Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 December	27 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) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip Lanka Hot News[edit]

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWEB. Dan arndt (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as website clearly fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- very obviously non-notable. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Per nom and everybody else. WP:NWEB. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 30 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. Extra Sources were provided. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet and Low (1914 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Found no sources on Google books. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources cited in the article are adequate. Google isn't the be all and end all of finding sources. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is properly sourced already, I don't see what the problem with it is. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Comment In fairness, I worked on it last night-that's when the sources, etc. arrived. We hope (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent expansion work that has been done, and WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All the sources cited were well-established film journals and trade papers (except Variety which is still functioning). The content in the article is quite well laid out. Most of the sources are from Internet Archive, which helps to store information that can't be found on Google in case. Websites like Open Library use it. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the superb work of We hope.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG; I added a cite book, and there are more to be added. Would nom care to search again and perhaps withdraw the nomination? Sam Sailor 02:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet and Low (1947 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Found no sources on Google books. The article was prodded by HindWIKI without providing a reason. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded the article because they have not passed Wikipedia policies per without references or unimproved but must be in future when they fulfilled sources per Wikipedia policies. -- HindWiki^Connect 03:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article could use some work, but the film is listed in the Library of Congress. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shelby. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (naturally; I wrote it). My sources were IMDb, and also the WP articles on Sammy Davis Sr & Jr and Will Mastin and his Trio (4 articles). I thought it's worth having because this is one of two films where those people, who seem culturally significant, appeared together, and where Sr appeared at all (apparently). I meant it to be a stub to be improved by those with better knowledge of sources. (Added LoC link; thanks, Shelby.) Zaslav (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic. Not sure why the nominator could not find any results in Google Books? I found multiple results here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shelbystripes. Can't add more. South Nashua (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur with other keep comments. Never should have been nominated for deletion. Google books is enough sourcing. Film is listed in the Library of Congress.desmay (talk) 20:47, 31 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mahmudul Islam[edit]

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

Young academic without significant achievements (yet) in his field. Geschichte (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, Sadads (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Prof not passed yet. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose this article is in improvement. so consider it until completed.-Abu Sayeed (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. H-index < 10 not surprising for entry-level PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant professor with no notable accomplishments. Natureium (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He improved the low cost and climate tolerant aquaphonics in Bangladesh. And in this field, he is the leading. See the references in Bengali and Translate it into English.--Abu Sayeed (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - The article has good sources and The scientist is awarded internationally multiple times. মাখামাখি (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is so little sourcing that we have statements he was born in 1952 and in 1979 in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the reference no. 2 in the article. but the date 25 December is given according to his passport and Bangladesh National ID.--Abu Sayeed (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failing WP:ACADEMIC. Good sources for notability is when it's about the subject, not written by the subject. Ifnord (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parkway Drive. Just a quickie: per WP:ATD, deletion was never on the cards, whilst there is insufficient support to keep it in its current form (indeed, the only !keep also suggested merging). So the only consideration is whether to merge or redirect. As Michig pointed out, even the nom (somewhat naughtily) advised a merge, which not only gave merging the head on numbers, but allows for sourced material to be retained. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winston McCall[edit]

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

Bandleader who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The subject's band is notable, but the one piece of info in the article about the subject (straight edge) could easily be merged into the band article. Contacting anyone who was in the last AfD to discuss again: @Crisco 1492: @David Gerard: @Duffbeerforme: @Gene93k: @Grahamec: @Loriendrew: @Shaidar cuebiyar: @The Anome: Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge. Result of first nomination was against delete, and merge/redirect discussion can take place elsewhere. Kb.au (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parkway Drive. I was very tempted to speedy close this as the nomination proposes a merge. AfD wasn't needed here. --Michig (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Still see no notability independent of the band. Bio-blerb within band article would be sufficient.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his band. There is no notability independent of that band. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parkway Drive per Michig & duffbeerforme.–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Dump Fire 2012[edit]

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

This article contains content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this event does not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. The article is also too short, but many not be able to be expanded due to lack of information. Formal Dude talk 22:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor fire with no lasting notability. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is just another violation of WP:NOTNEWS. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may have damaged a lot of land, and have mentions in news articles. But that does not make it Notable, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jim Mahon Memorial Trophy. Content remains in the history to be merged. No prejudice against recreating this article as an article IF the "multiple books" claimed to be written about him (or other equally strong sources) ever surface. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Mahon[edit]

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

Junior hockey player does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. History should be deleted and redirected to Jim Mahon Memorial Trophy since there's a trophy. Flibirigit (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple books have been written about him, the Petes routinely commemorate his legacy. It is a bit weak, but I think there is enough for GNG, particularly "Called Home" and he is mentioned in many other books as being inspirational for young players. Dying in 1971 makes it unlikely to find a lot of online hits.18abruce (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are the multiple books? Please check the references. There's only one book written by the guy's friend? Flibirigit (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The multiple feature articles 40+ years later make me lean keep regarding GNG. We have multiple sources with the articles, but the minimum required and the local nature of the coverage raises some WP:ROUTINE concerns. I am not familiar with how the book being cited was published. If its self-published, then I don't think we can count it as independent (e.g., its in the same category as a blog with no editorial review), so I am not considering the book towards meeting GNG. If someone can explain that it holds up to review for the GNG requirements, then I would go from weak keep to keep. RonSigPi (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for similar reasons to RonSigPi, but also because the fact that the OHL named an award after him indicates that he must have received some attention at the time which may be difficult to find online. If not kept my 2nd choice would certainly not be to delete but rather redirect to the trophy; not seeing any need to delete the history in that case especially since it may be useful if further sources are found in the future. Rlendog (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The league did not name a trophy after the player. His team named the trophy and donated the trophy in his memory. Flibirigit (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who named what after whom, a very well covered and notable league has a major trophy named after this player. Even under the facts you give, the league accepted the trophy and started awarding it. That is a relevant fact. RonSigPi (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As may be, but notability more being inherited, of course that doesn't mean in of itself that the player himself is notable. Ravenswing 23:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the first non-example paragraph from what you cited at WP:NOTINHERITED "Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject." That is not the case here. There are sources with this case. I think this also may be a case of considering WP:RAP and Letter and spirit of the law. Awarding the Stanley Cup is relevant to if Lord Stanley of Preston merits an article, same with the Ed Chynoweth Cup and Ed Chynoweth or the Hobey Baker Award and Hobey Baker. Drowning in policies can obscure the fact that a Major Junior league does award a notable trophy named after the subject of this article. I don't think that should be ignored no matter what policy is cited to the contrary, especially since there are some sources cited and common sense tells us we are talking about a 40+ year past topic. RonSigPi (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RonSigPi, you're forgetting to notice that your examples did other things that made them notable, besides the trophy. Stanley was a politician. Chynoweth was a builder and league president. Baker is a HHOF player. Jim Mahon did nothing else notable. His death in a horrific accident is tragic, but amounts to nothing more than 15 minutes of fame. Wikipedia is not a memorial for a local hero. The only coverage on this boy is from his home team and the team he played for. Flibirigit (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You think I am forgetting that Lord Stanley of Preston was Governor General of Canada? Of course I understand that he would be notable without the trophy. My point was that usually notable people have trophies named after them and that fact usually increases their notability. If I gave the NHL a trophy to present to the top right winger of the year, would they start awarding it along with the Hart Memorial Trophy? I think not - because I am not notable. But they might in honor of someone notable in their time that died. I don't think it is appropriate to discount the trophy being named after the subject and still presented to this day. I think everyone is forgetting that even without the trophy I said weak keep and Rlendog's comments didn't change my position - I am still at weak keep. I simply think the community needs to consider the fact that since the year of his death the OHL has continued to award the Jim Mahon Memorial Trophy. RonSigPi (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "forgetting" that you are advocating "weak keep," given that those words haven't been stricken from your response, so I'm unsure what point you're trying to make with that. I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing members of the Hockey Hall of Fame to a teenage amateur with a couple good junior seasons under his belt (if not an utterly absurd one), or by comparing the highly notable trophies named in their honor with one awarded to the highest scoring right winger in the OHL. (Let's say that I'm nowhere near sold as to the notability of that trophy, amidst the 28 other trophies the league awards with articles, many of which call out for redirects.) If there are sources from independent, reliable, third-party sources that both meet the GNG and don't run afoul of ROUTINE, produce them. Ravenswing 09:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the trophy. Sorry, folks, but the strictly local nature of the articles run afoul of GEOSCOPE, ROUTINE and NOTMEMORIAL altogether. Like Flibirigit, I'd be interested in 18abruce telling us about these "multiple" books, and whether they're all indeed about the subject, or to what degree the subject's mentioned; a dozen fleeting mentions still come out to 0+0+0+0=0. Finally, as we all know, WP:V and the GNG require not that we speculate that sources might be available (or might be difficult to find), but that such sources are demonstrated to exist as a prerequisite for saving the article. Ravenswing 12:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now unless these other book sources are produced. I don't see the multiple sources that don't run afoul of geoscope and routine. While it is an otherstuff argument, since naming of trophies is mentioned above I must note that it is fairly common for us to redirect non-notable juniors to trophies named after them such as Six Broncos players and Renault. Just because you have a trophy named or dedicated to you doesn't make you notable. Often in the cases of death it would be a WP:ONEEVENT situation. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I don't see the coverage or achievements to show an individual article is deserved. An untimely death doesn't make you notable. The trophy is the only reason he's known.Sandals1 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect to Jim Mahon Memorial Trophy. Ifnord (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Storey[edit]

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

This is the article's second nomination for deletion. The first nomination in 2007 was successful and the article was deleted. It has since returned. It meets the following criteria:

WP:N The subject is not known outside of his life coaching classes.
WP:V The claims in the article are not verifiable, and the article itself contains maintenance tags over 2 years old for lack of verification.
WP:RS The references given are to his own website, to Random House (for a list of his products) and a write up on CBN
WP:NOT Wikipedia is not for self promotion.
- WP:PROMO The article appears to promote the individuals books, as they are prominently listed in the article. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 21:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Meets the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:G4. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nn as either "life coach, self-help author, motivational speaker, or entrepreneur" -- just promo cruft. Possibly salt as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure I have ever seen an article that violated so many Wikipedia policies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Klass[edit]

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

This author has not received a level of independent attention required for him to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for authors for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article relies on adds instead of reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Millner[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Was on the board of a few companies ADS54 talk 11:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- can't find anything to support notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in the series of non-notable Newington College alumni.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just sufficient WP:NEXIST to get over the WP:GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has held very prominent business roles and sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was already to go all-in on this one, but a lot of the apparent indicators are a bit less impressive than they first seem. The SMH obit is good, but written by his sons; the article said he was president of the NRMA (a very notable position), but he was actually chairman (a much less public role); etc. Ultimately, though, they are significant roles; this NLA interview is also good. Frickeg (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a prominent enough businessman. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As head of the NRMA he was part of the demutualisation of the organisation which was controversial and split insurance and road services. The chairman was the public face and I don't believe there was a seperate president. The obit was written by his nephews not sons as he had none. One of those sons is now head of the family company and is currently facing an AfD. This isn't a question of inherited notability in the Wikipedia sense but a story of generations of a notable business, community, sporting and philanthropic family. It would be helpful if those commenting had some knowledge of what they are commenting on. Castlemate (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 20:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn businessperson; neither the business nor the philanthropic activities rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. Sourcing is insufficient for standalone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New and Lingwood[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. My search could not find proper sources; one source in the article merely reports on the sale of the business, which WP:ORGDEPTH specifically names as trivial coverage. They do supply a notable school and sell things to Prince Charles, but notability is not inherited. There are also some COI/promotional concerns. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company page has proper references and all spam information has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando8039 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Until some established editors removed all the spam and puffery, this article was oozing and dripping with some of the most blatant adspeak I have ever seen on Wikipedia - not a copy of, but extremely similar to the tone of the language on their website that had also been written by a hired copy writer. Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sorry, Fernando8039, nice try. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While nothing merits blatant adulatory promow*nk, as a British-based fashion and dress historian I'm certainly well aware of New and Lingwood, what they do, and I would have expected them to be provably notable. Unfortunately all my reference books are currently in storage, including a couple I'm pretty sure would be very helpful for this. So I am not voting keep or delete, because I believe the company is notable, but I cannot prove that, or disprove my belief, due to not having my books to hand to confirm. Mabalu (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabalu: This being deleted now doesn't prevent it from being recreated later if books are found that establish notability. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakest ever? I did a search expecting to find dozens of sources going on about the legend and brand etc. I was really dissapointed. The coverage wasn't really in-depth and there wasn't a significant amount. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 20:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, this article is a WP:PEACOCK in all its splendor. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Currently there seem to be unsupported details in the infobox that don't appear in the text. These should at least be sourced (if that's possible), in the text, before a final decision is taken? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notabilty, just reads like spam and/or an advert. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Priceline Group#Acquisitions. J04n(talk page) 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agoda.com[edit]

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

The sources for this company are problematic - there are some mentions in passing, and lots of press release/marketing material, but no serious, independent, in-depth coverage. The article was created for promotion (the creator declared in the edit summary "I am an Agoda employee based in Kuala Lumpur handling the communications of Agoda International...") and even after one AfD and 3 years it still smacks of promotion, because there is nothing else to say about the company - they haven't won any awards, the got acquired, and they were involved in a minor tax issue. At best, this could be soft deleted by redirecting to The Priceline Group. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Priceline_Group#Acquisitions; not independently notable. "Delete & redirect" would also be okay with me; the content is mostly promotional and is not needed for retention. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 20:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Priceline Group for now. Disregarding the current state of the article, this topic is borderline. feminist (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a close call and I'm happy to review on request.

I'm giving little weight to JPL's usual white noise delete !vote. On the other side, I'm disregarding the contributions from the SPAs. Unscintillating's contribution of a Bloomberg listing adds no value, as k.e. is correct in that it is not editorial content and there are such listings for countless non-notable companies and individuals. Even if it were a reliable source, it would be a reliable source for the company, not necessarily for the article subject.

But the nominator and k.e. are fundamentally correct that this isn't a well-sourced article: the vast majority of references are to non-byline pieces in redlinked publications. It is definitely not well-sourced enough for a BLP, but even if the subject were not still among us, the vast majority of the sources in the article discuss the subject's company, and not the subject. This article cannot stand as a BLP without reliable sources, which trumps any keep argument put forward in the discussion. A Train^talk 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. Appel[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson. Article reads like a resume. Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did some further research and there is not much press regarding the subject, but there has been some throughout the years. While not very well known, his business accomplishments are undeniably notable and rare. Among other things, he has been a founder of at least two multi-billion dollar enterprises, one of which is noted by Forbes to be one of the largest public companies in the world, and the other noted by Baron's as one of the most profitable. Comes down to what it means to be "notable". If it's limited to those with a lot of press, then those far less accomplished than the subject but who actively court attention will fill Wikipedia's pages and those who are clearly not self-promotional, like the subject, won't make the cut. I vote to keep. User:Bernice McCullers. 16:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Arch Capital is on the Forbes list...at #970. Regardless, of whether 970 is notable or not, that would be about the company, not the individual. What does it mean to be "notable"? We have an article on that, see WP:PEOPLE "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject." So yes, he does need to have press coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you cite in the article does not mean that a person must have significant coverage to be notable. Rather, it means that if a person has significant coverage then he or she is presumed to be notable, and that notability would then need to be disproven in order to delete. Having significant coverage does not mean that a person is automatically notable; it is merely a presumption which can be disproven (because a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent, it doesn't mean he is innocent. It means that he or she must be proven guilty). Moreover, a person is not precluded from meeting the notability standard solely because he or she does not have significant coverage. Lacking significant coverage means that this person is not afforded the benefit of the presumption of notability and must meet the standard of notability by being worthy of notice. The very same article you cite, WP: PEOPLE, describes this standard and is set forth in Johnny Smith's comment below. It is clear from the article that significant press coverage is not a prerequisite for inclusion; lacking it just makes it more difficult to demonstrate notability. While I agree that the subject does not have sufficient coverage to warrant a presumption of notability, I do believe that his accomplishments, which are fully sourced and presented without any aggrandizement or embellishment whatsoever, make him worthy of notice and that the article meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. User:Bernice McCullers. 00:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In response to Rusf10's comment, the subject does have press coverage, even if not extensive, and it's clear he could have a lot more if he sought publicity, which he obviously does not. More importantly, though, while press coverage is relevant, it is not dispositive. The media is not the ultimate arbiter of who is included in Wikipedia. If it were, then accomplished people who do no seek publicity or who the media fail to find, which happens frequently in industries that don't generally attract media attention, will be excluded even if worthy of notice. If a Wikipedia editor comes across a person who he or she deems notable and posts an article, then at that point the debate for deletion should focus first and foremost on whether the person is in fact notable (i.e., worthy of notice), not whether they have a lot of press coverage. There are countless people included in Wikipedia that have done far less than this guy but who have more press attention. Wikipedia editors who legitimately find people that either the media misses or who are not self-promotional should be rewarded for their effort, and deleting their articles will not encourage this useful work. People who are relatively unaccomplished but seek media attention should not be included in Wikipedia solely because they are effective at self-promotion. User:Bernice McCullers. 23:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like the criteria of notability wikipedia has, but that is the criteria. By our standards, he's not notable. I think you are confusing success with notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you think I am confusing success with notability but I believe you are confusing media coverage with notability. As you can see from the comment below regarding Wikipedia's definition of "notability", the critical question is whether the person is worthy of note. Fame and press coverage are secondary; i.e., not irrelevant but less important. So, yes a person who has had great success, even if unaccompanied by substantial press coverage, could very well be deemed worthy of notice, and therefore notable by Wikipedia's standards. User:Bernice McCullers. 11:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Based on Wikipedia's definition of notability for people, the article should remain. According to applicable Wikipedia guidelines, "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." Based on these guidelines, the subject is clearly notable. His business achievements are significant and worthy of notice. The fact that he is not famous, while not irrelevant, is secondary. User:Johnny Smith 1776. 17:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC) — Johnny Smith 1776 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: I have struck the bolded "keep" here to clarify to the closing administrator that this account is confirmed to be related to Bernice McCullers (see SPI), who has already used a bolded "keep" above. Mz7 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Bernice McCullers and Johnny Smith 1776 are both single-purpose accounts WP:SPA that have contributed to this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing comments not directly related to the deletion discussion. Mz7 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - Rusf10, I don't see the logic behind attacking me because I contributed to the article. Given that I did much of the research for the article, I'm better positioned than most to comment on the subject's notability. Also, it's worth noting that Rusf10 (who doesn't even have a User page) and Johnpacklambert are either one and the same person, or have demonstrated an uncanny pattern of frequently arguing for the same deletions. User:Bernice McCullers. 22:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an attack, it was a statement of fact. Your comments are an attack. Your account is exactly the type of account that is defined as SPA. The problem with SPAs is that they usually (but not always) have a Conflict of Interest WP:COI. As for your accusations, they are so absurd that I will not comment any further.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not an attack. Like yours, it was a statement of fact. And here are some more facts: In the last three weeks alone, you have either nominated for deletion or participated in discussions for deletion of over 50 people (I have a full list of their names if you would like me to provide it). In nearly every one of these, Johnpacklambert was right there with you, and every single time he voted to delete with you. Let's repeat that -- in the millions of pages of Wikipedia, he not only appeared with you on these relatively obscure pages over 50 times in just the past three weeks alone, he agreed with you every single time. He often shows up when there is no real debate taking place and you need that second delete to support your nomination. And here's perhaps the most telling part -- the one time you voted to keep when you both appeared in the same deletion debate, Johnpacklambert voted to keep as well (see Mindi Messmer). Your attack on small town mayors is particularly instructive. While I find your obsession with these mayors to be comical (and your case for deletion to be generally correct), the fact that Johnpacklambert is there with you every step of the way makes it highly likely that you are either one and the same (a sockpuppet) or acting in concert (a meatpuppet). It is nearly impossible, statistically, to draw any other conclusion. And since your are wont to cite Wikipedia rules, let me cite WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. So, are my comments really absurd, as you say? User:Bernice McCullers. 11:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are making unfounded allegations. John Pack Lambert and I just have similar philosophies when it comes to deletion. If you are so convinced I'm a sockpuppet, I dare you to request an investigation. If not, then stop attacking me.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just a matter of you and John Pack Lambert having "similar philosophies when it comes to deletion," your voting records would not be identical, and there would not be such an extraordinarily high level of correlation in your participation together in deletion debates. Even if you are not the same person, the identical voting record and the extremely high correlation of participation smack of meatpuppetry. As far as your dare goes, I'll give it some thought. What I initially tried to do was debate the merits of the subject's inclusion by focusing on the crux of the issue -- what does "notability" mean under the rules and standards of Wikipedia? Rather than genuinely debate me on its meaning, you made one attempt to counter my argument about notability (which I've responded to above), and then moved away from the debate on notability to imply that I don't have any credibility because I'm a so-called SPA. Your digression from the merits forced me to focus on your and John Pack Lambert's credibility and relationship. I did not come to this debate to attack you. You called out my credibility, and I responded appropriately. User:Bernice McCullers. 00:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for your inference that I have a conflict of interest, it is completely unfounded. I am neither the subject nor related to him, nor do I have anything to gain by supporting his inclusion in Wikipedia. I do know of him and simply find his career to be rare and noteworthy and one which warrants a Wikipedia article. He belongs in the group of people who have had outlier success but have not engaged in self-promotion, have not been discovered by the media or have declined media attention when approached, and who do not otherwise seek attention. This is a person worthy of note, and is therefore notable under Wikipedia standards, regardless of whether or not his media coverage has risen to a level that satisfies you. As a result, I believe you should withdraw your nomination to delete. If you choose not to do so, an uninvolved admin should decide WP: AFD/AI. Spending so much of your time editing Wikipedia does not make you the judge and jury as to who should be included in its pages. And while I appreciate your prodigious efforts to raise the bar at Wikipedia (I happen to agree with many of your deletion nominations), you need to play by the rules as well and avoid hypocritical attacks on others. User:Bernice McCullers. 11:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Judge and jury", right? If so, then why have a discussion? There certainly is not enough input into this yet to build a consensus. It seems like you're saying you support deleting non-notable people except when you write the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said nor implied that I support deleting non-notable people except when I write the article. That's a nonsensical insult and an ad hominem attack, without any basis for support. Regardless, I agree that there is not enough input to build a consensus. My guess is that if neither you nor I solicit input (which would be inappropriate) or resort to sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (a clear breach of protocol), then there won't be much in the way of additional input that would lead to a legitimate consensus, one way or the other. I also feel that leaving the deletion banner on the article for any significant period of time after the seven day period would be unfair to the subject. Given that we are in disagreement as to what constitutes notability, and that there is insufficient input for a consensus to form, my suggestion is for you to withdraw your recommendation for deletion and revisit the article down the road and determine then if you think renomination for deletion is appropriate. User:Bernice McCullers 00:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Bernice McCullers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 20:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable CEO with no indications of significance or notability. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. The attack by SPAs is suspicious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by K.e.coffman (talk • contribs) 19:12, December 27, 2017 (UTC)

This delete comment is from an anonymous editor and should thus be ignored for purposes of forming a consensus. However, I will not ignore it for purposes of setting the record straight. First, it is absurd and ignorant, as well as snide and disrespectful, to say that the topic is “unremarkable.” In addition to the sources that are referenced in the article, I have found others that contain information that I have not yet fully verified (so I did not include) which, among other things, note that after graduating Harvard Law School and embarking on a very successful career as a lawyer, during which he became one of the youngest partners in the history of a major international law firm, he then transitioned to a business career where he went on to become (i) a successful CEO of a publicly-traded company while in his 30s; (ii) a founder of a number of successful start-ups, including at least three multi-billion dollar enterprises employing thousands of people (an insurance and reinsurance company (Arch Capital), a reinsurance company (Aeolus Re) and an asset management company (Aeolus Capital Management)); (iii) a lead investor in some extraordinarily successful transactions; (iv) an owner in a major league franchise that went on to win a World Series (Houston Astros); and (v) a philanthropist who has donated millions of dollars to charity. The subject is, by any standard, "remarkable."

Second, while short on real details about the topic’s life (perhaps because he appears to avoid publicity), the article does not read like a CV. If it did, it would have included some of the other information found online that is difficult to verify, like the fact that after it was founded Arch Capital became both the fastest growing insurance and reinsurance company in the history of each industry, or that Aeolus Re was one of the reinsurance industry’s most profitable start-ups ever, or that the subject was one of the youngest partners in the history of a major international law firm. If this was a resume, information like that would certainly be included. It was not included, at least not by me, because I could not find independent verification. But I have no reason to doubt its validity. And while Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service, implying that the article is designed to serve that purpose for the subject is beyond idiotic. The subject is obviously someone of great wealth, perhaps even a billionaire – do you really think he needs to get his resume out there?

Third, it's not clear what you mean by "suspicious." I have already acknowledged that I am a SPA, but I have no conflict of interest whatsoever. Again, I'm not the subject nor do I have anything to gain from contributing to the article. I know of the subject and strongly believe he is worthy of note and warrants an article. Period. Being a SPA does not mean that my arguments for notability are without merit and both the article and my contributions to it are well sourced. What's far more suspicious is that your comment was made anonymously. Why not reveal yourself? Maybe my response to Unscitillating's comment below explains why you didn't. User:Bernice McCullers 11:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing comments not directly related to the deletion discussion. Mz7 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Something else interesting is that the topic's parents are from New Jersey and [redact reference to a wedding officiant] ref. Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it interesting that the topic's parents are from NJ and that he was married by a rabbi? Who cares where his parents are from or who he was married by? I don't believe this was an anti-Semitic dog whistle, but why would you make a comment about a rabbi? Why is that relevant? In order to avoid having anyone misinterpret your seemingly random reference to NJ and a rabbi, let me take a shot at trying to figure it out. Is it because you are aware of the dispute between Rusf10 and Alansohn (which I came across as I was researching the remarkable correlation of deletion commentary between Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert) and you think (or know) that the anonymous editor is Rusf10/John Pack Lambert and are implying that Alansohn may have some connection to my SPA? And is your reference to NJ and a rabbi your way of referring to Alansohn because he has a heavy editorial focus on NJ and a Jewish surname? Without explicitly referencing Alansohn in your comment, one can only conclude that you believed the anonymous commenter above would know who you are referring to and also be aware of, or perhaps part of, the Rusf10/Alansohn dispute. Otherwise, how would the anonymous commentator know what you are talking about? Perhaps I am way off the mark here, and the comment has nothing to do with Alansohn. If that's the case, in order to avoid any misinterpretation, you might want to consider explaining your vague and completely out of context reference to NJ and a rabbi.

However, if I'm correct that you are trying to imply that Alansohn might have some relationship to me or my SPA, that is absolutely false. I only know of Alansohn as a result of this deletion debate. I looked him up after his Keep vote and read his user page and some of his contributions. In addition to observing his dispute with Rusf10, I also noted that he is a very seasoned and well regarded editor, who ranks near the top of Wikipedia's list of most active editors (out of approximately 134,000 active editors, he ranks 32nd). Why in the world would this guy bother to utilize or otherwise get involved with a SPA? He's made nearly half a million edits to Wikipedia.

Rather than trying to undermine Alansohn's Keep vote with a vague and totally misguided insinuation, shouldn't the only Delete vote other than the nominator's (Rusf10) be questioned? This Delete vote comes from John Park Lambert, who has appeared together with Rusf10 in over 50 deletion requests in the last few weeks alone. In every single one of these they voted the same way (including the one Keep!). This is, of course, a statistical impossibility, unless they are the same person or working in concert. Rusf10 responded in the initial debate that they just have similar deletion philosophies (how does he know?) but, even if that's true, no two people just randomly agree with each other 50 out of 50 times, particularly when many of those deletion requests were close calls. Is it possible that the anonymous editor is, in fact, Rusf10 or John Pack Lambert and he tried to get another Delete in the mix and did so anonymously to avoid being accused of sock or meat puppetry or canvassing? Regardless, there is no denying that Alansohn's Keep is credible, while it is certainly questionable whether this article ever received a legitimate second delete necessary to support Rusf10's deletion request. User:Bernice McCullers 11:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've redacted the reference to the wedding officiant. As for the New Jersey coupling, User:rusf10 has announced that New Jersey has an "excessive" numbers of articles. This has been brought to the attention of WP:ANI, [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "anonymous editor" is @K.e.coffman:. He just forgot to sign it, but since you're so good at looking up editing history, you probably could have figured that out yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me. Sorry, I forgot to sign. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, it happens. And its not your fault that Bernice McCullers wants to throw all sorts of allegations at me. But I'm getting her (or him) taken care of now.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, I will be responding to your investigation shortly. User:Bernice McCullers 14:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel not need to defend myself here, you have made it blatantly obvious that you have a Conflict of Interest with this article and are resorting to dominating this discussion with personal attacks to try to get your way.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The non-primary sourcing in the article satisfies WP:BASIC. I added a bloomberg cite to the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Unscintillating’s comment that the non-primary sourcing satisfies Wikipedia’s standards. In fact, if you go to the user page of !dave, the editor who relisted the article for the second time, you are redirected to a page, [2], that suggests an approach for evaluating sources when determining notability. Using this criteria, the sourcing of the article is clearly sufficient to satisfy notability requirements. User:Bernice McCullers 11:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Bloomberg link -- the link added by editor Unscintillating is to material provided by S&P Market Intelligence service: link. It is not editorial content by Bloomberg and not an independent source suitable for establishing notability. This topic of Bloomberg Business News vs S&P Market Intelligence has been discussed multiple times on other AfDs. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright and branding is by Bloomberg LP, who depend on the reliability of their information as part of their business model. As per our article their 2008 value was $22.5 billion.
The creator of the data in the profile (author), S&P Global Market Intelligence, is a division of S&P Global, who had assets of $8.6 billion in 2016.
The predecessor investing.businessweek.com was vetted in two discussions both in the same archive of WP:RSN, [3]. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright & branding has nothing to do with it. This material is often user-submitted; there's no editorial oversight or fact-checking, as would be required of reliable secondary sources. I had a discussion like this elswhere; I'm surprised you still put forth such links. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 31 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. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INC Research[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tiny stub with poor sourcing, recreated. User:Kashmiri made some comments on talk about how this type of company receives little media attention, but as things stand, I don't see how this entry meets WP:GNG WP:NORG and how is it not against WP:YELLOWPAGES. They may be a big player in their mostly invisible pond, but that does not mean they are an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps a merger to Contract research organization where such organizations could be described in subsections would be a compromise? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accepting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I nevertheless need to draw a parallel between this company and other companies listed under Contract research organisation: here we have the same sector and comparable company size, revenue, trading status and media coverage as, say, IQVIA, PRA Health Sciences and PAREXEL, none of which has been AfD. The difference is, here we are dealing with a fairly new stub, by a single editor, which needs expansion and better sourcing. It is about a WP:LISTED corporation whose performance has attracted plenty of independent coverage as evidenced in a quick Google search. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 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 19:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any coverage found seems to be announcements or business transactions. In my opinion fails WP:CORPDEPTH Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding a few sources: coverage in Bloomberg [4], Wake County press [5] ("an internationally recognized contract research organization... which operates in 40 countries around the globe"), also [6], [7] (far from trivial), [8]. Additionally there is a plethora of investment and stock analyses. In my experience as an editor, the above are absolutely sufficient to establish notability of this currently listed corporation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:AUD. Bloomberg is a routine coverage of potential business transaction; Raleigh's Wake County press is local, and ciscrp.org is a republished press release. I don't see coverage here that would allow for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 20:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not a fairly new article, seven months have passed and it still contains but two sentences. Ifnord (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Livia De Paolis[edit]

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

Notability. Lack of. TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 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 19:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 20:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know who this person is, and frankly, I don't really care, but just for my own education I was curious. If we can confirm that she did indeed direct and star in a movie which happened to be nominated for a known film industry award, well, that sort of sounds enough to me. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 08:12, 30 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. There is no consensus to delete the article, and cogent arguments have been presented for keeping it. However, it has been noted that it is very much in need of clean-up, and also that there is probably a necessity for a change of title. All those things being equal, I feel it is unnecessary to keep this open any longer as their has been no further discussion for five days and the thing had been open eleven before that. What remains are content and style issues, and those, of course, are for the talk page and / or WP:RM. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting method[edit]

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

How is it different than Potential method except that the other article is more formal (“payment” = change of potential)? Cormen et al. states the difference as “associating the potential with the data structure as a whole rather than with specific objects within the data structure”^[1], yet what is being done in, for example, the proof for splay trees is representing the whole structure’s potential as sum of potentials for individual objects! Thus, i consider these both as names for the same proof method. ï¿½ (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest, Stein. Introduction to Algorithms. 3rd Edition. The MIT Press 2009. Page 459

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The textbooks treat this as a different and important method. We should follow them. As for "how is it different": the potential method always has the same potential value when the data structure is in the same state. For the accounting method, the amount saved may vary depending on the history of how you reached that state, as long as it is enough to cover the cost of each operation. This could plausibly be a speedy keep, as the nomination statement amounts to original research and an admission that the textbooks indeed state that they are different. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 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 19:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Amortized analysis. Wikipedia is not a textbook; and apart from the definition there's almost no content that is encyclopedic in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTTEXTBOOK has some value (in discouraging long worked examples and a too-discursive writing style, for instance), but its most frequent use appears to be as an excuse to keep out subjects of any technical depth from Wikipedia, leaving it to be the encyclopedia of celebrities, soccer players, and pokemons. This opinion appears to be a case in point. Google books finds many hits for this topic [9]; the fact that many of them are textbooks should be an argument for its notability, not against. If material is standardly covered in textbooks, we should cover it here as well, merely with a different focus. Which is all to say that I think NOTTEXTBOOK should only ever be used as a style guide, not as a notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently different from the things to which it is most closely related to stand alone as an article. Could perhaps be renamed to "Accounting method (computer science)". XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that the title is misleading and could use disambiguation. Accounting methods redirects to basis of accounting, which I think is a better choice of primary topic for this title. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 20:45, 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. J04n(talk page) 15:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flowering Foam[edit]

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

TheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline spam article on seemingly unremarkable product.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is remarkable product you can see google (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). The title Flowering Foam wrongly selected for this article and this product is more famous with Flower making Foam.Regards --Javad |Talk (21 Azar 1396) 16:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Add one line, "EVA is used for artificial flowers" to Ethylene-vinyl acetate#Applications. When the advertising and fluff beautiful flowers are removed from this article, there is nothing left. Rhadow (talk) 17:28, 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 19:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 20:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Sources listed in the article (i.e. Wikihow) are not suitable, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 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. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haruki Mizuno[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. "Her popularity was such that in February, 2007, Amazon still listed over 50 video items to her credit" is not a claim of significance. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent reliable source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Spotted Pig[edit]

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

Unremarkable restaurant. Speedy tag was declined. TM 20:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD, and was formerly a Michelin-starred restaurant. See source examples below; more are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

MICHELIN Guide New York City 2014: Restaurants
Via Michelin
The Guardian
Savoring Gotham
Newsweek
Bloomberg
The New York Times
Eater

Keep I agree with NA above, this restuarant has adequate references that meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the Michelin star makes it notabke, but remove all the advertising. The section of reviews, is adverting, which fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and such advertising is against WP Terms of Use. scope_creep (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Zydenbos[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of book reviews here and here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR; the reviews linked above are sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added eight reliably-published reviews of three books (including the two reviews linked above) to the article. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The additional sources found by David Eppstein make notability clear. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Verma[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF. Was nominated for speedy deletion which correctly failed, but was never put up for AfD. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that such a minor article with nothing coming close to passing the notability for academics has survived since 2004 and since 2011 with a notice of lacking good sourcing shows that we need to better patrol for articles not meeting notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability-tagged for 4 years and still only 1 mediocre source is conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:34, 30 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. A Train^talk 22:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Arbour[edit]

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

Non-notable academic who does not meet WP:PROF. References provided are entirely to her own articles or to articles in alumni magazines etc. Perhaps some day, but for now, WP:TOOSOON. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Arbour's work has been noted in secondary sources, such as:

The Atlantic: "Arbour has been studying ankylosaurs for a decade, and in one of her first studies, she showed that they could indeed destroy shins. By using medical scanners to create three-dimensional computer models of the tail clubs, and putting these through digital crash-tests, she showed that they are formidable weapons. The tails were sturdy enough to swing the clubs, and the largest knobs would have hit with enough force to break bone."
Smithsonian Magazine", etc.

This is indicative of notability, so it's a keep for me on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And my own work has been featured in New Scientist, and I've been interviewed for newspaper articles, etc. That's not evidence of my being any more notable than an average prof; an *average* academic will get some media coverage. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What category of notability do you claim is passed by two brief mentions in popular science magazines? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- The mentions of Arbour in those articles are just name dropping of the interviewee who is the source of information on the topic being reports. The articles contain zero commentary on Arbour. Thus, they are just "brief mentions". Arbours publications are worthy reliable sources, but that's it. Arbour has not become the topic of interest of any paragraph of any article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Off to a good start with citations but not there yet. WP:Too soon, wait a few years. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment -- As someone with a deep interest in dinosaur palaeontology, I definitely feel she *should* be considered important enough - she's a leading researcher in modern work on ankylosaurs - but I regretfully say I'm not at the moment sure she passes our textbook criteria. I'll have to look further into things before coming to a conclusion on that point. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A news search found sufficient examples of Arbour being quoted as an expert commentator that I'm satisfied WP:PROF#C7 is met. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with K.e.coffman. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edits since 26 Dec by XOR'easter and Queen-washington have improved the case for WP:GNG. The list of reliable secondary sources now includes BBC, Atlantic (x2), Reuters, CBS News, Smithsonian, Science News, and National Geographic. Additionally, her colleague Philip Currie credits her with involving the discipline in the local women in STEM initiative, and the University touts her MOOC that reaches 35,000 students. Even though her academic rank is still that of a post-doc, she is clearly a rising star. Even though she does not meet WP:PROF, she does meet WP:GNG, IMHO. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Subject is just a postdoc, not a proper academic anyway. None of the statements in the lede are claims of significance. The article is little more than a postdoc CV. All five mainspace incoming links are just gratuitous reference-author-naming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that she does not meet WP:PROF, as I noted in my !vote above. Please note, however, there are 10 reliable sources that refer to her variously as "armoured dinosaur expert" (BBC); "an akylosaur specialist with the Royal Ontario Museum" (Atlantic); "paleontologist Victoria Arbour of North Carolina State University and the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences" (Reuters); "study lead author Victoria Arbour" (CBS News); "Ankylosaur expert and North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences paleontologist" (Smithsonian); "paleobiologist at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto" (Science News); "armoured-dinosaur palaeontologist at the Royal Ontario Museum" (National Geographic).

Further, there are three pieces that are biographical: Dalhousie University's Alumni Spotlight, the Brian Alary feature piece published on the Folio website of the University of Alberta, and the profile by Ishani Nath in the Canadian "lifestyle" magazine, Flare. These combined sources add up to WP:GNG. — Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those who dug up the extra sources. Unfortunately they are non-in-depth self-generated publicity about the same topic. At best WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Having re-read WP:PROF I now agree with XOR'easter that WP:PROF#C7 has been met by multiple non-local sources:"Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." — Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you quote falls short of this mark. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Where does "a small number" cut off though? He just quoted ten. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An important question. On the basis of precedent , citations in GS might be around 1000. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Nice try, but a False equivalence.

Here are the unique considerations in WP:PROF#C7:

1. "That the subject is frequently quoted..."

The article now cites 13 reliable sources quoting Victoria Arbour

2. "...in conventional media..."

Conventional media quoted account for nine of the 13 sources (BBC, twice in the Atlantic, Science News, National Geographic, Reuters, Flare, CBS News, CBC News). The remaining 4 sources may not be considered "conventional media," but if you want to know who is an expert in ankylosaurs, the Smithsonian might be a good place to ask. (The Royal Ontario Museum, University of Alberta and Dalhousie University are also not conventional media sources.)

3. "...as an academic expert in a particular area"

References to her in those conventional media include "armoured dinosaur expert", "an akylosaur specialist", "paleontologist" "study lead author", "Ankylosaur expert", "paleobiologist ", "armoured-dinosaur palaeontologist".

AND the following conditions "fall short of the mark"

4. A small number of quotations

Nine is not a small number of conventional sources, and these conventional media represent high-quality, respected journalism, known for fact-checking. As I've pointed out above, your comparison with the "precedent" number of GS citations at 1000 is clearly not a valid comparison. If it were, the only subjects who might qualify would no doubt meet other PROF criteria, such as Nobel Prize winners--and the WP:PROF#C7 criterion would be redundant/useless.

5. especially in local news media

All nine conventional media sources are either national or international, not local.

Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentions of the same matter so WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The Ziapelta and tail-bone-fusion coverage is from 2015, and the Zuul coverage from 2017. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, her naming of the ankylosaur Zuul crurivastator is the subject of only 3 of the sources: one of the Atlantic sources, the CBC source, and the Science News piece. Zuul is also mentioned at the very end of the National Geographic source, but the subject is a new book on Borealopelta written by Caleb Brown, and Arbour is quoted as a reviewer of his draft book.

The topics of the remaining sources are related to multiple topics: her study of the ankylosaur's tail (CBS), and (Science News); her ankylosaur studies on the lack of "direct evidence of predator-prey combat" (Smithsonian); her opinion on the possibility evolution of "a ‘woolly’ tyrannosaurus or dromaeosaur relatives of Velociraptor "in a scenario suggested in a e BBC documentary; and whether an ankylosaur fossil with fish in its belly indicated it was an aquatic, carnivorous species (the second Atlantic source). Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- User:Grand'mere Eugene, the article has been WP:Reference bombed making it very hard to find possible quality sources among the many sources that are just mentions. Same with your reply to me, it is hard work to find the source you are referring to, and the result is disappointing every time. The number of them doesn't outweigh their collective problem that they are mere mentions of the postdoc, and promotion. Mere mentions, because the postdoc is not the subject, she is just there showcasing the dinosaurs, and the biographies are non-independent promotion of the organisation's people. These sources, the popular articles, are what happens with the organisations PR people get hold of someone with an entertaining story, are female, and fit the organised promotion of science. The lede makes no notability claims. Early life and Education neither (not that a claim is to be expected there). In career, the content of what she's studied, published, and helped name is nowhere near a GNG claim of significant coverage. A claim is made the last paragraph, but it is non-independent promotion that must be excluded. An affiliated writer has written a promotional story (promotional of the science, associated with Arbour), and the strong statement of significance in the last sentence is from her Doctoral Advisory. It is all promotion, non-independent, and a great many mentions without any depth of coverage of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur that there were some redundant citations, and I have removed most of the primary references to her publications. I know when I am writing a bio, I try to avoid using primary sources, but I don't believe there has been intentional "reference bombing" in this piece. At any rate, the net effect on the reader is the same, whether or not the addition of more than one source, especially a primary source, is intentional or just an attempt to be thorough in providing the sources of information. So thanks for that criticism. I would just add that extended biographic coverage required for GNG is not required for WP:PROF#C7, just multiple references showing she is considered an expert in conventional media. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete passing references are not enough to show notability. People who are low level operatives in large research teams, as postdoc fellows are, are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being "low level operatives in large research teams" is hardly true of all postdocs. (Not everybody is LIGO or CERN, after all.) In the group where Arbour works, she is the only postdoc; there are seven PhD students and one faculty member. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the Zuul, Zaarapelta, Crichtonpelta, Ziapelta and Dyoplosaurus papers, she is the corresponding author. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this BLP is deleted I would not like it to be thought that any detriment attaches to its subject. I see her as the victim of exploitation by an over-zealous PR department of her institution. She is not the first, nor will be the last, to learn that fame can be a two-edged sword. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- There is no victim. Victoria Arbour is doing a great job, science, communication. Wikipedia doesn’t decide based on merit, but on whether independent others have written about her. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What she is doing is excellent. The problem is over-egging of minor activities by others. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm. If you type "arbour, V.M." inot WP's search engine, you will find 46 WP articles referring to her work. Over-egging by all those editors, too? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double counting. Those are just citations to her papers, already covered by GS, which have been argued above to be (to date) insufficient to pass WP:Prof. Also, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The GS citation count may not be sufficient, but I will agree to disagree with you on not meeting WP:PROF, because she does satisfy WP:PROF#C7. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Depot[edit]

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

This article on a museum alleged to exist in Tamil Nadu, and supposedly founded this year, fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can’t find any evidence that this exists (though there is an arts and handcraft place called Heritage Depot in Chennai). Might be a hoax. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment www.heritagedepot.in/.

Dakshina Bhoomi Heritage Depot, No. 38 Annai Illam,

Meenakshi Amman Street, Janaki Raman Colony, Nerkundram

Chennai

Tamil Nādu

India

I only saw one store, with a bookstore where this history group met. Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Indelicates[edit]

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

Non-notable? Nothing on notable labels and all sources seem to come from the band's own site and press releases Guardiancats (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources indeed from band's own site, can't find any notable mentions outside the band's own blogs and record label. JetBlind (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:46, 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. Sandstein 13:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persistor.NET[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, outdated, only 1'000 downloads. D-Woźniak (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Worth noting that this article and AfD are not about the current persistor.net website (a blog about games) but about a previous .NET software framework of that name. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While noting the different opinion in the 2006 AfD, I don't see a "Best Visual Studio 2005 PowerToy utilizing SQL Server Express" award as demonstrating inherent notability. Subsequent to that AfD, I can also see mention in a 2007 Salzburg business award (p2) but again that does not seem to carry encyclopaedic notability. These aside, there seem to be only a few sporadic online forum mentions around a decade ago. I don't see the sources required for WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 18:44, 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. Sandstein 13:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parameshwar Gundkal[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. No related coverage on google. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 18:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has absolutely no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 29 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 Scottsdale, Arizona#Golf. Result seems clear, especially given PMC's comment at 22:47 on the 19th. A Train^talk 22:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale National Golf Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:N in two ways. First, the topic lacks widespread coverage - there are a couple of news articles from Arizona from 2013, right when the course was purchased by Parsons, but nothing from outside the area. Since the purchase, there has been no apparent in-depth coverage of the course, even in golf-oriented publications like Golf Digest or ScoreGolf, meaning that this fails the portion of WP:N that looks for coverage over a period of time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Scottsdale, Arizona#Golf, where it is a logical mention and a plausible redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with new sources, I don't see sufficient in-depth coverage to make this golf course noteable. No need to merge/redirect - the Scottsdale article itself says there are over 200 golf courses in Scottsdale - we would certainly not mention in that article and create redirects for all 200 just because they exist. MB 14:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Scottsdale, Arizona#Golf, per The Bushranger. Although there are over 200 golf courses, it is doubtful that many are referenced in national media. Several other golf courses are singled out in that section, this one can also be treated that way. bd2412 T 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about merge&redirect to Bob Parsons, since pretty much all the coverage I've seen has been in the context of him buying and refitting the course? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see a geographic location merged to the larger geographic location of which it is part. Personal ownership can change much more easily than location. bd2412 T 18:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah fair enough it was just a thought. For the record I'm on board with an M&R. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this mentioned in any significant way in national media? Per the list below by PMC it's mostly local coverage and what is truly national is mostly trivial. NYT is a tangential mention. Golf.com is trivial. I don't see anything else under "national media", so I stand by delete with no redirect. MB 03:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It opened more holes than any other course in the United States in 2016. The member model is notable in the world of golf. It's the homebase of Parsons Xtreme Golf, which is a significant new player in the industry. The course is extensively covered in national, business, culinary, golf, industry, and general media. Very much seems like a case of WP:BEFORE as there are substantial assertions of notability easily accessed and Google is a minefield of reliable sources asserting notability. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact see those references in my BEFORE check. They are unhelpful in establishing notability per WP:N, for the following reasons:

Forbes: actually a Contributor post, which means it's equivalent to a blog and meaningless in terms of notability.
Phoenix Business Journal: reliable, but as I noted in my nom, local coverage is not enough to clear the WP:N hurdle.
Second Forbes article: another Contributor article (same author, in fact); even if it weren't, notability is not inherited from a business to the location of its headquarters.
NY Times: A scant paragraph mentioning that two athletes like to relax there does not in-depth coverage make.
Phoenix Business Journal: local coverage again.
AZ Central: local coverage of a chef getting a new job. Even if it wasn't local, the golf course gets mentioned halfway down the page in a single sentence, basically the definition of a trivial mention.
Golf.com: this is an in-depth profile of Parsons and PXG. The gold course is mentioned once, at the beginning of the article, as the temporary location of Mr. Parsons's desk for the purpose of the photoshoot. No other detail about the course is provided in the article.
Arizona Builder's Exchange: local coverage.
AZ Central again: local coverage, again.

Long story short, none of this is enough to clear WP:N which looks for sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes contributor is Erik Matuszewski; the format of the article doesn't really matter.

Some local coverage may not be sufficient but this is substantial local coverage from reliable sources and the "local" in this context is the media, sporting, and business community of the 5th largest city and 12th largest metroplex in the United States. The BizJournal is a national media entity who publishes content by region. Same with AZ Central vis-a-vis USA Today. It's not exactly a PDF of the weekly county paper mentioning a new coffee stand opening next to Bob's Diner. Media mentions do not have to be from national entities to establish notability and what I've linked was just cursory results. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of mentions of the facility from reliable sources who make assertions that it is notable for some reason or another. Just another quick look shows NBC's Golf Channel discussing the new member format. The sources are there, someone just needs to put in the work. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional coverage in reliable sources asserting notability [10][11][12][13], GolfDigest ranking the course in the top ten in the State[14] and Golfweek rating it in the top ten new courses in the United States for 2005[15]. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scottsdale, Arizona#Golf as a functional WP:ATD-M. The suggested merge target presently lacks a mention of this golf club. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus here that the subject is notable, even if the existing article has many problems and needs extensive editing, possibly a complete rewrite, to bring into conformance with our standards. In lieu of this work happening expeditiously, if somebody wants to stubify this for now, that would be OK. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan S. Tobin[edit]

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

Article is hopelessly promotional and very likely autobiographical. I came very close to nominating for CSD per G11. All of the listed awards lack citations and most are not notable. The notability of the subject is not clear, though it is possible he may pass GNG. Many of the sources do no more than establish that he is an author and columnist. But even if he does pass GNG the article is far too promotional and would need a complete rewrite to be kept. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepdent sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is no question in my mind whether Tobin is notable (he is), but the present article is so awful that it may be irredeemable. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article and available in the media establish his claim of notability. I agree in many ways with the nominator that the article needs rework and restructuring, but AfD is not cleanup. Alansohn (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is more than a cleanup. The article is almost purely promotional and as I noted in my nominating statement, would require something close to a complete rewrite to be kept. We don't keep advertisements masquerading as encyclopedic articles. See WP:NOTADVERT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Subject is clearly notable per WP:JOURNALIST and just plain old WP:GNG. Recent apparant COI editing diff by Jstobinpa on 26.12.2017 could be rolled back or the article could be stubbed down to his notable positions (JNS, Commentary, The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia, Connecticut Jewish Ledger. Maybe also mention he is a contributing writer elsewhere) and notable books.Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good sources which address the subject. I understand sometimes AfD may be an outlet for deletion per WP:TNT but I don't see this here. I will take a stab at pruning it. Ifnord (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup and strong sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 22:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flint toolkit[edit]

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

Promotional article of non notable software. No coverage from secondary sources Ammarpad (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy notability requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Peterson (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The coverage is only routine coverage and interviews. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete getting on the 100 most influential people in Orange County for a given year is absolutely not a sign of notability, but the closest to notability he comes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, article created by someone at his company, then other paid edits, being one of 100 most influential people in Orange County in no way confers any notability whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CEO of a major corporation. First cannabis company to be listed on Wall Street and major player in the cannabis trade Wikilover2604 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and you have been paid by Derek Peterson to write it! Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been paid. I disclosed the edit complying with the disclosure policy and put it in the draft space first. Did I miss out on something? He has got features on cnn, telegraph etc. Is that coverage not sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilover2604 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Article was started by User:Terratechcorp and was edited by paid editor Wikilover2604. It's not he kind of love Wikipedia needs. Sam Sailor 01:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quickfingers (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no depth of coverage and Wikipedia is not for promotion. Bishonen | talk 01:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goli Rezai Rashti[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF. References for the article are entirely from press releases and her CV at the university. Her name gets 106 Google hits. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally and completely fails the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To add, no RS is a dealbreaker. Agricola44 (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hunt (professor)[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Fails WP:PROF. The article is largely a list of courses that he has taught in the past and appears to have been created as a vanity article. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His Chancellor's Professor title (policy on this title) gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C5, and I suspect that one can find sufficient reviews of his books to also pass WP:AUTHOR. AfD is not for cleanup, and calling this a "vanity article" is both a personal attack and a violation of WP:BLP, but I removed the list of courses as I agree they are non-encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. I also think he has a case based on his citation record. He doesn't seem to have a GS profile, but a GS search turns up numerous triple-digit-cited entries related to sociology and law. EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes at least WP:PROF#C5. Also, I turned up reviews of his books: [16][17][18][19][20] (I'm guessing there are more, but I stopped looking). XOR'easter (talk)

I've added those reviews and two more to the article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I might be convinced to change my vote if people actually add additional sources to the article. Wikipedia articles should show that the subject is supported by multiple sources. It is time Wikipedia was open and transparent about sourcing, and if editors are not willing to do this, we need to delete the articles involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF and likely WP:AUTHOR, with multiple books publised by academic publishers. This is not routine output. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. The books are meaningless, but having a chaired professorship means that he should stay. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lesage[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. This is a vanity article created and edited almost exclusively by the subject of the article himself User:Lesagem. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with JPL. WorldCat shows none of his books break triple digit holdings (sort a low bar). Seems to be an autobio, also an orphan, and is almost all OR. Not a controversial case. Agricola44 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hester (professor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. The Wiki article is basically just serving as a redirect to his faculty page at his home university. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS, ORPHAN, etc, etc. Obvious delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of passing any of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Eglin[edit]

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

Stub article lacking references (and edit history suggests it was merely copied verbatim from his university website when it still existed). No indication that he meets WP:PROF. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS, ORPHAN, etc, etc. Obvious delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not in any way even close to meeting notability guidelines for academics. That this article has survived 8 years indicates we need to work to have more people participate in monitoring aritcles on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 30 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayan Panja[edit]

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

I nominate the article for deletion, because the person does not have sufficient notability. Although he is medical doctor with published books and broadcasting exposure, in the bigger scheme of things, I don't believe this establishes sufficient notability. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a mirror of all medical practitioners who contribute to the mass media. Seaweed (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of the notability guidelines for academics. This medical doctor does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Conway[edit]

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

No indication that this individual passes WP:PROF. The only notability asserted is that he has held posts on various school boards and once ran for the leadership of a political party but received only 44 votes. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering that one apparence in a pro football game, even for a few minutes makes one notable, I would like to say keep. However he does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, because three books alone is not enough for that. He also does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians, in fact he is laughably unnotable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article gives him an automatic pass of any subject-specific inclusion standard, and the sourcing isn't getting him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I replaced the catalog entry sourcing his books with four published academic book reviews. But with two of his books only garnering one review each, it seems a little slight for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Carty (sociologist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. The references for this BLP are a joke and are mostly broken primary references written by the author or her university. The only evidence of notability provided is that she once wrote an article for 'Ms.' magazine, and that she was thanked in the acknowledgements of a book one time. Note that Google search is not a credible way to establish notability for this individual because she unfortunately shares a name with a convicted murderer who dominates in search results. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that references are not good and don't seem to link properly. Non-notable academic for Wikipedia. Seaweed (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has reviews of her work and one journal calls her a pioneer in her field. I added information to the article and expanded it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference added has been misconstrued in order to assert notability, and I have removed it from the article since it is obviously inappropriate. Here is the exact quote from the article: By the early 1990s, critiques centred on the absence of Black women from the published historical record produced dionne brand’s collection, No Burden to Carry (1991), and ‘‘We’re Rooted Here and They Can’t Pull Us Up’’ (1994) by Peggy Bristow, dionne brand, Linda Carty, Afua P. Cooper, Sylvia Hamilton, and Adrienne Shadd." These pioneering collections of articles were complemented by Constance Backhouse’s Colour Coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900–1950 (1999). This is the only mention of Carty in the entire article. It does not call her a "pioneer" and it does not establish notability of Carty... If anything, it establishes notability of the book We're Rooted Here, but even that is a major stretch. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to add the same disputation of Megalibrarygirl's !vote but clashed with your edit. I've copied it below.
  - You may wish to rephrase that claim, because it seems to mischaracterize Carty's standing. The journal article in CHR does not call her a pioneer in the sense that you imply. Rather, her name appears in a long list of authors and it is actually several collections of works that are called "pioneering", i.e. "...produced...We're Rooted Here and They Can't Pull Us Up (1994) by Peggy Bristow, dionne brand, Linda Carty, ... These pioneering collections of articles..." (boldface mine). Carty wrote 1 chapter in 1 of these collections and Carty's name (this is the only reference to it in this entire 19-page article) appears basically in the context of a literature review.
Delete. MA thesis is the only book listed in WorldCat. GS doesn't shows that pubs are cited much. (What Megalibrarygirl added is basically 1 citation.) Many of the sources are web. I've had more than a casual look, but cannot find anything that indicates this person is anything other than an average professor. Agricola44 (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total and complete failure to meet the notability guidelines for academics. When someone is said to have been ""born in the Caribbean and then come to Canada" we certainly lack good biographical information, generally a sign the person is not notable. What next, will we get an article on a living professor in Canada who is said to have been "born in Africa and then come to Canada". I cringe at such inprecesion. The man born somewhere south of 14-mile and then moved north of that major dividing line in Macomb County, Michigan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h-index of only 7 in a hot subject is inadequate for WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maher El-Domiaty[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this unreferenced BLP to satisfy GNG. The page states that he is president of Zagazig University but their website lists him as a faculty member. His career achievements do not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not have any sources. While heads of major academic institutions do pass one of the academic notability criteria, it is hard to see a university with a one line article that only says it exists as fitting the "major academic institution" criteria. Beyond that, his being president seems unverified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Signal[edit]

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

Non-notable agency. References are mainly single line entries. Not enough in-depth coverage. reddogsix (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotionalism only for a nn marketing agency; sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. The awards listed are not significant and well known. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete spam, fails WP:SPIP, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Directi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directi

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

Promo-PR-spam.Non-notable entity. Winged Blades^Godric 14:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo 'cruft on a mid-sized company just going about its business. Includes puffery such as "has more than 50,000 channel partners, which is growing at a rate of 120% per annum!" Etc. 1st ICANN registrar is an insufficient claim of significance. Very close to being G11 worthy. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and K.e.coffman above. Fails WP:SPIP and GNG. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Neal[edit]

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

The original version of the article is full of promotionalism, is almost certainly a COI creation, but had what appears to be credible claims to some level of notability. So I engaged in some heavy copyediting, and once that happened (+BEFORE), there's not enough left that actually stands up both as reliably sourced and proof of notability (WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER). Instead what's revealed has been claims that don't stand up based on the sources provided (eg: SDCC hosting), or information that is self-sourced from interviews, which explicitly indicate someone who's not yet made it at the time of the article, but who hopes to, and who aims to get promotional coverage (ie: sources do not provide sufficient evidence of General Notability regardless of their quantity and reliability). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the fact that the references are mostly in pdf and hosted on an external site is a bit concerning. Also, how is it possible that he is not notable. At the very least the pdfs are a copyright violation. There are 23 references listed.104.163.153.162 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyvio question were the only issue that'd be simple enough -- just remove the URLs since WP:V would have been satisfied. Per nom, I know there's an unusually high quantity of refs to claim that notability isn't satisfied, but there's not much there that isn't passing mention/appearance, self-promotional regional newspaper interviews, and/or indications that he wanted to reach a level of success that hadn't yet been attained. For instance if we take the stories from 1994 San Diego Union-Tribune and 1997 Daily Times-Advocate as reliable, both indicate that he has yet to make it as of those stories, so any earlier stories are even less likely to demonstrate he's met the notability bar -- and there's nothing there that suggests a decline from a peak, either. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the older references do in fact establish notability. Diannaa swung by and rev-deled the pdf links. It;s now easier to see that notability is met.104.163.153.162 (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quantity of sources does not pass the general notability guidelines, if none of them reach the level of the GNG. That is what happens here. Interviews in local paper that are part of the promotionalism of the boosterist tourist industry are not what is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about the LA Times?104.163.153.162 (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's another reliable source which actually shows non-notability at the time: "He met Cassandra Peterson, who does Elvira, Mistress of the Dark on Los Angeles television and other gigs. He figured to become the male equivalent. Now he's trying to break into show business as the crypt-kicker Armando Creeper". ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: What appears to be a previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brother Andy. Possibly a sufficiently different article from this one. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 14:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that this article does not meet GNG. Seaweed (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:26, 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. J04n(talk page) 13:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Singal[edit]

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

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

This was prodded by User:SamHolt6 and later by User:BigHaz, the first time it was decline by User:Ethanbas because 'seems like he's written many articles for several notable media organizations'. A merger is proposed, but there is nothing to merge. The subject seems to fail WP:NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on New York (magazine) - this article is a single-sentence ten-word article, and the only reference given is to the subject's own website. Vorbee (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. It just makes it harder new & inexperienced users to start pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my earlier Prod (apologies it was placed there in semi-error - Twinkle used to notice, I'm sure of it). If there's nothing to merge, there's no reason to merge it, and there's no way that's a standalone article about a standalone subject. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we keep it or not, it is likely to exist again soon. Not because of COI, but simply because Singal is a hot journalist with a major book coming out from Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Several of his articles in recent years have caused a significant stir, and there was attention paid when he was harassed on twitter and closed his account. Probably gets more writing done that way. Somebody could probably source this now, but, if not, somebody will do so after that book comes out. And there should be no prejudice against the new article merely because someone started a one sentence stub that got deleted. Me, I think writers who have the self-restraint NOT to come here and start a page on themselves should get extra credit. Maybe a tag that would put a blue ribbon for good behavior at the top of any page about a contemporary writer page with no COI.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the potentially-recreated article meets GNG, and certainly I suspect it would do based on what you're saying here, there's unlikely to be any such prejudice, I would have thought. Certainly there wouldn't be from me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "hot journalist" and "major book"? It would be nice to have words that clearly mean something rather than a string of superlatives as a justification. Going by alexa, there's plenty of NYT and other authors who get more hits. Going by NYmag contributing writer importance, there are far more established senior writer and editors in more prestigious papers. Will we give every buzzfeed contributor a bio here to? You could also argue they're hot journalists and I bet several also have books. You seem to talk about prizes and "blue ribbons" and know a lot about his personal life, I'd say you should step back and not let your personal friendships color what's done here.Freepsbane (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete We cannot have an article just based on a self-written employer bio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
note that Steven Lubet discusses Singal's investigative reporting on sourcing used in Alice Goffman's controversial 2014 book On the Run in his (Lubet's) new book Interrogating Ethnography: Why Evidence Matters. In a major article about On the Run, Singal fact checks Goffman's sources, praising her book, with reservations about some failures of verification. I wonder if it would be just as well to keep this and revisit. (does anyone else here feel dissed that neither Singal or his publicist have dropped by to add a few sources, as most authors and publicists seem to do?) I'll try to make time after the holidays to give Lubet a careful read and expand this article with that material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY I did a small expand, source. It satisfies User:Johnpacklambert's objection.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Nearly all the references are from a website the subject has. Being mentioned in one or two papers written by friends hardly meets notability criteria. There are hundreds of thousands of other not very notable contributing writers out there with a few shout outs from other news article. I don't see why Mr.Singal would stand out above them. There are far more important science writers like tenured professors with dozens of high impact papers and many citations and they aren't covered here due to being insufficiently notable. Same for more influential, higher ranking science writers in more notable papers like the NYT. This seems like gift article, written by friends. That isn't how we should do things here, unless we want to make this a case of favoritism, we'd have to let every other contributing writer with one or two shout outs get a page if their friends gift them one. Freepsbane (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an observation, it seems the article is full of weasel words like "innovative", "novel" and "nuanced" about his writing. I see more praise heaped on him in this article than scientists who are in the short list for the nobel prize thanks to their genuinely novel work, like Jeffrey I. Gordon. Truly strange and fancruftie that we'd devote nearly as much article space and twice the praise on a rather minor author. It's common for friends to try and "gift" Wikipedia articles, this seems to be the case. Certainly a bad justification.Freepsbane (talk) 14:51, 23 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 // 02:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 14:19, 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. J04n(talk page) 13:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Griffiths[edit]

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

Does not meet the standards at WP:GNG. Recent PROD was removed via IP edit, I do not point any fingers, but this article should be deleted as per policy. Elektricity (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that article does not meet GNG policy. I can't see why his biography points to a notably article for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of everyone's CV in the world. Seaweed (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. C.V. Notability not established with the refs given. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a "principal advisor" to notable people does not make one notable. What is needed is indepth 3rd-party secondary reliable source coverage, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources are non-independent (the Dentons profile), mention him only trivially (quoting him as a spokesman), or are deadlinks. No pass of WP:GNG, or any other notability criterion, is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Nibbles[edit]

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

This series is nostalgic for me, yes. And a cute idea ('nibbles', 'bites', and 'chomps' based on reading comprehension level). However the fact is that it's not notable. Plus it's a spin-off of another series (Aussie Bites) that doesn't even have it's own article due to I suspect similar issues. "05:15, 11 January 2014 Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) deleted page Aussie Bites (Expired PROD, concern was: Topic is not notable)". Fails WP:GNG. Delete.

Also nominated:

Pop! (Aussie Bites) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Snap! (Aussie Bites) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Place for Grubbs! (Aussie Bites) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aussie Chomps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blind Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stella by the Sea (Aussie Chomps) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

– Coin945 (talk) 10:50, 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} 11:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it seems strange to have a series of novels in Wikipedia when the series is a spin-off from another series which does not have an article in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 17:44, 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 16:52, 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 // 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aussie Bites was PRODded back in 2014 for lack of notability. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No AfD notification templates were placed on the additional articles nominated, and their creators were not notified. This discussion therefore needs to be kept open for at least another week to give editors with an interest in those pages the chance to participate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:43, 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. Sandstein 10:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Kovach[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, unsuccessful candidates are generally not notable. Rusf10 (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although not thoroughly agreeing to the fact that unsuccessful candidates are not notable, I see no reason not to delete this article. It fails WP:POLITICIAN as no major contributions or merits were noted. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The general outcome for unsuccessful candidates is deletion as described here: WP:POLOUTCOMES--Rusf10 (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsuccessful candidates to the US House of Representatives are virtually always not notable. Unsuccessful candidates for the United States Senate may at times be notable, but are by no means default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither smalltown mayors nor unsuccessful congressional candidates get an automatic NPOL pass, but nothing here demonstrates that she has preexisting notability for other reasons or that her political roles were somehow more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clinton, New Jersey. WP:N is a guideline. WP:ATD-R is a policy. Edit history should be preserved. Unscintillating (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind of a Genius[edit]

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

Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet. No substantial edits by others. Textbook G5 speedy deletion but declined. Keeping this spam empowers paid promotion and encouraged the misuse of sockpuppets and erodes Wikipedia's falling credibility. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Didn't know our credibility was falling. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional 'cruft created by a banned sockp Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MassiveYR. If it weren't for the declined speedy, I would have speedied it as A7 / G11. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 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. Sandstein 10:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Walters[edit]

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

Not meeting minimum requirements of notability as per WP:NCRICKET. Hitro talk 11:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article as the above cricketer played in the inaugural edition of the 1979 ICC Trophy and he has played List A cricket matches. If you think to delete this article, I agree with it. Abishe (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- After analysing the sources, I assume that the player did not appear in any ICC Trophy Finals before 2005. Neither played at the highest international or domestic level. If you can provide with sources that Keith Walters appeared in any official List A match then I will withdraw my nomination gladly. Hitro talk 12:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . This cricketer has played in 2 List A cricket matches as a part of the 1979 ICC Trophy and I only managed to find Cricinfo and CricketArchive website information. See this Abishe (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Before nominating the article, I did check this link. 1979 ICC Trophy matches were not considered as List A matches. However, I guess input from other users who are associated with WikiProject Cricket will clarify this situation. Hitro talk 12:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 13:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 13:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 13:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails the minimum sourcing requirements of WP:GNG and WP:V. Also, since it's very doubtful whether the games count as List A, the article can't even be shown to meet the overly inclusive and strongly disputed standards of WP:NCRICKET. Reyk _YO! 13:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not even meet the notability guidelines for cricket players, which as they are currently written are a far too low threshold for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSPORTS, the relevant subject-specific notability guideline. No evidence subject meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briana Roy (actress)[edit]

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

Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet. No substantial edits by others. Textbook G5 speedy deletion but declined. Keeping this spam empowers paid promotion and encouraged the misuse of sockpuppets and erodes Wikipedias falling credibility. Non notable individual. Lacks multiple significant parts in notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Too soon" per Wilipedia standards. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actress. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the sockpuppet origins of this article. But then I thought that the subject and information was potentially notable. However one small role in one file is probably not notable. See I agree with delete. Seaweed (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the coverage is routine promotional stuff, there is no significant coverage by reliable sources, so it fails gng.Jacona (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is 12. As I have said many times, we need to have higher standards for notability and to protect privacy for minors than for adults. She falls far below the threshold of multiple significant roles in notable productions, so a deletion of the article is in order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NACTOR, and I don't see enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We can’t reward sock puppets. Billhpike (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SOCK stuff as aswell as per TOOSOON, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:59, 30 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 deleted by User:RHaworth per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir C V Raman Institute of Technology and Sciences[edit]

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

Non notable, promotional material — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination may be making a mountain out of a molehill. We do not need a seven-day process for a disruptive move of a draft by a probable block evader - see my comments here. Any admin could just delete the thing and restore the draft as it was prior to the move. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NB: this will be a sock of Pv.abhinav - see User talk:Motospiff. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:-I would like to say that I am not a sock of any person. From the next time please provide evidence while making such allegations — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have initiated this AFD because the last time I put a SD notice on such a page asking for an administrator to delete it my SD was declined on grounds that there was no such deletion criteria — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were a sock, Force Radical. It is the article creator and mover who is socking. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to satisfy corporate notability. . Where's the sockpuppet investigation? Until then, we do need this AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:57, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth (webcomic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Webcomic is not notable, as it has not been covered by reliable sources. Therefore, it does not meet the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia and it would be impossible to write verifiable prose about the work. The only source I have been able to find is a paragraph in this Outhousers article, but you can't write an article based of a portion of a single source. I am not sure why the previous AfD for this article resulted in a "no consensus" verdict, as no sources were brought forth in the discussion. ~Mable (chat) 10:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. The no consensus was from 2006, which was a different time with very different standards. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ~Mable (chat) 10:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 10:19, 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. Sandstein 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Benedetto[edit]

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

Non notable and promotional, based almost entirely on press releases DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete' lacks sufficient coverage in RS to meet notability requirements. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 10:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. What exists is passing coverage related to cases, not coverage about the article topic himself. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even getting close to showing notability. Run-of-the mill lawyer, and the article has lots of POV pushing issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Technology Enterprises[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable business; significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to routine corporate news, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources, such as [21] (forbes.com/sites/) which is a user-submitted area. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for all reasons given by nominator. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 10:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with OP - references fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:04, 27 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. Closing this one day earlier than usual, as the creator of this article has been blocked by CheckUser. There is consensus for deletion, while redirecting to OMICS Group, and protecting the Srinubabu Gedela page. Alex Shih (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Srinubabu Gedela[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable as academic. Might be notable as a businessman since he founded a publishing group, but this notability is not demonstrated in the article, and is questionable (even the notability of the group is questionable). Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has notable international business sources like Bloomberg L.P, The Economic Times, The Hindu etc to keep. Just realised the article was created in 2012 with limited sources. I hope now the article has sufficient international sources and notability. I am adding few more. Genome$100 (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Genome$100 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Genome$100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, then redirect to OMICS Group and protect. The sources are either about OMICS, or are namechecks, or are churnalism. There's no substantive coverage of the subject himself. The creator (user:Genome$100) is a highly suspicious account, especially given the long history fo spamming of this article by OMICs employees, who are ,of course, sitebanned en masse now. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect, and protect per Guy. His only notability is through founding a predatory open access publisher, so it's unacceptable to have an article in the present form that talks only positively about him and his business without mentioning (or only barely mentioning) their predatory nature. But the sources saying that are all about the business, not about him personally, so they would be problematic in a WP:BLP. Also, he fails WP:BIO1E as his only notability is through Omics. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gedela is the CEO for Pulsus and OMICS. OMICS Group article is about controversial publishing. Moreover, there is nothing about Gedela at OMICS article, why he was started Omics? Who gave initial support? What are the problems he faced when he is doing his Ph.D at Andhra University?. How Stanford University helped for his growth etc. Gedela global entrepreneurial activity in providing jobs to 2000+ employees and interest on startups promoted to create his article. To make the article neutral i kept predatory, trade commission etc. However, all these were extensively covered at Omics article. I am adding more sources to convenience. Genome$100 (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentin addition to above, Acceptable citation counts on Google Scholar [22] (h-index 12, passing WP:NACADEMIC Genome$100 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  I do not see how H-index 12 (especially counted according to Google Scholar rather than ISI) makes him passing WP:NACADEMIC. There is no way he is notable as academic. The only capacity he can be notable in as a con artist.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  I have taken the example of Prof. David Eppstein comment On David R. Liu article AfD @[23] based on the Google Scholar and result was keep. However, in Gedela article Google Scholar is one of the measure along with struggles/intentions to start open access journals. Genome$100 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - His Google scholar citation profile [24] shows max citation count of 56 and going down from there, far below Liu and not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, even ignoring the fact that his work in predatory publishing calls into question the legitimacy of his citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ David Eppstein, I hope you are checking the wrong profile. His total citations are 364, h-index-12, i10-index-15 PS[25]. 56 citations are only from one article published in Talanta [26], all the publications are from reputed journals like Journal of Chromatography B [27], Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin [28][29], Chromatographia [30] and book series like Methods in Molecular Biology [31] etc. Genome$100 (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those are the numbers I saw. They are unimpressive. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    
    In number of debates few editors taken the consideration of h-index 10 or above. If Gedela profile is not qualified, there are thousands of wiki profiles are to be removed (OR) disqualified to keep at wikipedia like academics Praveen Kumar Gorakavi, Suresh Venapally, G. Nammalvar, M.L. Kulkarni and business like Phaneesh Murthy, V. G. Siddhartha. I am adding a few more sources to Gedela article on awards, philanthropic activity etc. Genome$100 (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to nominate the articles about these individuals for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Though they seem to be notable, in contrast to Gedela.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect, and protect per Guy. We are not here to be vehicle for predatory publishers and indeed we need to be wary to keep them out/contained. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Predatory is not a question here, as the predatory blog author closed his blog without any notice. Gedela profile is qulified to keep or not is the discussion FYI: "Predatory Beall's List", a report that was regularly updated by Jeffrey Beall of the University of Colorado until January 2017, set forth criteria for categorizing publications as predatory.[32] The list was taken offline by the author in January 2017.[33] A demand by Frontiers Media to open a misconduct case against Jeffrey Beall was reported as the reason Beall closed the list. An investigation by the university was closed with no findings.[34],[35] Genome$100 (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Guy. I don't actually note any policy that says he doesn't deserve an article (BLP1E mentions events, but being CEO of a company isn't an event). However I don't see how to structure an article on Gedela. He's not notable for anything other than managing OMICS, and all coverage of OMICS focuses on predatory OA publishing. What would one put in an article on Gedela? One can find sources about his education and postdoc etc, but it'd be hard to not violate WP:UNDUE. There's no chance his academic accomplishments are noteworthy either. Yes according to Google Scholar he has 364 total citations and a h-index of 12, but those numbers are quite typical of a postdoc. Any article on him would focus more on OMICS than on him, at which point we might as well redirect to OMICS. Banedon (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ David Eppstein,Banedon As per Bloomberg L.P team investigation (they went to India to investigate as per the article) [[36]] Gedela is from below middle class agriculture family and managing 2000+ manpower company. Gedela used to travel 400 miles to access the literature. The traveling bus does not have bathroom, air conditioner etc and charge is 4$. I am not able to convenience properly. Omics wiki article is an attack article and no where mentioned about Gedela, why he was started Omics? Who gave initial support? What are the problems he faced when he is doing his Ph.D at Andhra University?. How Stanford University helped for his growth etc.[37] This information is essential to the academic and scientific community. Gedela was raised in his village in a mud-walled shack by agriculture family. Like him scholars from developing countries facing difficulty in accessing literature, I am adding few more sources about his awards, philanthropic activities and positions. This type of wiki bio article gives inspiration to the budding entrepreneurs and scholars from developing/under developing countries. Genome$100 (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional game[edit]

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

Yes, it may have survived an AFD 11 years go, but I'm still convinced this term is a WP:HOAX. It claims the term "Traditional game" is used to mean a "Video game adaption of traditional media". I'm not buying it. Coin945 (talk) 09:05, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't think this qualifies as a hoax. The article describes something that actually exists. However, we can't just make up our own terms, similar to Frontier Strip AFD. I can't find any evidence that "Traditional game" is a widespread term.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google pops up a large number of pages, none of which are related to video games, for which it would make a valid WP:Red link (the topic of games in tradition doesn't seem obviously to be covered in tradition, but maybe it is and Ctrl+F just doesn't hit the exact term of "game"). At best this is WP:NEO territory for the topic the current article espouses. --Izno (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from any other consideration, surely we shouldn't have an article about computer games under the title "traditional game"? In normal everyday English the phrase "traditional game" does not include computer games. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly. Of course my subjective opinion (without sources to back me up) is not relevant to a discussion about notability, but if you asked me what "traditional games" were, the first thing I would say is "non-electronic games". So this definition is strange indeed..--Coin945 (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just your, or my, opinion. Any of the searches linked by the nomination show that reliable sources agree with that interpretation as long as you only include the sources for "traditional game" rather than "tradition game developers" or "traditional game theory" etc., where "traditional" does not qualify "game". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (PBEM game)[edit]

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

This seems to be a non-notable game. Coin945 (talk) 08:45, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete There are plenty of things named similar to this, but I can't find anything more specific about what this even was; based on the age of the article, I suspect it's long since gone. Regardless, no RS'es found when doing a due dilligence search. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a product of the information age, reliable sources should be easy to discover on the internet. This one may not even verifiable.Jacona (talk) 22:17, 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. Ultimately, every WP:BLP needs good reliable sources that are cited in the article to make it verifiable to readers. This hasn't got any, as Spartaz' relist points out, so it must be deleted irrespective of any notability derived from music charts. Sandstein 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strings (rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper with no viable third-party sources. No albums, only guest appearances, and one novelty single from way back in 2000 that didn't chart. Fails WP:MUSIC, and WP:NOTINHERITED despite requisite namedropping, and article was created by user permanently blocked for disruptive editing and copyright violations. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article inclides a cited reference to her song charting. Wouldn't that make ner notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It charted only on the Hot Rap Songs chart and didn't even touch the Billboard Hot 100, plus that's all she's done. It's not enough to establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding interviews on BET and plenty of substantial coverage such as here. Unclear to me why making Hot Rap Billboard chart doesn't count as charting. Isn't that her genre? What ia the difference between Hot Rap and the Billboard chart that wpuld make her notable? Not a huge star, but she's a rap celeb who performed on mainstream shows and received substantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a promotional puff piece, plus interviews are not reliable sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:11, 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 16:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But the sources are allmusic cruft. Glad to change if several good RS can be found. I didn't see any in a quick check. Agricola44 (talk) 23:29, 14 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]

Keep Her single got released and did get to touched the chart, I see as featured artist she touched the 100 chart as well to. So what you saying to be a rapper or other genre you got to touched the Hot 100 or 200 to have a article to be notable, well its a lot of rappers on here haven't touched that and still have a article such as Cha Cha, Lady May, Charli Baltimore, Glamorous, Lady B, Lady Luck and more other artists. And interviews are a reliable source she talked about her self how she grow up and how she became a rapper when MTV interview her other artists have them why not this artist can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B01E:8A03:9D3E:E15F:D39B:1916 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — 2600:1005:B01E:8A03:9D3E:E15F:D39B:1916 (talk) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This is a WP:OSE argument, and again, interviews are mainly self-promotional. Charli Baltimore barely passes GNG because she has a Grammy nomination. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree, OSE is not a valid argument for keep. Incidentally, I had a look at some of those and have since nom'd several for AfD. Others, like Lady Luck (supported by a dedicated article in the New Yorker) are solid. Sources about this person are what is required and those do not seem to be forthcoming. I'll have another look to satisfy myself, but will not change !vote unless something solid pops up. Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this is a case of source this or lose this as neither keep comment so far has provided a strong counter to the delete argument
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 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. A redirect to Hattrick can be considered after this topic is actually mentioned there. Sandstein 10:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battrick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed to find any of significant kind. This Guardian article don't mention but we have it as a reference in our article. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hattrick, no independent notability for this fan-made spinoff. Iffy★Chat -- 13:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect . The fan based website lacks adequate primary sources. Despite the article with the same title exists in foreign language Wikis, may not be possible in English Wikipedia. Abishe (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest transcluding this to the Video Games Wikiproject too.--Coin945 (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Were They Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Events In Television History[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources, reviews, appearance on bestseller lists etc that shows it to pass WP:NBOOKS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books, Amazon, Goodreads, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, BookLikes, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Chicago Tribune, Sun Sentinel BornonJune8 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 25 separate references on Wikipedia relating to that book. BornonJune8 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=What+Were+They+Thinking%3F++David+Hofstede&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=d1mqd7jc16q8l8c3l9ce4v4s5

...That's not how this works. See WP:NBOOKS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a pretty well known book that I've heard a lot about, I was sure if I went looking that I would find a bunch of sources, but I honestly found nothign of value. Very suprising to me but it seems this book is not notable.★Trekker (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be because you didn't try or bother to look further enough!

You can't have it "either/or"! How can you say that it's a pretty known book that you've heard a lot about yet on the same token, say that you personally found nothing of real value (there's a reason that things like Google exist)? Frankly, what to you constitutes "true value" in this particular case!? BornonJune8 (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC) https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=970&ei=kLg5WpTjPM30jwPH-qmQDA&q=what+were+they+thinking%3F%3A+the+100+dumbest+events+in+television+history+David+Hofstede&oq=what+were+they+thinking%3F%3A+the+100+dumbest+events+in+television+history+David+Hofstede&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5938.6413.0.7502.2.2.0.0.0.0.66.132.2.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.66...0j35i39k1j0i30k1.0.eLHh9tiRoCc BornonJune8 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not fame, please read wikipedia guidelines on notability and learn something.★Trekker (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.quora.com/Is-notability-and-its-guidelines-on-Wikipedia-the-same-as-fame/answer/Olaf-Simons?__filter__&__nsrc__=2&__snid3__=1814567313

“

Actually - in a way - yes, that’s what it is. Wikipedia notability is something like fame.

Wikipedia is free to edit. Anyone can press the button on top of a specific page or next to a subsection. You do not even need a registered account (as on Facebook or here on Quora). Edit and you will leave you IP address and date as the only traceable credential.

All this sounds extremely egalitarian - “this is the encyclopaedia made by its users…” The hidden downside is the pages authoritarian self-definition: If you want to take part you have to leave aside all your personal vanities. This project is about creating an encyclopaedia and it only allows information that has some authority behind - not your personal authority but the authority of sources that can substantiate the collective knowledge an encyclopaedia would gather.

This becomes most visible in the field of biography - where everyone would love to have his or her personal moment of fame: “I am so important that the most important encyclopaedia of the age has an article on me!” - and here we get the notability criteria. They define what the global community defines to be worthy to be noted. You are important if others have decided that one must know more about you - you cannot enter the enter of this hall of fame by simply writing the article on you that will turn you into a celebrity.

The entire set of rules in extended. When is a book you wrote so important that it deserves an article? When is an article about your book so important that it can turn your book into an object mankind must know more about.

”

BornonJune8 (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I did find some stuff here, here, here, here and here, but is't not much.★Trekker (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found more

Looking Back at the Star Wars Holiday Special

10 of the worst TV shows of all time - a scientific* meta-analysis

Happy Fake Jan Day

Happy Wookiee Life Day from Luke, Leia, Han, and... uh... Bea Arthur, I Guess.

The Man You Can Blame for the Star Wars Holiday Special

Christmas TV Party 2015: David Hofstede

Star Wars Holiday Special / Star Wars on TV - Classic TV / TVparty!

The 10 Dumbest TV Shows of All Time – Flavorwire

Yes Virginia, There is a Star Wars Holiday Special | HuffPost

TV Land “Rebrands” to Raunchy | Parents Television Council

10 things you might not know about TV commercials

Do you remember the Star Wars Holiday Special? - MeTV

Existence is Horror: “The Neon Demon” & “Bad Ronald”

By Ken Levine: Friday Questions

Rifftrax: Star Wars Holiday Special – VOD Review

SleuthSayers: Christmas Stories: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Star Wars Holiday Special: Welcome to the Dark Side - WrestleCrap

What Were They Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Events In ... - TV Tropes

BornonJune8 (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's trivial coverage - mentions. Similar to the mentions that Bornon found on wikipedia articles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what your exact criteria is for what is or isn't "trivial" or "notable"? The book is almost 14 years old now and has often been referenced upfront when it comes to historically covering the very worst of American television up until that point. Just because you personally don't think that it's notable enough doesn't mean that there isn't more to find or look for online beyond just four cases. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please by god just look up the wikipedia page for notability, it's not hard to come by. No one has time or interest to go into detail for something which you could easily find out by yourself. This has nothing to do with personal opinon, wikipeida has rules that has to be followed.★Trekker (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you just proved my point about not having the time or interest to look further into things (guidelines or elsewhere)! BornonJune8 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found way better sources than you in a much shorter span, this article does not have a single good source in it right now. In the end your the one who has to prove that the subjetc is notbale, not me that it isn't. I have no job here beyond the fact that I want you to learn something, mainly guidelines.★Trekker (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only you personally think the sources that you found are "better" (of course the supposed "better" or more viewed ones are going to come first) or the only ones that are acceptable. And I find it odd that you're saying that it's solely my job to prove that the subject is notable, yet you still have some invested interest in it (considering that virtually anybody on Wikipedia can add and contributed information to any particular article regardless of whom exactly started it in the first place). BornonJune8 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that any different than an article for instance on the books The Fifty Worst Films of All Time and The Hollywood Hall of Shame!? This is basically the same thing except for television. The What Were They Thinking... book must be remotely notable if it's going to be acknowledged in at least five different websites. Again, you don't seem to want to bother looking further than that. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should really get to know wikipedia guidelines more. Being mentioned on four websites is not notability, at all. And bringing up that other articles exist for other possibly non-notable books doesn't help this article or your case at all.★Trekker (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You only bothered to consider only five websites noteworthy to justify your argument (as oppose to trying to further build a case)! And how exactly are the other articles that I brought up possibly "non-worthy" (are they entirely or ultimately non-noteworthy because you personally never heard of them or read them)!? BornonJune8 (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. My. Fucking God. Just read the guideline page and learn something. It's like talking ot a stubborn child. Anyone with any knowlege of wikipeida standards would understand simply mentioning a book without giving any analasys is not "in depth" coverage. If you want to build a case for why this article should be kept you could start of by finding a review of it from a reputable source.★Trekker (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you proof-read your remarks before you're going to respond to me profanely (and you're calling me a child). And what else does there need to be said! I said that the book was published in the year 2004 and was written by David Hofstede with the foreword by Tom Bergeron. The article also points out that it only focuses on American television and links to the jumping the shark article in the opening paragraph. And then, there are at least 25 references of this book (and 18 external links mentioning it) that have been culled from Wikipedia in connection to the entries on the list. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article will be deleted, and you refuse to even try to understand wikipedia's standards. How about you read at all, like wikipedia guidelines for example? That would save everyone else a lot of trouble. I'm done here.★Trekker (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only time will tell (two people don't make a consensus, so I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions just yet)! And at least I don't have to resort to using profanity out of frustration (or bluntly shoving my "superiority" about the inner workings of Wikipedia) and insulting people whom I disagree with by calling them a "stubborn child". BornonJune8 (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. It seems this is used as a reference/citation quite a bit, e.g. - [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] - where David Hofstede ranking of the worst shows is deemed to be an expert opinion. However, this does not advance notability of the book itself per the 5 criteria in WP:NBOOK. I do however think that some of the content here could be used in an article for David Hofstede, and that this would advance Hofstede's claim to notability. A rename is perhaps possible.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is about a NN book, consisting of a list article of its contents. Non-encyclopedic. If it were not a book, it would fail WP:OR. As it is it is an authjor's personal selection. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well by that logic, books like The Fifty Worst Films of All Time, The Hollywood Hall of Shame, and The Golden Turkey Awards are purely based on the author's personal selection also. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing mentions in sources that I am not sure meet reliable anyway, or slightly less passing mentions in the authors own blog, do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this clearer enough for you (from around the time of the book's initial release)...

“

http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/tv/2004/11/25/Tuned-In-From-home-grown-to-world-famous-feast-on-TV-turkeys/stories/200411250164

http://www.vindy.com/news/2004/oct/23/on-this-tv-events-list-dumb-and-dumber/?print http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2004-12-26/entertainment/0412221020_1_geraldo-rivera-nielsens-magic-johnson

”

BornonJune8 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage looks ok - however can't copy in entire articles.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:52, 30 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Trainer[edit]

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

Comes across like an advertisement. Coin945 (talk) 07:37, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete oh yes this is pure spam. there is a whole walled garden of spam around [[Brain Age] by Ryuta Kawashima, including a nav template at Template:Brain Age which all needs severe condensing. Jytdog (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:30, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berlitz English Dictionary (video game)[edit]

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

Nothingburger. Fails WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 07:34, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:28, 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 redirect to Adam Osborne#Book. Content can be merged from history as desired. Sandstein 10:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hypergrowth[edit]

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

Is this book notable? I couldn't find any reviews or such except that InfoWorld run three excerpts from the book, and in the first one seems to be accompanied by a review (see p.58-60). Is a single review sufficient to establish the book's notability? Can anyone find something more? If we can find even one more, I'd be happy to withdraw this nom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book has its own section in the Adam Osborne article, pretty much the same content. If no more sources about this book are found, redirect could be an ideal outcome. Note I would prefer redirect in any case, as I doubt anyone will expand this article above content yet in the Adam Osborne article, and this book has some basic notability (eg. InfoWorld coverage). Pavlor (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft deletion through redirecting would be fine by me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 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 13:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I using an google search and filled in 2 bare references, this article about the book of lead is too short and may not meet to WP:NB, if can't be WP:independent, these materials (including the sources) can be merge and redirect to Adam Osborne and John C. Dvorak at the book section. SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping one last relist can help with sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete and redirect. The book is not notable and no reviews. Lorstaking (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: I agree with Lorstaking, the book is not very meet-able to WP:NB which I have commented at above in previously. It shall be redirected to Adam Osborne, and John C. Dvorak as well at the book section. SA 13 Bro (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baizuo[edit]

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

Page is about a non-notable slang term in a non-English language. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah for sure, let's do this!----損齋 (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, please also delete Akse, the same thing. I created them. Thanks a lot my friends----損齋 (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Just to clarify, as the creator of this page do you support deleting or merging it? Or were you being sarcastic? Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. RelaxedTim (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG with the numerous sources on the article already and a couple more I just found:

http://www.wenxuecity.com/news/2017/05/20/6250348.html

http://beta.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-trump-public-opinion-20171109-story.html

http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1000477/white-left-the-internet-insult-the-west-has-gotten-wrong

These are mostly english language sources, I do not know where to search for Chinese news, except for the wenxuecity one which was linked from another site. Many pages come up when searching for "白左" but I can't verify the reliability of any of them because I don't speak Chinese. Pinguinn 🐧 13:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinguinn: Perhaps it would be better suited to wikitionary. Policy is that wikipedia is not a dictionary, even for words used in news articles. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems wiktionary:白左 already exists. We seem to have many articles about poltical pejoratives, including Cuckservative, Libtard, Vichy Republican, and Bernie Bro. To shape the article along those lines we'd need a lot more detailed analysis and history, which I do not think can be done without finding Chinese-language sources. I agree though that the article as written right now is a dictionary definition. Pinguinn 🐧 14:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The slang is clearly notable seeing the ammount of sources in non-mandarin languages. Here on Wikipedia we have articles for both recently-coined words/phrases (please, see: Category:Words coined in the 2010s, as well as for political pejoratives (please, see the post by Pinguinn) so your explanation really does not hold. Also, I really don't want to bring this into discussion, but I checked the nominator's contributions, and they are limited exlussively to the topic of modern left wing-right wing debate in the United States (and England) with all of his contributions overwhelmingly supporting one side of this "debate". He already made a variety of false statements in his explanations for the edits he made on this very article, claiming, for example, that he was reverting the article to last good version by removing the chunks this article had since it was created, and stuff like that. He was also warned several times for making unsourced PoV contributions to the articles from the category I mentioned, which makes me question the user's integrity and impartiality.

P.S. About the article's quality, I am actually in agreement with Pinguinn, the article is too small. However, seeing how this phenomenon is clearly significant, I'd think we should at least ask the original contributor whether he/she can contribute some more to the article. I myself do speak Mandarin, but I am only A2 and I struggle to understand what's written in the articles Baidu returns to me when I search for this term. Karl.i.biased (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was being neutral. Sorry I did not express my intention clearly.----損齋 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@損齋: I believe that Karl.i.biased was calling me biased, not you. Your behaviour has been good, and I don't think anybody would object to it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Regressive left, of which it's only a minor variation. The present article isn't long, so there won't be any loss of information during the merge. (Libtard should probably merge too.) Timmyshin (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that being productive at all. Do we have a reliable source which directly connects this term to "regressive left"? Piling neologisms onto each other based on OR seems like it's just creating more problems. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a source, but on Chinese Wikipedia "Baizuo" is a redirect to (the Chinese version of) "regressive left". Timmyshin (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I think we would need sources to do the same here, though. Grayfell (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Abstrakt (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons, presumably? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.None of the keep/redirect arguments are policy-based.Winged Blades^Godric 09:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have heard this word used a couple of times by people, and also printed in one magazine (环球人物 Global People). I'm not sure if it is used in Taiwan though. American and German politics seem to permeate into every country now, especially since Trump. The sources are good too - Open Democracy, Die Welt, Global Times etc. The page could do with a cleaning up though. -。。。 I have just searched it on Baidu and it has 1,230,000 hits. Although it is also the name of an unpopular novel. Earliest sources seem to be around 2014 or 2015. Generally mention Angela Merkel (another term: 白左圣母 could be in reference to her, literally 'white left holy mother', to refer to leaders who naively invite Muslim immigrants to migrate into a country), hypocrisy, The Economist magazine, and lots of jokes. One link just talks about Mark Zuckerberg apparently wanting privacy around his new mansion. It seems to have taken off as a term. I don't think its actually used by printed publications though except when directly referring to the term as used on the internet. Poiuytre (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This term is more often used for "the white left" in Western countries in general. I guess someone translated it from Germany even though the term is used for a lot of politicians in English speaking countries etc. I will try to make it better and look for coverage in English speaking countries. I can't do that now. But probably tomorrow.--DerSpatz (麻雀) (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Version I read had quite some reliable sources and native speakers confirmed the topic. Pass3456 via mobile.
Keep and expand per all the RS and notable, accurate usage. --DHeyward (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Angel characters. There is a reasonable consensus to retarget these articles. I suspect the fact that none of them have any sources bar IMDb, and none were added during the week of the AfD, shows that the characters may not be independently notable. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine (Angel)[edit]

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

Article is about a fictional character who only appeared in one season of a series, totally unsourced since its creation over 10 years ago, and almost all plot summary. Receptions, ratings, and developmental information does not seem to exist, just mentions and comments on fan sites for the show. I am also nominating the following related pages because there are about Angel characters that are unsourced and almost all plot summary.

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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to List of Angel characters--Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lilah Morgan of all the characters listed, she's been in the series the longest. Other articles like Khan Noonien Singh has had significantly less appearances, yet has an article. The rest on the other hand, can be merged. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 18:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep all As I suspected, there's just too much scholarly attention to Buffy studies for any of these to be non-notable. Look at the Scholar links, above, and each character has the GNG met just from there, without even considering the news or (non-primary) book links. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as the scholar links show academic coverage that passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jasmine although mentioned in several sources, these amount to WP:TRIVIALMENTION where the topic of the text is Season 4, rather than tis particular character. In order for a subject to have a standalone article, the subject must be the main topic in a sizable chunk of text in a WP:RS source, this bar, which is rather hard to attain for fictional characters, is the that must be surpassed in order to WP:V the WP:GNG notability. Material from this article could be re-used in dramatically shorter version in the article Angel (season 4) and this article should redirect there. AadaamS (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jasmine - the references to this character in books by Rabb and Richardson (2014) and by Wilcox and Cochran (2008) are not trivial, and clearly surpass the bar mentioned by AadamS and WP:GNG requirements, all on their own. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all to List of Angel characters The articles have no useful information not already covered by their descriptive paragraphs on the List of Angel characters. It is also full of fancruft or stuff better left for Wikia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Angel characters and merge from history if necessary. Insufficient coverage. Sandstein 14:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to List of Angel characters. As stated above, there is so much scholarly attention to the Buffyverse that anything related will have reliable sources. It's not a question of notability, but of substance. Ifnord (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Insufficient standalone coverage in reliable secondary sources for its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what 'insufficient coverage' means: GNG is clearly met for each one of these characters through the scholarly sources listed and referred to above. Simply repeating 'insufficient sources' doesn't make it true, and all such redirect opinions are not factually accurate and should be discounted by the closing admin. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Angel characters. This is an unsourced plot summary. Not significantly covered in secondary sources to develop the article beyond WP:PLOT. Lack of significant coverage fails WP:GNG. See WP:FICTION. PriceDL (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maqbool Hussain Zaidi[edit]

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

The article has no sources. The request for improvement has been pending since 2008, but to no avail Manoflogan (talk) 05:58, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been left untouched for such a long period of time, I'll agree with delete. RedFlame 08:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete a general lack of good sourcing. His position in the military is not enough for notability, and his leadership in the Shiite Muslim community of Pakistan would require better sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. WP:SOLDIER fail (as well as non-relevant). Seems he is mostly known for his Shia funeral home (or Imambargah) - and I don't see sources out there to pass GNG. Possible maybe to merge some info to Imambargah Colonel Maqbool Hussain, however I suspect that article may be going to AfD too.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The domain name of the only reference has expired, leaving the page un-referenced. This page links to Imambargah Colonel Maqbool Hussain, which reeks of WP:COI.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note concurrent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imambargah Colonel Maqbool Hussain.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Fails WP:Soldier and WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:42, 30 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Michelle Brown[edit]

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

A major (but not starring) role in a short-lived sitcom and a role (of unspecified importance) in a show which does not have a Wikipedia article doesn't seem adequate under WP:NACTOR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at present she does not rise to the level of multiple significant roles in notable productions. She has maybe one significant role in a major production, but that is it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What to Do After You Hit Return[edit]

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

Apparently the first video gaming book, but I can't find anything. Coin945 (talk) 05:21, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Sims#The Sims Stories. Killiondude (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims Stories[edit]

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

It seems like a brand name for three Sims games. Nothing more, nothing less. As a result there are no sources about this 'series'. Coin945 (talk) 05:24, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – the games in the series are individually notable. The page should exist as a way of linking to the individual game articles even if acting as nothing more than a disambiguation page, so why get rid of the article content? PriceDL (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PriceDL: WP:NOTINHERITED. That said, it is a likely search term, so a redirect to the same content in The Sims (where it is present) is reasonable. Disambiguation pages are for the same term, and none of these carry the same name. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: – you've made exactly the point I was trying to. Seeing as there's already an appropriate section on The Sims page, a redirect there is better. PriceDL (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. We have a page for The Sims which includes a section dedicated to the topic at a summary level. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 27 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man anniversary arcade machines[edit]

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

This comes across as WP:OR. Coin945 (talk) 05:06, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Nulman[edit]

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

fails notability as per WP:POLITICIAN, is an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and is written like a resume. Rusf10 (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:BEFORE? Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're making an allegation here with nothing to back it up. Outside of the NYT article that is already referenced, All I got is a few passing mentions/quotes from him in articles about MADD events. And the New York Times articles (there is one other) are about radon found in his town. Because he is the mayor, they have a few quotes from him, that's it. If you've found more than that, let me know.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all Unscintillating ever actually contributes to AFD discussions at all: attempts to completely derail discussions by burying them in wikilawyering non sequiturs that have nothing to do with policy, consensus or the actual substance of the arguments they're responding to. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: You need to stop doing that. If there is anyone who hears/believes you, they are already suffering from personality challenges, and you are pushing their buttons. Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating what the hell do you mean by "personality challenges"? Certainly something relevant to AFD (for once) I hope.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I let you in on a little secret, Unscintillating? You're never going to get very far on Wikipedia with the position that anybody who ever disagrees with you in a discussion or debate has a personality disorder rather than a legitimate difference of opinion or an actual valid point. HTH. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is written like a résumé, not an encyclopedia article; the place he was mayor of is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic pass of WP:NPOL #2 just for existing; and the sourcing is nowhere near solid enough to deem him as passing GNG in lieu of failing NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Largely per Bearcat. Obviously, Nulman fails NPOL -- no automatic passes there. One would have to argue for GNG but the existing sources are dismal at best, and in good faith I could not conclude he passes that either.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of the most clearly non-notable politicians I have ever seen an article on. If that New York Times articles were enough for notability, we should also include an article in Wikipedia on the mother of three listed there. Clinton, New Jersey still has less than 3,000 people, but when Nulman was mayor there it was more on the order of 2,000 people. A city 10 times that amount almost certainly would not grant the mayor notability, and even 100 times that amount would not give an automatic pass, we would still need multiple occasions of substantial coverage (such as what exists for Jim Fouts, although I know the article does not capture all the coverage, Fouts in the mind of some is a publicity seeker, but what is clear is he gets publicity). The city only covers about a square mile. The fire department has 500 calls a year, but only because it covers an area of 30 square miles, taking in some surrounding areas. Raritan Township, New Jersey in the same county has nearly ten times as many people as Clinton. I do not think I have ever seen an article on a mayor of a less significant place who had no better claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following sources are in Clinton, New Jersey:

Stephen Klaidman (1991). Health in the Headlines: The Stories Behind the Stories. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505298-5. Retrieved 2018-01-01. Clinton's public officials were aware of the extraordinary radon levels found in the Watras house in nearby Pennsylvania

Robert Hanley (September 15, 1988). "The Jersey Village That Fought Radon With Fans and Won". New York Times. Retrieved 2018-01-01. Mayor Nulman cringes now while recalling TV and newspaper accounts in early 1986 that predicted mass evacuations and Clinton Knolls' reduction to a ghost town.

Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the ... Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1986. Retrieved 2018-01-01. McMahon commended Clinton Town Mayor Robert Nulman for responding to the radon problem in several homes in his community by dealing with the public in an 'informational rather than inflammatory way'.

EPA Journal. The Office. 1989. Retrieved 2018-01-01. State officials relied a great deal on Clinton's mayor, Robert Nulman, because he understood the community's concerns. At public meetings Nulman provided an opportunity for "what had to be said," according to state official Donald Deieso, "and he fully supported everything we were saying." Nulman helped to keep public discussions focused on the facts. In turn, Nulman found his job easier because state officials...

Michael R. Edelstein; William J. Makofske (1998). Radon's Deadly Daughters: Science, Environmental Policy, and the Politics of Risk. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 259–. ISBN 978-0-8476-8334-5. Retrieved 2018-01-01. It is interesting to look at the converse situation, where radon is actively managed so as to avoid environmental stigma. Mayor Robert Nulman...

Oxford University Press is the largest university press in the world, and Rowman & Littlefield is a publisher targeting an academic market. Unscintillating (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect to Clinton, New Jersey Nulman is the rare mayor of a town of under 3000 population to receive international academic-press attention for his work as mayor.
With multiple Google searches, I could not confirm his role as NJ state water policy commissioner, so I am concerned that our current BLP cannot be sourced, so WP:DEL9.
As always, our WP:Editing policy is to preserve the value that others have added, and to this end I have revised Clinton, New Jersey.
For further reference, see the policy WP:ATD-R and the information page WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. Unscintillating (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fawzia Peer[edit]

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

Deputy mayor is not a notable post. No indication of being notable and important for anything else in the article. Doesn't deserve an article on its own yet. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BIO.[48][49][50][51][52][53] Lourdes 14:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ernestchuajiasheng to request them to check out the above sources. Thanks, Lourdes 15:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it's true that deputy mayor is not an inherently notable post that confers automatic notability on every deputy mayor of everywhere per se, it is a post that can fall under WP:NPOL #2 ("major local political figures who can show significant press coverage") if sufficient sourcing can be shown to exist. Lourdes has shown the evidence that such coverage exists here, and Durban is a large and internationally prominent city where even more coverage can be quite reasonably expected to exist. Yes, the article needs improvement, but the evidence shows that it's improvable. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I read all the coverage, and it's all routine. There's nothing written about her that's unique, and the coverage includes very little that could be used to flush her biography out and do the article justice. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing I can find even substantiates the career history in the infobox. If she succeeds the mayor then we can revisit - but I'm not going to stress too much over losing a one line article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The city he's deputy mayor is a large manufacturing and business hub which will give him more edge to pass WP:NPOL #2 than other mayors of smaller or less economically important cities in the world. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a female deputy mayor who has otherwise no discernible notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake in writing her gender incorrectly has nothing whatsoever to do with her notability. Please keep calm, since you already provided your thought above. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure you had a chance to properly review the coverage before weighing in. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the coverage is routine PR stuff and nothing to make this person notable Gbawden (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gbawden, hope you're doing well. I just wanted to quickly check your view on sources like this and this. In my opinion, they don't seem like PR, so wanted you to have a look. Warmly, Lourdes 05:34, 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Kleinman[edit]

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

AfD since referenced articles often have speey delets removed; I see no claim of notability and no refs that look to be about the man rather than his jobs. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his current company might just be notable, but he is not. The coverage is on the company, not him. The company is probably not notable either, but that is a seperate question from his notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This guy seem to be mastermind behind the gaming company Wonder. The following references seems to talk about this guy [1][2][3], though the link from TechCrunch is from a contributor(not sure if those links can be considered). He seems to have a Wikipedia page on Spanish Wiki as well8ABASALOM (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing here suggests notability or significance; affiliation with a nn gaming company does not help. WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG fail per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 28 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Bakhita[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BCAST. - HindWiki^Connect 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 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 19:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 22:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- So far this appears to be the only article on a radio station in South Sudan (not Sudan), the category it did have. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epps family[edit]

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

pretty standard genealogy, nothing notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - yes abuse of WP for geneaology. The padding with epp's cocoa is especially silly... Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 30 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muse Paintbar[edit]

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

Promotional work excluded by both points of WP:N: the coverage it has is lacking in-depth, overwhelmingly local, and not intellectually independent. Additionally, it reads as an advertisement and also bears all the signs of a commissioned work, making it excluded by WP:NOTSPAM, and failing the second prong of what the notability guideline requires beyond the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irrespective of the spamminess of the article, this is not a notable business. The only non-local source, the NY times, is an article about the whole ghastly concept.TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotionalism only on a nn private company. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a marketing or advertising platform nor an alternative to a corporate website. Fails WP:SPIP. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 30 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human Awareness Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable workshop provider; references fail WP:CORPDEPTH (the reference to The Ethical Slut links to a promotional page, not text, and in any event I suspect that the mention of the institute is only in the book's directory of resources, given the absence of any attempt by this article's author to parlay any more robust discussion of the institute into further WP:PROMO content). If the decision is "keep," note that I stripped out most of the overwhelming amount of WP:PROMO/WP:NOTMEMORIAL content (some of which was an embarrassment to the encyclopedia for having been up as long as it was) and others may well believe more deletion is appropriate. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 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 02:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am finding articles from SF Gate (which is related to the SF Chronicle) and the Washington Post. But the subject of those articles is not the Human Awareness Institute. In those articles, the institute is mentioned only in passing, and does not appear to be the subject per se. Can't locate anything more notable beyond those 2 papers. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spintendo: insufficient sourcing to pass WP:ORGDEPTH, for one. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:20, 29 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majboor (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE notability requirement lovkal (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is about an old Indian film in 60s. Submitted details are from 2 independent sources and it is too difficult to collect more evidence or links about the film, because of, the film produced and released in 1964.Njaan Parayunnu (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see news articles and/or reviews of the film in order to establish the reception of the film. A plot summary would be good, too. lovkal (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the subject but:

the director Narendra Suri is notable;

the songs may be notable [54].Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a merge of Majboor (film) and Narendra Suri lovkal (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lovkal, an article about a film should be stand as an independent article. why should it merge with it's director page?Njaan Parayunnu (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the director is notable, and this film is seemingly not. It could be added in the director's list of movies. lovkal (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: As the film exists and is sourcable and as per WP:INDAFD (I know INDAFD is not warranted). This Hindi language movie is 50+ years old thus do not expect to be able to find online press archives, reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivecos (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TeamHealth[edit]

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

he 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's all press releases, business as usual factoids, or their reprints. No serious analysis, significance, coverage, etc. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 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 02:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Fortune 500 2012: Rank 672. Team Health Holdings, Inc". Fortune. 2012. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes that TeamHealth's ranked 672 on the Fortune 1000 and had $3,141,700,000 in revenue, $65,500,000 in profit, and $928,300,000 in assets.
2. Minaya, Ezequiel (2015-11-03). "AmSurg Withdraws Bid for Team Health". Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  AmSurg, of Nashville, Tenn., had gone public with its offers in an effort to put pressure on Team Health to negotiate a deal. Combining the two companies would represent the latest deal in a consolidating health-care sector and create a major national provider of outsourced physician services, with a network of more than 1,200 hospitals and about 20,000 doctors.
  AmSurg’s new proposal valued Team Health at $69.32, a premium of 16% from the close Friday and 32% from Oct. 19, the day before The Wall Street Journal reported on AmSurg’s previous offer. However, the latest cash-and-stock bid is below the offer’s original value of $71.47 because of the subsequent 10% decline in AmSurg’s stock price.
  As a result, AmSurg’s latest bid valued Team Health at closer to $5 billion, whereas the previous offer was worth more than $5 billion. The values were based on AmSurg’s closing price on the day before the offer was made public.
3. Beilfuss, Lisa (2016-03-23). "Team Health Adds Directors in Settlement with Jana Partners". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
4. Abelson, Reed (2016-04-08). "Small, Piecemeal Mergers in Health Care Fly Under Regulators' Radars". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  Several companies are also amassing doctors who specialize in fields like emergency medicine, trying to capture a sizable share of the physicians in that field and also expanding into related areas. In November, TeamHealth, which has about 16,000 doctors, bought IPC Healthcare, which specializes in care within the hospital, for $1.6 billion.
5. "AmSurg Seeks Merger, but TeamHealth Demurs". The New York Times. 2015-10-20. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  The AmSurg Corporation, which operates outpatient surgery centers, wants to expand its physician-outsourcing services by merging with TeamHealth Holdings. In dueling letters made public on Tuesday, TeamHealth made it clear that the financial proposal was not good enough.
  AmSurg first met with TeamHealth on Sept. 30 to discuss a merger of the two companies. AmSurg offered to pay $7.8 billion in cash and stock. But TeamHealth said the proposed valuation was too low and rejected the offer.
  ...
  One of TeamHealth’s key obstacles was its $1.6 billion acquisition of IPC Healthcare, which was announced in August. TeamHealth wanted to focus on integrating the short-term care provider after the deal, which is expected to close by the end of the year. AmSurg said that its proposed merger would not delay or harm TeamHealth’s deal with IPC Healthcare.
6. Picker, Leslie (2015-11-02). "AmSurg Withdraws $7.6 Billion Takeover Offer for TeamHealth". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  Early Monday morning, AmSurg Corporation gave TeamHealth Holdings an ultimatum: Accept our $7.6 billion takeover proposal by 4 p.m. on Tuesday or we withdraw.
  About 24 hours ahead of the deadline, AmSurg retracted its cash-and-stock offer after TeamHealth said the new bid still undervalued the company.
  The now-abandoned deal would have combined AmSurg, which operates outpatient surgery centers, with TeamHealth, a provider of physician outsourcing services.
7. Picker, Leslie (2016-10-31). "TeamHealth Agrees to Be Sold to Blackstone". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  Almost exactly a year ago, TeamHealth Holdings, a provider of physician outsourcing services, rebuffed a takeover offer from its rival AmSurg for nearly $8 billion, saying the proposed valuation was too low.
  Shareholders balked, and the stock price tumbled. Now, TeamHealth has finally agreed to be sold, but at a large discount to that offer, which was made Nov. 2, 2015.
  This time, TeamHealth agreed to be sold to funds associated with the Blackstone Group for about $6.1 billion, including debt, according to a news release Monday.
  ...
  It is a return trip for the private equity firm, which bought TeamHealth in 2005 and took it public four years later.
8. Roark, Cortney (2016-10-31). "TeamHealth ditches public 'distractions' for Blackstone". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  TeamHealth Holdings, Inc. announced on Monday that it will be reacquired by Blackstone, a leading global asset manager, as a response to "complexities and challenges" in the health care industry, TeamHealth spokeswoman Melinda Collins wrote in an email to the News Sentinel.
  ...
  It was the opposite sentiment that caused TeamHealth to go public in 2009, four years after the company was first acquired by Blackstone.
  ...
  Upon completion of the $6.1 billion transaction, TeamHealth again will become a privately held company, wholly owned by funds affiliated with Blackstone, and no longer will be traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
9. Kimel, Shelley (2015-11-03). "TeamHealth still rejecting AmSurg deal - Officials: 'Undervalues' company". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  TeamHealth is also increasing its local presence. In October, Knoxville City Council members approved a nearly $900,000 tax break for TeamHealth to expand its corporate headquarters, creating 250 new jobs. In January the company announced a $17 million expansion in Blount County that would add 450 jobs.
  ...
  TeamHealth Holdings reported 2014 revenues of $2.82 billion, up 18 percent from 2013. It employs more than 1,600 East Tennesseans.
10. Alexander-Bloch, Benjamin (2008-03-31). "Slidell hospital board approves new contract for ER doctors". The Times-Picayune. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  TeamHealth, of Knoxville, Tenn., is one of the nation's largest providers of hospital outsourcing services. It serves more than 600 hospitals, clinics and doctors groups in 45 states.
11. Koziatek, Mike (2017-11-13). "A new company will start providing Memorial's doctors, and many are outraged". Belleville News-Democrat. Archived from the original on 2017-12-18. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
  The article notes:
  CEP America had been providing services to the two emergency departments but Memorial has decided to switch to TeamHealth for the services.“Changing the contract from CEP to TeamHealth does not prohibit any current physicians from working at Memorial, to our knowledge. Memorial would like nothing better than for all current providers to consider joining TeamHealth and continue a working relationship at Memorial,” spokeswoman Anne Thomure said in an email.
  Last year, Memorial established a partnership with BJC HealthCare of St. Louis and Thomure said nine BJC hospitals already use TeamHealth for emergency department services.The terms of the contracts involving doctors at Memorial were not released.
  ...
  TeamHealth has more than 19,000 clinicians in hospitals across the country, Thomure said.“TeamHealth has invited CEP America personnel to explore their employment opportunities,” Thomure said in an email. “While Memorial certainly supports CEP personnel talking to TeamHealth, it ultimately is the decision of those employees to talk with them.”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TeamHealth to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TeamHealth was ranked 672 on the Fortune 1000 in 2012. It went public in 2009 on the New York Stock Exchange. It rejected a $7.6 billion acquisition offer from AmSurg in 2015 and accepted a $6.1 billion offer from The Blackstone Group in 2016. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- $3Bln in revenue & WP:LISTED meets my personal threshold for corporate notability. The article is not terribly promotional at this time, and sources above are indicative of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I've read all of the references put forward by Cunard above and (as is usual with most of Cunard's posts at AfD) not one single reference is "independent of the subject". Contrary to the interpretation constantly put forward, "indepedent of the subject" does not mean that the publisher of the reference is not connected with the company - it means that the reference does not rely on company announcements or quotations from company execs, etc, but that the reference contains independent analysis and/or opinion. The fortune reference is a run-of-the-mill listing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. A couple of others like the nola.com and the bnd.com references name-check the company but rely on quotations from a hospital board meeting or other spokepersons and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. All of the rest including the knownews.com, NYT and WSJ references are based on company announcements with no independent analysis or opinion and these references fail WP:ORGIND. Without two intellectually independent references, this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a spammy article and spammy as they come, I read those sources and they're spammy as can be too. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote struck. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles posted above which mention TeamHealth do so only as a feature of TeamHealth in relation to something else: be it TeamHealth as a merger partner with another company; TeamHealth as one of many choices that another institution — a hospital — seeks to contract with; TeamHealth entering settlement talks with other partners. In none of the instances provided does TeamHealth stand alone as the single subject of a notable paper, which would seem to be necessary if it were to garner WP:N Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability (my bolding): "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
Wikipedia:Notability does not require TeamHealth to "stand alone as the single subject of a notable paper".
I have provided more sources below.
Cunard (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is a recitation of routine events in the life of any company, mostly source to churnalism. Nothing encyclopedic here of enduring interest; nothing to learn from. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources about TeamHealth:
1. Flory, Josh (2010-02-28). "Private equity good to TeamHealth. Local hospital-staffing firm in growth mode". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes that TeamHealth's competitors are Emergency Medical Services Corp. of Greenwood Village, Colo., Mednax Inc. of Sunrise, Fla.; Rda Sterling Holdings Corp. of Jacksonville, Fla.
  The article notes:
  While TeamHealth may not be a household name in Knoxville, there's a good chance you've encountered the company if you've ever visited a local emergency room. That's because doctors from the Knoxville-based staffing firm handle the emergency-room duties at many local hospitals, including Parkwest Medical Center, the University of Tennessee Medical Center and Mercy Medical Center St. Mary's.
  ...
  In December, Team Health Holdings LLC completed a initial public offering that led to the company's shares being listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
  ...
  TeamHealth, though, doesn't appear likely to join the ranks of the cautionary tales. Founded in 1979, the company specializes in staffing hospital emergency departments - although it also operates in other medical specialties, including hospital medicine, pediatrics and radiology and currently has some 530 hospital clients and clinics in 48 states.
  TeamHealth joined the private equity world in 1999 after it was purchased by a trio of private equity companies and members of management in a $337 million deal. When those private equity buyers began looking for an exit, TeamHealth considered going public. But in 2005 it was acquired by The Blackstone Group, a major private equity operator whose portfolio includes casino operator Harrah's Entertainment, The Weather Channel and the Hilton hotel chain.
  ...
  For TeamHealth, the private equity operators lived up to their reputation for liberal use of borrowed money. Total debt on the company's balance sheet ballooned from $2.5 million at the end of 1998 to more than $241.6 million at the end of 1999, the year TeamHealth was acquired by affiliates of Madison Dearborn Partners, Cornerstone Equity Investors LLC and Beecken Petty O'Keefe & Company.
  The article also includes analysis from Morgan Keegan analyst Robert Mains.
2. Brass, Larisa (2010-08-26). "From ER to executive suite, physician created an industry leader". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The artile notes:
  Emergency department services comprise about 80 percent of TeamHealth's business. The second largest segment is active-duty military hospitals. The company is the country's second largest hospitalist provider, and provides medical staff in psychiatry, radiology, pediatrics and locum tenens - industry speak for temporary physicians.
  In addition, TeamHealth's services have evolved to include billing, coding and collections, and in 2000 the company launched its own malpractice insurance.
  TeamHealth grew from a regional to a national provider through a series of acquisitions in the 1990s.
  ...
  Between 1992 and 1997, TeamHealth acquired or merged with a series of medical outsourcing firms, tapping each for particular skills - the solid managed care experience of a California firm, the best fee-for-service management in South Florida, a quality residency training program for ER physicians in Ohio, risk management skills in New Jersey.
3. Sutherland, Brooke (2015-10-21). Gongloff, Mark (ed.). "Team Health Wins By Waiting". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  The provider of outsourced physician services on Tuesday rejecteda $5.2 billion takeover offer from AmSurg. The stock- and-cash bid was valued at about $71.47 a share based on AmSurg's closing price Monday. It's now worth about $69, after AmSurg slumped4.1 percent amid concerns it's overreaching with the takeover, along with the traditional selloff of the acquirer.
  Either way, AmSurg is offering Team Health shareholders a lower price than the $72.38 that analysts on average were forecasting the company would achieve on its own over the next year. All but one analyst recommended buying Team Health before the takeover approach.
  At the announced price, AmSurg's bid is about a 30 percent premium to Team Health's average share price in the prior 20 days. That looks decent enough on the surface -- except that Team Health had slipped about 22 percent since announcing the takeover of IPC Healthcare for about $1.5 billion on August 4. At about 24 times trailing 12-month Ebitda, the purchase of IPC was pricey and will roughly double Team Health's reported leverage.
4. Sutherland, Brooke (2016-10-15). Williams, Beth (ed.). "Team Health's Best Medicine May Be a Buyout". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  As such, most analysts peg an appropriate takeout value for Team Health somewhere between $40 and $45 a share. That might still be a stretch for a private equity buyer. A roughly 20 percent premium to Team Health's unaffected price would work out to about $39 a share, or about $5.3 billion including debt. At that premium, a buyout firm would have to come up with a large equity check -- potentially around 35 percent of the purchase price -- to keep Team Health's already high leverage under 7 times Ebitda, estimates RBC analyst Frank Morgan. That's assuming Team Health gets all of the $60 million in synergies it's targeting from its 2015 takeover of IPC Healthcare, which isn't guaranteed given the challenges.
  Those takeout estimates don't look overly impressive considering that analysts were expecting Team Health to reach $45 a share on its own over the next year. Investors who have confidence in new CEO Leif Murphy and his impressive track record at companies including DSI Renal and LifePoint may want to see what he can do before selling out. Murphy only came into the top role in September.
5. Tan, Gillian (2016-10-31). Williams, Beth (ed.). "Blackstone Buyout Is Team Health's Best Prescription". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  Team Health has grown significantly since Blackstone last had control. At the time of its 2009 IPO, its team comprised roughly 6,100 professionals, versus more than 19,000 today. Earnings have followed suit.
  ...
  Analysts at Robert W. Baird & Co. estimate that if Team Health spends some $3.2 billion on deals over the next five years, it could double its Ebitda to $1 billion if the company's existing operations maintain a respectable growth rate. Even before then, AmSurg may be ready to pay Team Health a second visit of its own, at a price that makes Blackstone's efforts worth its while.
6. Jayson, Seth (2013-04-01). "Here's 1 Reason Team Health Holdings Looks Weak". The Motley Fool. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  Margins matter. The more Team Health Holdings (NYSE: TMH) keeps of each buck it earns in revenue, the more money it has to invest in growth, fund new strategic plans, or (gasp!) distribute to shareholders. Healthy margins often separate pretenders from the best stocks in the market. That's why we check up on margins at least once a quarter in this series. I'm looking for the absolute numbers, so I can compare them to current and potential competitors, and any trend that may tell me how strong Team Health Holdings's competitive position could be.
  Here's the current margin snapshot for Team Health Holdings over the trailing 12 months: Gross margin is 18.6%, while operating margin is 7.6% and net margin is 3.1%.
  ...
  With recent TTM operating margins below historical averages, Team Health Holdings has some work to do.
7. Jones, Diana Novak (2017-02-06). Pelc, Aaron (ed.). "Health Care Co. To Pay $60M To End Whistleblower Fraud Suit". Law360. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  A national provider of health care in hospitals will pay more than $60 million to end allegations it routinely encouraged its staff to bill Medicare, Medicaid and other insurers for more expensive procedures than those actually performed on patients.
  IPC Healthcare Inc. and its owner, TeamHealth Holdings, agreed to pay $60 million plus interest to settle a whistleblower suit brought by a former IPC employee claiming the company paid bonuses based on the revenue brought in by individual physicians and punished hospitals that did not hit revenue goals, pressuring its doctors to submit falsely inflated bills.
  In addition to the payment, TeamHealth entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General to increase its transparency and prevent future fraud. The settlement does not require IPC or TeamHealth to admit wrongdoing.
8. McNamara, Robert (January–February 2010). "Give a Shift a Week to the Company: An Analysis of the TeamHealth IPO". Common Sense. American Academy of Emergency Medicine. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
  The article notes:
  On October 5, 2009, TeamHealth Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of the Blackstone group, filed for an initial public offering (IPO) with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The document is available for public inspection1 and EM physicians should strongly consider taking a look at it. One will find that TeamHealth is operating with a gross profit margin of 22% in a business predominantly based in the specialty of emergency medicine. This 22% figure represents what is in play when EM physicians place their economic destiny in the hands of a corporation. From an analysis of the IPO, it is highly plausible that each emergency physician is turning over control of up to $76,000 per year to this corporation. Looked at differently, this amounts to giving one 8-hour shift per week to the company. The question to ask is, how much of that 22% could be invested in the emergency department or the emergency physicians in a non- corporate arrangement?
  ...
  Benefits do not apply for the mostly independent contractor doctors of TeamHealth, and they likely fall under “professional services expenses” for the 700 employed physicians. Certainly, at the end of the day, a good sized portion of that $76,000 would be available to further compensate the emergency physicians. Additionally, this arrangement for physicians includes negatives that need to be considered, such as the possibility of termination without cause and a routine two year restrictive covenant detailed in the IPO.
9. SoRelle, Ruth (August 2007). "TeamHealth, EP Clash over Noncompete Clause, Incentive Plan". Emergency Medicine News. Vol. 29, no. 8. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 28–30. doi:10.1097/01.EEM.0000295871.68854.c9. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
10. SoRelle, Ruth (June 2008). "AAEM Severed from Suits against TeamHealth". Emergency Medicine News. Vol. 30, no. 6. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 1, 16–17. doi:10.1097/01.EEM.0000324823.49523.e9. Archived from the original on 2017-12-29. Retrieved 2017-12-29.
Cunard (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is substantial discussion of TeamHealth in Bloomberg News where analyst reports about TeamHealth are discussed. Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, analyst reports can be used to establish notability.
There is also very substantial discussion of TeamHealth in Knoxville News Sentinel.
Cunard (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard I get it that you like to keep things but reaching for penny stock blog Motley Fool is a new low in terms of scraping the bottom of the barrel. Sheesh. I write about companies all the time and I would not touch that with a ten foot pole. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon further consideration and a review of available sources, this company meets WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is is a small leviathan of company, passing WP:CORPDEPTH and subsequently the higher standard of WP:GNG. All these £5-10billion+ companies are notable. I don't like, but it is the face off it.scope_creep (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last set of references posted by Cunard contain at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:16, 31 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 by Iridescent per A7 and G11. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patientory Inc[edit]

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

no evidence of notability beyond the usual PR attending everything in this industry DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional 'cruft on a startup with no indications of notability or significance. I requested such, let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Beckham[edit]

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

Subject of article is not yet noteworthy. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep At some point I wanted to nominate her myself, but from another view she does have some coverage in national press. So, unless persuaded, I am for article to stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think all of these ideas sound completely reasonable. Should I cancel my request for deletion? Thank you for responding so quickly. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. As I said I was on the fence for this article, so we'll see what other editors have to say. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like Arthistorian, I'm inclining towards a keep, but it's a perfectly valid nomination. Deb (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your kindness. I really enjoy editing Wikipedia pages and I don’t want to break anything. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm on the fence as well. This might be WP:BLP1E with the event being her TEDx Boulder talk. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete giving a TEDx talk is not on its own enough for notability. Nothing else here suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:SIGCOV requires that subjects have significant coverage in reliable publications and unfortunately, Ash Beckham's only notable activity is delivering one TEDx lecture. I'm not seeing sources that discuss any other major endeavors that this gentleman has undertaken. Carajou (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TEDx does not confer notability and "activist" is not even a claim for notability. Agricola44 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage for notability, which is what would be expected consider the minor accomplishments. TedX is barely worth mentioning in an article and does not imply notability . (personally, I regard including it as a signal indicating the possibility either that there may not be much else,or an attempt at promotional padding) DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 31 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. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sokunthary Svay[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written more like the primary source "about the author" PR statement at the top of a GoodReads profile than like an encyclopedia article, about a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:NAUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. This has no footnotes at all, but instead is "referenced" to a linkfarm of straight external links, of which two are WordPress blogs, three are her own primary source contributor profiles on publications she writes for, one is a piece of her own writing, one is a routine listing in an events calendar and one is a YouTube clip of her speaking (none of which are sources that can support notability at all) — and the only link that's even slightly acceptable is a Q&A interview, a type of source which can be used for suppelementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been passed by stronger sources but cannot in and of itself bring the GNG as it represents the subject speaking about herself rather than being analyzed or discussed by third parties. All of which means that none of the sourcing here is adequate, and nothing claimed in the text is a strong enough claim of notability to exempt her from having to be much better sourced than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hadn't heard of "Pushcart": found a link to Pushcart Prize. Then also found this interesting source: Open Letter to Pushcart Nominated Folks . PamD 10:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: While this article is very poorly written and needs a lot of work, Sokunthary Svay meets WP:GNG as there are RS that discuss the subject. Asian American Press and Literary Hub are just two of these that can be converted from EL's to in-line citations. Carajou (talk) 04:32, 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus André Charles Rose[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ARTIST. No critical reception. All of the exhibitions listed lead to dead links, defunct organizations, or pages that don't include his name. None of them are legitimate enough to establish notability anyway. BTW, Twinkle threw errors so trying again; I couldn't see an AfD page, but forgive if this is a duplicate. Theredproject (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see a single source in the article about Marcus André Charles Rose that passes WP:RS. The publication that's currently in the article, Geelong Coast Magazine doesn't seem to be a notable one and doesn't have an article on Wikipedia either. I therefore think that the article probably shouldn't be here. Carajou (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources not available to establish any kind of notability.104.163.153.162 (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kb.au (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anything sufficient for WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has gone six years with notaices of major deficiencies and no improvement. It is high time we stopped letting Wikipedia be bogged down by sub-standard articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 28 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbir Jadid[edit]

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

Contested PROD because he is mentioned in one source which may be called reliable. Completely non notable writer hinging on one local award. Fails WP:GNG and he is very far from meeting WP:AUTHOR –Ammarpad (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ref 1 is his personal website. Ref 2 - Banglanews24 article is written by himself, it is a short story by him. Not independent. Ref 3 is long list of books which were published in 2017 book fair. Not a significant one. - Mar11 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mar11 --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non Notable. মাখামাখি (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not being fluent in Bengali, I have to defer to Mar11 to understand sources 2 and 3, but since source 1 meets their assessment, I believe its accuracy, and support deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Sanders[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable independent sources that would indicate this person meets WP:NMUSIC, WP:NARTIST, or WP:GNG. Checked Google, GBooks, GNews, Highbeam, and JSTOR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 30 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Carter[edit]

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

Well short of satisfying WP:BIO. Disguising herself as a man to try to be near her husband doesn't merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no general notability here.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Keep her story was printed in hundreds of newspapers in 1917 and 1918 (here is a sample). She seems to pass WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I think the 1E issue is clear, but the event itself seems fairly significant, given the coverage. For the event to be covered under WP:NEVENT, however, it is expected to have more duration of coverage and I'd like to see recent coverage in some detail. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my !vote. It looks to me like there is in depth discussion of her in: Wheelwright, Julie. Amazons and military maids: women who dressed as men in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Pandora, 1989. I only get snippet view from that book in google books, but the discussion seems in depth and covers three or four pages (82, 93, 96, and possibly another). The author of that book, Wheelwright, is a well respected journalist and scholar, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I see no point for the article to stay. Notability not established at all. RedFlame 08:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete - passing trivia and Wikipedia is not a newspaper, see WP:Notnews. Also given she was only written about "a lot" 100 years ago, only further shows the trivial passing interest. Kierzek (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's been written about in a 2014 book and was in the news A LOT in 1917 and 1918. There's a lot of info about what she did and what happened after. She wrote about her experience and was published in the Bell Syndicate. She died tragically and was given a military funeral. I've improved the article. Take a look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Written about in a 2014 book" = there is one very short paragraph about her in a book that aims to document "Women in War from Prehistory to the Present". Bueller 007 (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bueller it shows interest into the present day. There's plenty of long-form information about her. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Do you know what the footnote in that book refers to? Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: Unfortunately my copy isn't complete. I looked on Project MUSE for a full text, but came up empty. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One event. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of one event rule. She never made it to the front, and actually was not even trying to be a soldier. She also had way less impact than women nurses and Red Cross volunteers, so including her in the "Women in Warfare" book showed the authors total lack of understanding of what the real contribution of women to war historically was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a non-internet age individual and that she was covered at all is significant. She was covered in her own time and later. This meets the multiple, independent third-party standard. A remarkable woman and BIO1E is a guideline, not a policy. One very remarkable act is sufficient to establish notability in this case. Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impeccable references that meet gng. --RAN (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl, Smmurphy and Montanabw. Many one time events Lawn Chair Larry, Rodney King can become significant enough to garner sufficient note to define popular culture of a specific era. Given the number of articles written at the time, and continued mentions/articles to present in RS [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], subject meets the threshold of encyclopedic notability and GNG. SusunW (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and notable for one event only.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and the "covered in her own time and later" observations above. XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As it was at nomination, it was a textbook WP:BIO1E. Now, however, it's a textbook WP:HEY. Well done and notability well established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what's now become a substantial well-sourced article showing notability. PamD 10:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The subject of multiple examples of substantial, independently published coverage in sources of presumed reliability, i.e. passe GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the coverage in independent sources is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Harbord[edit]

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

Unfortunately, this Second World War pilot doesn't seem to satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked the Gazette and he was awarded the distinguished flying medal, I googled and found excerpts from his self authored book etc. There is a smattering of info about him but nothing that passes WP:Soldier. Willing to reconsider if refs are found. Szzuk (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER. Is mentioned in some books - [60], [61] - not enough.Icewhiz (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing notability for stand alone article in the present form. Does not pass GNG from what is presented. Kierzek (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 30 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. WP:A7 slakr^\ talk / 22:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spatium 3D Technologies[edit]

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

Non notable company. Only sources are from other Wikis and Wikipedia mirrors, then press releases, fails WP:GNG and fails WP:CORP completely Ammarpad (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; no assertion of notability and a promo blurb. I requested such, let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Does not meet GNG or WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 18:50, 27 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artex Software[edit]

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

Non notable software which fails basic test WP:GNG Ammarpad (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only notable sources that mention this name are those on Carnival Cruise Lines Tycoon 2005: Island Hopping, which was only developed under their label, rather than by the original company. There aren't even credible sources on them developing Ankh, which appears to be their only product. Lordtobi (✉) 10:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom also. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 30 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superphones[edit]

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

Non notable and apparently defunct band Ammarpad (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG and no content to highlight significance of the article. RedFlame 08:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youth of Britain[edit]

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

Non notable band, apparently defunct. Fails WP:GNG and far from meeting WP:NBAND. Another user added their EP below which has been lingering for over 12 years but no sources. Ammarpad (talk) 00:35, 26 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 Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added the article about their EP to this AfD. If the band falls then that does too so we might as well discuss both together. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. They had an (self-released?) EP in 2004, a sort of (self-released?) single in 2005, no albums at all, no chart positions at all, and have not even blogged since 2006. This seems to be a short-lived comedy project. The main thing worthy of note here is that Veitch and Manuel did the videos, although I'll guess that they were also behind the band itself. (I can't see any way to check that though.) Amazingly, the claim to having supported The Prodigy does seem to be real[62] although I can't tell how often they did this and it isn't enough to demonstrate independent notability anyway. If the band or EP got a mention at B3TA then I'd be happy to !vote to redirect there but it doesn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Always hate to vote down a band and searched hard for references but couldn't find even the bare basics of a presence. Spikegray (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Articles lack sources and there is no evidence of notability for the band, let alone the EP. Dunarc (talk) 19:14, 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Mamon[edit]

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

Non-notable writer with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. No third-party sources provided, didn't found anything in Bengali or english which mentioned his name, work or something. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I think this is self promoting. see contributions of Akash Mamon. I asked for a SPI. AfD on bnwiki --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the sources are either written himself or his book name is listed in long list of books. Fail WP:GNG. - Mar11 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stringly Delete - The writer is not any notable person. I think he himself has written his biography. So, this type of spams shouldn't be on wikipedia. মাখামাখি (talk) 15:11, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RoweBots[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article of non notable company. The only sources that I find in search are primary and affliated. Totally fails WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Previous nomination closed as no consensus partly due to low participation –Ammarpad (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unambiguous advertising for a company with no indications of notability or significance. If it weren't for the previous "No consensus" close, I would have speedied it as G11. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability established and very much an unambiguous advertising article. RedFlame 08:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:Corp. No independent, notable WP:RS citing; very trivial. Kierzek (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 14:03, 30 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.

[1] Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest, Stein. Introduction to Algorithms. 3rd Edition. The MIT Press 2009. Page 459

[1]