintaining consistency, it seems arguable to call the text WP:PROMO. As for the WP:GNG problem, removing John C. Hench from the name (given that there is only one known so-called "Division of Animation and Digital Arts," which is true) will yield different search results. 68.181.206.43 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You might read WP:CoI. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go ahead and redirect it. (Though the inconsistency between the presence of a page for each subdivision of the parent school does bug me a little.) I firmly believe the page should be kept, but clearly it's not a popular opinion. 68.181.206.43 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, in case it matters, that the IP's comments above were added by 68.181.207.59, contrary to the signature. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sub-units of sub-units of universities are very rarely notable on their own. Anything of note can be included in the article on the sub-unit of the University of Southern California it is a part of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USC School of Cinematic Arts, not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 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 merge to Minnesota Fighting Pike. Very selective merge to parent article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Minnesota Fighting Pike season

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

Team only played one year, content can be merged into Minnesota Fighting Pike. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Once at least one other source is found for this article it should be merged with Minnesota Fighting Pike. Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the proper solution here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes sense for a one-season franchise. No need for two articles covering the same event. Cbl62 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't opine on notability, but given the length of this article it may make sense to keep it separate. Kablammo (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep treat it like any other Arena Football season article. Lepricavark (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My recollection is that we very rarely keep season articles for arena football... am I incorrect?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category:Arena Football League seasons. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm it seems that way yes. Okay, season articles are normally kept. The question then remains, what should be done about a team that only plays one season? Would a team article and season article be redundant? I think it might be and still lean toward merge--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:11, 24 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) 04:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saif Hatem

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN as well as WP:GNG. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is a pro football player, he won the AFC Cup, which is an official, competitive soccer tournament contested between clubs in Asia

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything to pass WP:GNG or NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:51, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq national football team results

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

Article fails notability. No references cited. Author has created many articles titled "Iraq national football team in <<year>>". None cite any sources. It is simply a score record, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
Note: If this article is deleted, the rest of the articles entitled "Iraq national football team in <<year>>" should be also deleted accordingly. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Needed This article needs cleanup, not deletion; I can see how this article serves a purpose in being an organized way to more easily access the Iraq national football team results by decade articles, but, clicking for example 1975 results vs clicking 1976 results just takes you to the 1970-79 results page, there's no difference when clicking either. Also the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s sections of the article should each be made into their own respective articles as done with the 1960s, 70s and 80s results information. Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: has not been shown to meet GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple google search shows that the performances of the Iraq national football team receive sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN. However, I agree with the comments above that the results need sourcing and we don't really need articles for individual years. Fenix down (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mostly agree with Fenix down, but also need clean up. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not convinced by GNG/LISTN arguments. Giant Snowman 11:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fenix Down but needs cleanup.Football is Iraq's most popular sport clearly notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much like what people has said with it needing to be a clean up and with an addition to the sources it should get better. Matt294069 is coming 11:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have a similar list for many associated football teams. The elephant in the room that everyone seems to be missing is that almost every match has a match report, so all this shagrin of the article being uncited is not actually true. Clean though is required as the first !vote states. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but all information that important must have inline citations for verification. NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I suggest add {{refimprove}} after AFD close. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite confident the result will be keep:) NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for montioning it, that action only for keep result. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:19, 24 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Sims

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

Article about the victim of a crime, who otherwise is not notable, and the crime itself doesn't seem to be notable based on WP:EVENTS Emk9 (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, which one…BLP1E, NBIO, GNG will do. Article was written over a decade ago, when I assume policy was more lax, so no enmity towards the author, of course.L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP(?)1E/BIO1E. The crime itself doesn't meet NCRIME. Sentencing was covered locally - [65]. The crime itself had some national attention (e.g. CNN) but for a single newscycle.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per L3X1.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the nom, a victim of a crime, who is not otherwise notable, when the crime itself doesn't seem to be notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 22 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.

[Cohen_1998_pp._103–117-1] Cohen, Allen Carson (Apr 1, 1998). "Solid-to-Liquid Feeding: The Inside(s) Story of Extra-Oral Digestion in Predaceous Arthropoda - American Entomologist". American Entomologist. 44 (2): 103–117. doi:10.1093/ae/44.2.103. ISSN 1046-2821. Retrieved Dec 18, 2017.

[2] "Setup secure VPN access between client and server".

[3] MikroTik RouterOS: What's new in 6.0 (2013-May-17 14:04) Archived 13 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine

[4] "Stubarea Blog". Retrieved 5 December 2017.

[mt-mum-2015-5] "MUM webpage". MikroTik. 2015. Archived from the original on 1 November 2015. Retrieved 5 December 2017.

[6] "Crooks Use Hacked Routers to Aid Cyberheists".

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]