Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 January	23 January >

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 speedy delete. G7. Primefac (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Park 459 Mississauga[edit]

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

I am deleting this article because the name cant be changed, so I'm moving the data listed on the page to a new article, Future Community Park 459. This new article will be the same, just with a different name.

You don't need a discussion for an article you have only just created and no one else has added to - just use {{db-author}} (already done) KylieTastic (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination threats against Donald Trump[edit]

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

Already deleted once Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read through the old discussion, and I decided to rename the page to "Security threats against Donald Trump". Something like "Death threats against Donald Trump" could also work. I agree there haven't been any really notable assassination plots against him (that the public is aware of at least). I think the new page (and the text in the page was already geared more towards Trump's general security situation rather than specific assassination plots) should be kept, because I believe Trump's security situation is unique in several ways compared to past presidents; specifically, one way is that the feeling of "this man should be assassinated" and etc. is unprecedented in the American public, me thinks. Ethanbas (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: the name move was reversed since the AfD already started, woops. In that case, I think what we should do is move the page. -Ethanbas (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanbas, I reversed the move for two reasons: first, the minor point that the AFD had already started (and I had just finished updating the improper listing), and second, the precedent set by Assassination threats against George W. Bush and Assassination threats against Barack Obama. I'm not saying your !vote is invalid, I'm just explaining my actions. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I knew the first reason. :P Ethanbas (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. There have not been credible instances of someone saying that they'd kill President Trump (see Bush, Obama links above for "actual" threats). I'm not saying that this should be salted, but we need to at least have 2-3 reported attempts/plots before creating a vague page about "he increased security". Primefac (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't look like enough has changed since last time in terms of significant coverage of this concept broadly (the idea vs. coverage of specific threats we would be combining to create a bigger subject). I do agree with Ethanbas that Trump's approach to security has received quite a bit of coverage, and wouldn't be opposed to redirecting this title to that article should it be created (which is not an endorsement of that being a stand-alone article -- it probably fits in one of the other Trump-related articles -- but would be happy to assess that independently of this). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This really seems like an insignificant standalone entry. Couldn't this whole entry be summed up on the main President Donald Trump page? SalemXIII (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article and keep redirect open or Very Weak keep per the equivalent article about George W. Bush. It's probably going to have content eventually. if we do delete this one, then the GWB one probably should be merged too. The Obama one is lengthy enough to be a stand-alone. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AusLondonder (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A list without contents. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per others above. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! - It can still be renamed to Trump's security or something similar, and as the assassination threats come in the future, they can get added to the article. Seriously though, isn't it notable when the average joe or when many notable celebrities like Madonna say they "want to f****** blow up the white house"? I think this article should be kept and expanded. -Ethanbas (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create articles on the off chance that they might be expanded later (falls under WP:FUTURE #1). There are no credible assassination threats so far, so we don't need an article about them. As for his security - he went from having no security (pre-campaign) to having a ton of security (post-election); of course there are going to be changes in how he is defended. That information isn't encyclopedic, though. Primefac (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone obviously jumped the gun in creating this article. Wait until there have been enough credible assassination threats that we can write an article about it. Placeholder articles like this serve no purpose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No specific threats described; put it on a draft space or sandbox if you wish. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual threats confirmed by reliable sources. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. When a notable threat occurs, then we can create this article. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable sources of attempts against Mr. Trump. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing to see here. — JFG ^talk 09:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Millions of nonnotable events cannot be combined into one notable one. Per above. WP:SNOW (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerim Vergazov[edit]

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

Unreferenced article since 2008. No evidence of notability. XXN, 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the notability criteria. No independent reliable sources found though I did find mention of him accompanying a violinist at a recent Singapore International Festival of Music concert [1]. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that he does not satisfy WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 North Bucks & District League Premier Division[edit]

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

This is a tabulation of match-by-match scores for a season of a non-professional football league. Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:NOTDIR. Υπογράφω (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the clubs playing in this league are notable Spiderone 20:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally we only have league season articles down to level 10. Number 5 7 09:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given that the clubs that play at this league are not inherently notable per WP:FOOTY and consensus, it is hard to see how a season article on the league is notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous comments, and also WP:NOTSTATS. Jellyman (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Samurai Jack episodes#Season 1 (2001). And editors may merge from history what they deem appropriate. Sandstein 12:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Jack: The Premiere Movie[edit]

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

Plot-summary-only article. Not separately notable from Samurai Jack and probably only used to link to the Amazon online store. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful info to the Samurai Jack and delete the rest. Beginning a new series by showing several episodes together has been around awhile. MarnetteD|Talk 23:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Samurai Jack episodes#Season 1 (2001) The vast majority of viewers of this series saw this as three episodes, not in 'bad 80s afternoon cartoon series' style as a pilot movie. Overly long plot summary summed up much better in the one line already in the list of seasons article, and DVD edit can be easily noted within. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a bit of a note - apparently from what I can find, this aired as a film first and was later sliced into individual episodes after it initially aired. It was likely made with the idea that they could put it into individual episodes, but it was still released as a film first. I'm also finding quite a few reviews for the DVD release as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided about whether or not this really merits an article. Technically it passes NFILM since the DVD release has reviews, but there's really not much here that isn't already in the main episode article or at the very least, can't be merged. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without deletion: no reason for keeping this content permanently hidden from non-administrators has been advanced. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand on my opinion: "merge and delete" is generally disallowed per Wikipedia:Merge and delete; "redirect and delete" is generally frowned upon unless there is a very good reason for it; and, most importantly, this should not have been brought to "Articles for deletion" in the first place. Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early per WP:SNOW because even after two days it is evident - with a headcount of 62 to 24 in favor of keep - that this will not obtain consensus to delete. That said, many opinions are rather ... perfunctory and seem to reflect more the current state of public discussion about the Trump presidency than a considered assessment of the lasting importance of this recently coined phrase. A renomination is therefore possible, perhaps in a few months when the lasting notability of the topic might be better able to be assessed. Of course, discussions about a merger also remain possible. Sandstein 17:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Alternative facts[edit]

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

Phrase used once by a campaign spokesperson during a single interview. It doesn't even rise to the level of a political neologism. Not useful as a redirect. Odie5533 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep: I already commented on this AFD possibility at Talk:Alternative facts. I urge the OP to withdraw this AFD and wait a couple of weeks as I suspect this neologism will have wider currency by then and not just in the cited context.--Penbat (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS / WP:CRYSTALBALL. You are speculating that the topic will be notable in the future. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Give it a chance - the neologism is one day old from its birth. It's more trouble than its worth to delete this article and then possibly resurrect it in a few weeks. What is the big deal about waiting two weeks before putting in an AFD ? --Penbat (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the traction this newspeak has already gained internationally - not just in the US - [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. - it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the term will become prominent in future discussions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Reasonable' or not, WP:CRYSTALBALL. If it becomes prominent then remake the articleFullmetalalch (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as WP:NEOLOGISM. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG in spades. It has received widespread, non-trivial international coverage from major news sources. The article is not really about the phrase, nor is it actually a neologism; It's about the position conveyed by Trump and his counselors Spicer, Conway, and Preibus that facts are fungible. 'Alternative facts' has drawn reactions from the likes of Dan Rather and Allan Lichtman, numerous celebrities, and many across social media.- Mr X 22:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG But also WP:PLOT and WP:TOOMUCH. Fullmetalalch (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:SUSTAINED. Topic is in today's news cycle, but the last few months have been full of similar brief. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basket of deplorables.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~possibly Redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep changing my iVote due to this morning's coverage, which is now not merely massive, but in-depth, carrying this term beyond the usual brief sensation. See, in particular, Alternative Facts’ and the Costs of Trump-Branded Reality, Jim Rutenberg, NYTimes [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While it may be a day old neologism, it is culturally significant and captures the rapidly changing trend in media content consumption, production, and reaction. I see no reason to delete it at this time. It may be a speculation and the term may not hold in the long run, at this moment, it does highlight a way a certain group of people with authority are dealing with information and facts. --aakash58 —Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
propaganda is already a page. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every WP:NOTNEWS instance that 'captures' cultural trendsFullmetalalch (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per E.M.Gregory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see arguments of Penbat. --déRahier ^talk⁺^contrib 22:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But consider copying essential info to a subsection of Sean Spicer and adding a redirection if anyone still cares about this 6th page news by next thursdayFullmetalalch (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person who used the term was Kellyanne Conway, not Spicer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think both could have a couple of sentences or a subsection on the issueFullmetalalch (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason, other than political, to be in a rush to delete. This phrase strikes me as one that has virtually guaranteed staying power—similar to Stephen Colbert's 2005 coinage of the word ″truthiness.″ Scott Rollans (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume I have a political motivation for nominating this for deletion, nor that those voting delete are politically motivated to do so. WP:AGF --Odie5533 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's more because it's WP:NOTNEWS that's hardly worth three sentences in Sean Spicer Fullmetalalch (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion is for that which does not matter. This matters FLY 23:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC).″ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archlinux (talk • contribs)
That's a nice philosophy to live by, but Wikipedia's guidelines are slightly more stringentFullmetalalch (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:MrX - not just a neologism but an encyclopedic phenomenon covered by a wide variety of reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seddon ^talk 23:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This phrase has not passed 'the test of time' yet, and I think it's too early to grant it its own wiki page. I do support merging the contents into Kelyanne Conway's page. Amin (Talk) 23:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This article is a bit premature, possibly, but no matter what happens with this term, the content of this article is definitely encyclopedic. In a couple weeks, once we know whether the term has sustained coverage, we can determine whether we should merge it or keep it as a standalone, but why delete the work of editors on clearly encyclopedic content? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to propaganda or maybe fake news. It's not a standalone article per WP:NEOLOGISM but makes sense as a search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although fairly thin right now, it is very likely that this will become part of a pattern of behaviour for Trump. There are three likely long term outcomes for this article 1) being incorporated into other entries, such as "double speak", 2) being incorporated into an entry deal with Trump's general attacks on the media, or 3) Growing it as its own thing as Trump's press people double down on this strategy. I think it is unlikely that we will have to wait very long to see which of these three outcomes is the most appropriate. We also should not rush to option 1, since this does not expand the theoretical discussion of "double speak" by itself; from that point of view, it is just another example so far. Deleting this is just throwing this notable event from history down the memory hole. Qed (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (if a suitable target can be found); if it does become notable we can still create an article in a week, or better yet in a month. WP:Recentism is a thing, as is WP:NOTNEWS. To Qed: Assuming this does become a pattern, do you suggest creating new articles for every new explanation given by Trump's spokespeople? If not, why for this one? Huon (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Overwhelmingly so. It's already becoming a meme that's drawing cultural and political criticism and discussion en masse. That said, I feel it needs expansion regarding it's cultural impact and reactions. Quotes from more than just one political commentator are necessary I think. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to good old propaganda or disinformation. Do we really need so much newspeak? — JFG ^talk 23:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if you actually bother to read the article on newspeak that you link to, you'll realize that it's a distinct concept from "propaganda" or "disinformation".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure JFG is reffering to 'alternative-truth' as newspeak, and not comparing it to either of those two. Fullmetalalch (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear VM, I'm sure you will agree with me that "alternative facts" is just a fancy newspeakful way to say "propaganda".

— JFG ^talk 00:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Read the article you yourself linked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least for the moment. The article is more about the concept of facts being somehow interchangeable ("my facts are different from your facts"), rather than the specific term itself. There are already think pieces out there exploring what the concept means to governance and the reporting of same. It is not the same as propaganda, which also refers to positive information. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a great many articles were created on similar politics-related neologisms during the past year. Many (Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basket of deplorables were created and deleted soon after the term hit the news cycle. Others (Cf. Act of Love (political statement and advertisement) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Bro were not merely created months after the first time the WP:NEO was in the new cycle, they were created after political journalists had had time to write about the origin, use and impact of a newly coined phrase itself.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I urge editors weighing in here to look at these and at WP:NEO, and also examine the articles now included in Category:American political neologisms.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:NEO really applies since the article is not attempting to promote the phrase into common usage. If fact, I hope I never hear a member of my government say it again. There are a number of phrases associate with political subjects that have survived attempts at deletion, for example Binders full of women, Internets, and You didn't build that.- Mr X 00:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this campaign produced many, some collected at Category:United States presidential election, 2016 in popular culture.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some that closed no consensus (Ted Cruz–Zodiac meme) should probably be reconsidered. Others Jeb! The Musical reached consensus, but still hang out in a weird sort of WP:Limbo. It's easy to get over-persuaded by a topic in the news cycle.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It seems to be impactful at this very moment, but let time decide whether it remains so over the longer run. If it doesn't stand the test of time, it will be something to include in Conway's page rather than having its own. Morgengave (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have already added this phrase as a subhead at Kellyanne Conway.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The high profile of the speaker, the importance of the subject matter and the pivotal timing of the comment make it notable. Ordinary Person (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there has been significant coverage on the matter. It's about as newsworthy as kompromat. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- With the very significant distinction that kompromat has been in wide use for many years. "“Kompromat” didn’t start showing up in English-language news sources until Boris Yeltsin served as Russian president in the 1990s." WSJ here: [7]; How ‘Kompromat’ Became a Word for Using Scandal as a Weapon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NEOLOGISM. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is this doing on here? Redirect to Lie and insert a mention there. WAY too WP:RECENT. Definitely a neologism that can be discussed elsewhere. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of coverage Victor Grigas (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's significant coverage. See Ordinary Person's comment. It's not going to go away. JSFarman (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. --Lingveno (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least. Seems to have sufficient coverage from reliable sources and the media in general, and has had quite a repercussion and backlash in social media. It might be a case of WP:RECENTISM, but let's wait at least a month and then we'll see. κατάστασ η 02:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a clear attempt by editors with an agenda to smear this President and his administration. It was a one-off statement by a White House aide, not really that notable; also, per WP:NEOLOGISM. SuperCarnivore591 (talk)!
Keep: While this is very recent "WP:RECENT″, the dialogue over the past ~18 months has shown sufficient history to justify this neologism and predict it's very applicable use in the coming years. Wait through the next 98 days, give it a chance "WP:CHANCE",don't demolish "WP:DEMOLISH" until it has had a chance to be built because there is more to come. If it gets shut down now, it will only be rebuilt again. And those most against it will want to take it down because they don't want their lies pointed out "WP:IDL", but that doesn't mean that they are entitled to their own facts.64.66.124.134 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)ahhm[reply]
Keep. The term has received significant coverage in RS, and been the subject of much debate. --Tataral (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very newsworthy and telling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.124.134 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is substantial media coverage of the term, its initial use is a notable event, and if current events with the incoming administration continue as they are presently unfolding it will likely see substantial further use from reliable sources over the course of the near future. Charwinger21 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As amusing as the existence of this article is to me personally, E.M.Gregory makes a host of valid points. Someone can squirrel the text away and resurrect it in a few months if the term still has the notability some claim it will. -AdamRoach (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Calibrador (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:NEOLOGISM is irrelevant now, considering that multiple sources from around the globe from Forbes [8] to Sydney Morning Herald [9] to The Guardian [10] to France 24 [11] to South China Morning Post [12], and even dictionary sites like Merriam Webster [13] are already reporting, discussing and propogating the term without the benefit of the Wikipedia article. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. People will be searching for this and it shouldn't come up as a redlink, but also because WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, it really isn't worthy of its own article yet. It probably will end up having staying power due to the international coverage and commentary, but as before, WP:CRYSTAL. Will need consensus of where is best to redirect it to tho. Gatemansgc (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly WP:GNG and we have hundreds of articles on various disasters that were created on the day of their occurrence, so this is one of many exceptions to WP:RECENT. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Revisit it in 6 weeks. It is all over the news and it may enter the lexicon, but for we do not know yet where it is going. Furthermore, it is my opinion that, generally speaking, premature deletion of any article with wide-ranging media coverage just discourages enthusiastic editors. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This phrase is not only seared into the public consciousness for the forseeable future, it is supported by the best independent and diverse news sources available.198.58.172.228 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conway's article. Recentism, term unlikely to retain lasting notability. WP:NEOLOGISM remains relevant, so far as I can tell, mainly due to this fact. Should this term still be in circulation a month a now, maybe I'd think otherwise, but it seems unlikely. Mélencron (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect at least for now, needs evidence of ongoing notability, per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. It may warrant its own article later, but right now it's just speculating on its impact. --Xanzzibar (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much more than just a neologism, this is a major news story. There's large amounts of news coverage about this in reliable sources, well beyond what would normally be needed to establish notability. -- The Anome (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term has now been widely picked up and discussed in various leading media outlets (even Billboard at http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7662621/lance-bass-alternative-facts-joke-kellyanne-conway ) beyond just the context (the interview) where it first came up. The New York Times and Huffington Post others have analyzed the concept of "alternative facts" in general. It has also entered memes. So it's not just a single-use term and has grown in prominence as a term and concept. --Mousepadrightmousepadleft (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The term seems to cover quite well an existing stream in politics & society and is becoming a history as we speak. Maybe later on it can be incorporated into some sort of summary of the epoch but for now I would keep it separate.--evgf-wiki (talk ) 08:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Maybe the article s premature as it is hard to predict whether the term catches on, but it has been picked up by numerous outlets and involves a significant political office. Even if a separate article is found to be unwarranted it is likely that a term that is covered so broadly will be mentioned in some article on the Trump administration or Ms. Conway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT alternate fact redirects to Counterfactual thinking; -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE someone redirected Alternate fact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to "alternative facts" -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is so salient, this is not something that needs evidence of ongoing notability. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where did the consensus to only keep things that have passed through more than 1 media cycle (48 hours) go? REDIRECT to FALSE Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current page is just a vehicle to attack Sean Spicer. An article on this term is really failing WP:Neologism. As a controversy this is just a WP:One event. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree about the Neologism part and the one event part — pointing out when an individual has made demonstrably false statements is not an attack. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon for an article. It is too early to know if this will have lasting notability or is just a catchphrase of the day. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is exactly my point but I voted "Keep" as I suggested doing a more considered AFD after 2 weeks when we will get a better idea. Article has already been created and it is too much of an upheaval to delete article now but then possibly resurrect it again in a couple of weeks.--Penbat (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge & redirect): There will be handful of people looking for this, no need to censor information from them. Petrb (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Petrb – there have been nearly 18,000 pageviews in the last 24 hours... [14] Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Kellyanne Conway with a mention at Sean Spicer, with short mentions at inauguration of Donald Trump and first 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. This is noteworthy within the context of these articles, but in my view is not independently notable for a standalone article. Neutrality^talk 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For now, delete with content merged into appropriate Trump-related articles. In a few weeks we'll know whether the concept is mentioned for more than a news cycle or two. The Land (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. That article should have a section on "Early days" to highlight early actions of the administration. That should also include Spicer's first press conference and the controversy around that with a followup on "alternative facts". The redirect should go to that section. As it stands now, it is not notable in any other context. If the term has been widely used later on, a stand alone article can be recreated at that point. Z22 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Inauguration of Donald Trump#Crowd size, which covers the same topic. Having a separate article for a single phrase from a press conference is peak WP:RECENTISM. Smurrayinchester 15:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'd humbly suggest that the phrase "Alternative facts" will not disappear, as memes such as "Alternative facts" have tremendous staying power. Linguistically, the almost-oxymoronic phrasing would, even without political motivation, give it more "legs" than even the "truthiness" term. Add the very unusual historical context (i.e., the first Meet the Press interview by the brand new President's counselor talking about the first press briefing on the first full day of a new administration) and the circumstances under which the neologism was generated could hardly be more salient. Additionally, I would point out the first sentence on the Doublespeak page: "Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words." Offhand, it's hard for me to think of a better example of "reversing the meaning of words" than "alternative facts", especially in the context of Ms. Conway defending Mr. Spicer and denying his falsehoods.Nuggetkiwi (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think is not sufficient as a stand-alone article Shadowcat45 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with possible review in another six months to one year. It currently seems significant at the catch-phrase level; Google News search on the phrase in quotes turned up just under a million hits. While not all catch phrases deserve such documentation, longer lasting ones seem to be considered to merit such recognition. In light of his presidential campaign, it seems to have the potential to come to characterize the entire term of President Trump, and deserves to have its earliest origins documented contemporaneously to help maximize the accuracy. Abb3w (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a lot of talk and deeds centered on controlling information which usually ends in its deletion. Knowledge and information should never be deleted and so must be somewhere. It is unfortunate that this discussion is taking place and therefore this article should be kept to prevent the deletion of more information141.238.15.236 (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC) A concerned college student[reply]
Delete: Citing op-ed articles as "sources" for "facts" undermines this article's claim to authenticity. Once those sources are removed, the remaining content is barely a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.80.222.11 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This claim right here appears to be an "alternative fact" itself. It's just simply not true that most sources in the article are op-eds.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It became a term picked by media (e.g. theguardian, independet, forbes) and characterizes the paradigm shift in US policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.182 (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: But perhaps incorporate into the Wikipedia articles "Orwellian" or "Doublespeak" or "Rebranded White Nationalism" or "Post-truth politics" or "Kellyanne Conway," or all of these. But keep this content somewhere. It is very historic for a highly-placed adviser and spokesperson for the U.S. president to so blatantly and casually engage in such gross and raw Orwellian doublespeak on live TV.
Orwellian usually refers to technological authoritarianism, not shameless lies. Doublespeak is the act of holding contrary views, which I don't see how that's related. I also don't see how the Rebranded White Nationalism is related either. Really the only relevent artice would be Post-truth Fullmetalalch (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with incorporating it into the Wikipedia articles "Orwellian" or "Doublespeak" or "Rebranded White Nationalism" or "Post-truth politics" or "Kellyanne Conway," or all of these. But keep this content somewhere. Important to document that a highly-placed adviser and spokesperson for the U.S. president unblinkingly used Orwellian doublespeak on live TV.
Keep - Per Ghmyrtle. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 17:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-truth politics is an excellent topic for a redirect & merge. This article is undoubtedly a subset of the topic that is covered in Post-truth, albeit the target article needs a cleanup for NPOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Deserves a mention in the Kellyanne Conway article and/or the post-truth politics article, not an article by itself. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This neologism does not qualify, under our rules, for a stand-alone article. Whatever can be usefully sourced about it belongs here: Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump#Crowd_size. David in DC (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect somewhere. Trivial neologism. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to repeating AFD in a month. When an event obtains very broad media coverage, as this did, and seems like it might possibly have some lasting significance, my preference is to let it have a chance to develop. There is no deadline, and we can revisit the issue after a while when it is clearer whether or not it actually did have lasting significance. If not, the relevant bits can be merged into the inauguration article, or elsewhere. Dragons flight (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to put on my admin hat and close this as a SNOW keep, which is where this is headed--"no consensus" defaults to keep, and it's certainly clear there is no consensus to delete. As much as I hate NOTNEWS and every political fart being written up here (I just made that "argument" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeploraBall, this is not just a fart--it is being discussed in reliable sources, rightly or wrongly, as providing an insight into the new US administration, and as such it clearly rises above the fray, the fray of walls of meat or local marches or whatever. And not all sources are op-eds, as someone argued. So keep, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong objection to the idea of snow closing a one-day-old AfD about a two-day-old neologism. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Guy Macon. What's the rush?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count objections, but sure, guys--your objections are noted. There's no rush, E.M.Gregory, but you yourself already changed your mind and this, like so many needless discussions whose most negative outcome is "no consensus", is a waste of time and server space. Guy Macon, if you want to object to anything, object to the creation of such articles in the first place. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will not. I have no position on keep/delete/redirect. My objection was entirely proper, it will be counted by any admin considering a snow close, and because others have agreed with my objection, this AfD will not be snow closed any time soon -- if an admin snow closes it against consensus we will take a trip to WP:AN and discuss it. Speaking of closing admins, I fully expect all !votes based upon arguments such as "I suspect this neologism will have wider currency by then", "it's use and timing make it highly likely to become a commonly used reference", and "[I] predict it's very applicable use in the coming years" to be discarded as being against Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although this is literally a one day old neologism, it's use and timing make it highly likely to become a commonly used reference for perceived or actual misinformation and disinformation by the Trump administration.--Drewinmaine (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No position on keep/delete/redirect, strong support for allowing another AfD in a month or two --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, the OP User:Odie5533 should have kept his powder dry. I made this very point on Talk:Alternative facts before this AFD even started. Not sure how you can delete now yet have a second AFD in a months time. It would be very disruptive to delete now but possibly ressurect in a months time. Much easier to Keep for the time being then reconsider with a new AFD.--Penbat (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the stipulation that there be no prejudice against a 2nd AfD in a month or 2.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its common sense to make this a SNOW keep for now to stop wasting everybodies time but by all means have another AFD soon when picture becomes clearer. --Penbat (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Trumpiness is good enough for an article, then I'm inclined to go for a Keep. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed, "Trumpiness" is significantly less notable. Celestialghost (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep with the suggestion that the closer notes in their closing rationale that there be no prejudice against renomination in the next few months. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Totally agree - its common sense. --Penbat (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep for now, it's notable right now--- let's see if it's still being used a few months from now. (I have a feeling it will, but time will tell.) Paris1127 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: The phrase and what it symbolizes has already been translated into multiple languages. [15],[16],[17],[18]

Radioswede (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This doesn't even come close to qualifying for notability, to keep it short. There's no way getting around it.Spilia4 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now We can always revisit the matter, if it drops out of common use. jxm (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, Let's see how this plays out before deleting it. TBMNY (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lets see how this goes. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreeing with many other rationales here such as User:The Anome & User:Tataral.

For the people citing WP:NOTNEWS: please read its actual 5 points of non-wanted content and this part: editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. It's very useful and important that we provide information on current events that the public is interested in. Especially as these specifically have typically a very high interest by the public (that decreases by time) and because there's a lot of confusion and scattered information for such. If there's enough WP:RS on it there's no reason to not have an article.
For those that cite WP:NEO: this term has a high usage by RS already.
For those that cite WP:CRYSTALBALL: the page doesn't attempt to predict the future and is about an historic event. Whether or not this event is an isolated incident or part of a series / indicative of such or anything else doesn't matter because that single event/behavior is notable enough.

--Fixuture (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -"Alternative facts" is not a neologism (newly coined word). The phrase "alternative facts" has a very long and common history of use among attorneys and judges. In that context, it is a perfectly legitimate phrase. Using Google Books, I found it being used in the legal context as far back as the year 1898. This Wikipedia article on "Alternative facts" can serve to educate the public about this legal phrase, and about reactions to its use in contexts outside of the courtroom. To see this phrases' many uses in the legal context, just search in Google or Google Books for "alternative facts" simultaneously with "evidence" and "law" and "court". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Credidimus2 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: Currently notable. Keep it around until we see how the situation develops. Celestialghost (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is the sort of thing that could catch on in a big way (like economical with the truth but coming from an even more high-profile source), it seems on a par with some of the most infamous political phrases. It likely *wouldn't* be up for deletion if it happened decades ago and people still alluded to it occasionally. We won't really know for years, though. While recency may seem like a good reason for deletion, there is no realistic way to embargo articles, however much some would like to. Like it or not, people are most motivated to work on current events articles right after the event happens. If the incident is totally forgotten within a year you can always renominate it. 169.231.39.57 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a currently important article and is still ongoing. Deleting the article would be against what Wikipedia stands for. Gcock2k10 (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as WP:NEOLOGISM. SEWilco (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as WP:NEOLOGISM. Vivaldi (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a long history of usage means that it is not a WP:NEOLOGISM. Meets WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like it or not it is here, notable and well-documented. DBaK (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the participants - most likely Kellyanne Conway or possibly Sean Spicer, where it is adequately covered. Not enough for a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above arguments plus additional note that the reference to "alternative facts" in previous works dating back to 1991 (sparsely cited, but cited) do lend relevance to the existence of an article which addresses both the concept of "alternative facts" and the explicit application in the last few months. Benjitheijneb (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side Comment - the previously cited mentions and discussions of the notions of "alternative facts" should sufficiently defy WP:NEOLOGISM, with the implication that it is simply not a neologism of the mid 2010s, but a longer-standing if discrete notion. Benjitheijneb (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The concept of the word "alternate facts" existed before Kellyanne Conway said that line. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New sources have emerged showing a full crowd at the inauguration. Cards84664 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as WP:NEOLOGISM and SNOW. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 03:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep – per all of the above. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or at least redirect to related content on Spicer or Conway article. The importance is in its identification of a significant event regarding the beginning of a presidency, not in the notability of the phrase itself.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Alternative facts" has become already a famous political catchphrase, and will probably remain such for some time. Wikipedia already has articles dedicated to single political catchphrases, for example "Vast right-wing conspiracy" (1998), "You didn't build that"(2012), and "Basket of deplorables"(2016). In a similar vein, Wikipedia has an article dedicated to the "Bushism" phenomenon ("unconventional statements, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, and semantic or linguistic errors in the public speaking of former President of the United States George W. Bush.") "Alternative facts" deserves its own encyclopedia article because it is already one of the famous political catchphrases of the Trump presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Credidimus2 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to lie. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:RECENTISM, I'd also add WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:10YEARS (whose application is as questionable as any of the "historical event" claims above). --Vituzzu (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "alternative facts" article got 57,315 hits in the last 24 hours.--Penbat (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's amazing how many separate articles have been spawned about Trump here since his inauguration - this is a good example of WP:RECENTISM in action. I also agree with the other arguments put by Vituzzu. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NEO is not applicable here because older sources attest to its use. It is clearly discussed deeply and well sourced in multiple reliable sources. Whether WP:RECENT applies is, ironically, subjective here. Bearian (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of the term per WP:GNG is fulfilled, the article contents is reasonably well balanced, so it's a clear case for "Keep". The term is in the news all over the world, so we have hundreds of reliable sources. WP:NEO does not apply. I think, as an encyclopedia for everyone, we have an obligation to have an article about this topic so that anybody can make up his/her mind about this new US administration. Other WPs found it similarly important to create articles as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the delete reasons stated above. I can't believe anyone with sense thinks this is stand-alone encyclopedia article worthy (unless, of course, they have a particular political agenda). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. Please don't assume people arguing for keep (or delete) are doing so for political reasons. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also discussion Alternate reality#Trump´s alternate reality. There is a need for this kind of article.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now. As of now this is something that Kellyanne Conway said in an interview once. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT apply here. Unless this becomes a reoccurring phrased used by the Trump administration, anything worth keeping can be transferred to the Kellyanne Conway article.LM2000 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON, but here it doesn't surprise me that it has been created, I'd fully expect a Wikipedia article on this topic. Of course, might as well one day be a section in one of the target articles suggested above. GregorB (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The terminology is scrutinized by almost countless sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Gujar Mal[edit]

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

Badly written and with no references, I also cannot find any references to this person online (most will be in another language if they exist however. Even if notable, it probably needs a WP:TNT. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Found copyright per G12 ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 22:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, in hindsight this was an obvious one, should have checked it for copyvios. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bower[edit]

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

Not notable enough for inclusion (one minor reference in a book is insufficient to show notability). - The Bounder (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although little seems to be known about him, I found several references to him in books, for example here and here which I have added to the article. He was the subject of an article in Clocks Magazine in 1983. I also found longcase clocks made by him for sale at specialist sites, with a few biographical notes, like this clock selling for £4250. So his work is still acclaimed more than two hundred years after he died and he is the sort of individual that we should be featuring in Wikipedia rather than here-today-and-gone-tomorrow beauty queens and singers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sourcing done by User:Cwmhiraeth. Also note that for specialty topics (e.g. clockmaking) and historical timeframes (18th century), some relevant sources are likely to be beyond the reach of a web search. The fact that there are actually some sources available online for this topic suggests to me that there are probably others that are not online. Υπογράφω (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

The main argument, made by the nominator multiple times in the discussion, was that WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a policy trumps WP:GNG, a "mere" guideline. Multiple people pointed out (correctly) that WP:NOTDIRECTORY only mandates deletion if the problem cannot be fixed by editing (which WP:WHATISTOBEDONE mentions as an alternative of what to do when a page really violates WP:NOT). Also, not explicitly mentioned, but thusly implied, WP:ATD is also a policy and it says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." (mirroring the aforementioned advice on WP:NOT).

Regarding possible COI editors hindering cleanup, there is no rule that says a page has to be deleted if such editors work on it, even if they make it hard to fix problems in the article. After all, the WP:COI and WP:PAY guidelines were created to deal with such users and the WP:BLOCK policy allows blocking single-purpose accounts.

The nominators claim "WP:NOT is in fact policy alone as it's the highest policies we have" does not take into account that despite the existence of Wikipedia:Five pillars, there is no actual rule that says any of those pillars is more important than say the editing or deletion policies, both of which have been cited here in favor of retaining the article (albeit cleaned up).

Other editors arguing against notability have no longer done so after Cunard provided a list of sources, so consensus on notability was established pretty clearly.

Considering all this and weighing the various arguments made, consensus for keeping the article existed at this time. Regards So Why 21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RadiumOne[edit]

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

Advertising sourced by only either published or republished PR announcements, trade publications, interviews, listings and all similar and a careful search here shows nothing but exact PR, and that alone is a concern for us here at AfD because there's nothing for genuine independent notability and substance and certainly not when advertising is involved, hence violating our policies. As always, WP:NOT is non-negotiable and simply because the last AfD was withdrawn has no bearing here, because the advertising has continued, and I know we've certainly changed since 2014 about advertising and we've certainly changed against such consensus as "It's sourced!". SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a self-serving article without as far as I can tell any objective interest to third parties. The company isn't notable. I'm weary of companies using Wiki as a platform for self-promotion. This article is a good example of this unfortunate trend on Wikipedia. Chisme (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered by popular media, more than just press. Last time nominated and kept with all keep votes. It is well known brand by well known Personality known globally. It adheres to lots of Wikipedia standards for any company. Light2021 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the sources are still noticeably outweighed by PR and other self-company sources, and there's not enough to substantially improve it in satisfying our policies, especially about such company articles. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A promotional article with a truly remarkable array of press releases attempting to serve as sources. They may get some coverage elsewhere based on the press releases, but none of this is reliable enough to justify adding WP to the list of media in which they advertise. There are normally two reasons for a array of PR or trivial sources: either that there isn't anything else, or that the editor can't tell the difference. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- un unremarkable private company going about its business. Content is advertorial in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Carson, Mel; Springer, Paul (2012). Pioneers of Digital: Success Stories from Leaders in Advertising, Marketing, Search and Social Media. London: Kogan Page. p. 44. ISBN 0749466057. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The book notes:
  
  RadiumOne was able to make an immediate impact because it gave advertisers far more up-to-date information to make value judgements. RadiumOne's platform runs and generates data in real time. Its agility comes from being able to continually adjust content to match the changing social web demands of web users — a first for online advertising. With RadiumOne's own tools to map user behavior — they labelled it their Dynamic Audience Platform — they can apply lessons learnt from statistics based on live interaction. This lets RadiumOne's analysts segment and then match advertising to the most appropriate users, with a stream of real-time information to constantly inform their positioning. The technology can also identify new audiences from first-time site visitors. Being able to scale new and existing audiences in this way gives RadiumOne an advantage because, in having granular detail on web users, they can accurately predict footfall and reponse rates for advertising. RadhiumOne are, therefore, making online advertising less of an art, more of a science, with clearer returns on investment.
2. Johnson, Cory (2014-03-10). "RadiumOne Said to Be Preparing IPO to Expand Overseas". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  ComScore lists San Francisco-based RadiumOne as the ninth largest online ad network, with 169.7 million unique visitors in January. Criteo SA, another Web-advertising agency, had $616.3 million sales in 2013 and ranked fifth, while Rocket Fuel Inc. had revenue of $240.6 million and was 16th on Comscore’s list.
  RadiumOne has narrowed its search of lead investment banks to two, and anticipates that the IPO will take place in the third quarter of 2014, the people said.
3. Terdiman, Daniel (2014-05-08). "Exclusive: RadiumOne's very strange story just got stranger. Turns out RadiumOne's fired CEO isn't the only employee with a spotty record, according to the US Secret Service". CNET. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  RadiumOne has its main offices in a tall building in the heart of downtown San Francisco -- just two blocks from CNET's headquarters. The company was founded in September 2009 by Chahal, who had already struck gold once when he sold a previous ad network, BlueLithium, to Yahoo for $300 million in 2007, and who won Ernst & Young's 2013 entrepreneur of the year award in the platform technology category. On its website, RadiumOne says it "builds intelligent software that automates media buying, making big data actionable for marketers and connects them to their next customer."
  That's the kind of description guaranteed to induce yawns for those not deeply involved in ad networks. But for an enterprise company, making money is the way to the hearts of investors, and it's clear RadiumOne was attractive enough to venture capitalists to raise a $10.5 million A-round of funding in late 2009, and a $21 million B-round in March 2011 led by Crosslink Capital. That round valued the company at $200 million. Some think an IPO is in its near future.
  ...
  On April 27, RadiumOne issued a press release announcing Chahal's firing, and his replacement by COO Bill Lonergan. "Bill has an extraordinary professional background and has helped build BlueLithium and RadiumOne into industry leading brands," the company said in its statement. "We are confident he will continue RadiumOne's impressive trajectory."
  The release made no mention of Chahal's legal problems. Nor, of course, did it mention the company had somehow allowed a man wanted by the Secret Service to be hired, and promoted to a position as director of engineering.
4. McMahan, Ty (2010-10-08). "New Ad Network RadiumOne Aims To Tap Social 'Mega Trend'". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  The company, gWallet Inc., is being rebranded as RadiumOne Inc. and will use “social retargeting” technology to analyze how users interact with one another to find consumers most closely identified with a brand’s customer base. Chahal said RadiumOne will outperform any previous ad network or refund the full cost of campaigns that run on the new network.
  ...
  RadiumOne aims to analyze social interactions to place the consumers on a social graph that will accurately describe their behavior. The company will take the social data and segment the various interactions to form “social clusters” of people who know each other and share common interests. The company will then leverage these new groups to serve ads.
  ...
  He founded gWallet last year to provide offers marketing to social-gaming companies by sealing deals directly with large brands, rather than working through ad networks. GWallet will continue to live under the RadiumOne umbrella, contributing data to the new network.
  ...
  The San Francisco-based company in December raised $10 million in Series A financing led by Adams Street Partners and Trinity Ventures, and has raised $12.5 million in total. ...
5. Elder, Jeff (2015-09-09). "RadiumOne Worked to Save IPO Amid Scandal. Directors, lawyers hoped to minimize fallout from abuse case against Gurbaksh Chahal". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Documents reviewed by the Journal, dated before the judge’s ruling, show the lengths to which RadiumOne board members and lawyers strategized on how to minimize the impact of the case on the planned IPO filing, which never materialized.
  Venture capitalist and one-time California state controller Steve Westly, who joined RadiumOne’s board in November 2013, suggested in a Dec. 3, 2013, email to Mr. Chahal that lawyer Willie Brown, former San Francisco mayor and State Assembly speaker, “believes that he can help you.” Mr. Westly, who is considering a second run for governor, wrote that Mr. Brown knows the district attorney and “may be able to ‘back him off,’” adding that Mr. Brown is a “very good deal broker.”
6. Lee, Ellen (2014-04-18). "Gurbaksh Chahal turns RadiumOne to gold. RadiumOne founder strikes gold for 3rd time with online ads". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Now the serial entrepreneur is deep into his third online advertising startup, San Francisco's RadiumOne. This time, he's looking at social and mobile advertising, and how best to display online advertisements based on a person's use of Twitter and other online social activity.
  RadiumOne began as gWallet, its a loyalty and rewards program, which allows Internet users to receive virtual currency for doing things such as answering advertising-sponsored surveys. It has since expanded to RadiumOne.
7. Levine, Barry (2015-03-27). "RadiumOne is in dire financial circumstances, sources say — company denies it". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  RadiumOne, once a high flyer in the advertising technology world, has less than three months of cash left and is being turned down by dozens of investors.
  That’s what two anonymous inside sources are telling VentureBeat tonight. Both said that the company hired RBC three months ago to lead its new investment round, but the investment bank has come up bare.
8. Rao, Leena (2011-09-07). "RadiumOne Gets Into The Group Messaging Game, Debuts App For iOS And Android PingMe". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  RadiumOne, an online ad network that aims to combine social and intent data to serve ads, is getting into the group messaging space today. The company is releasing a free, group messaging app for iOS and Android called PingMe Messenger that allows users to message each other in real-time, across platforms.
  ...
  For background, RadiumOne mines social data and use this information to identify relevant consumers for brands. Through what Chahal calls “social retargeting,” RadiumOne analyzes how users interact with one another on social networks to find the consumers that identify with a brand’s current customer base, and then serves advertisements to this audience across the company’s network of publishers. The company just raised $21 million in new funding at a $200 million valuation.
9. Constine, Josh (2013-10-02). "RadiumOne Finalizes IPO Plan As It Hits ~$100M In AdTech Revenue". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  
  RadiumOne provides businesses with marketing and analytics tools that generate data that the startup uses to target ads for its clients. It earns a cut of the advertising spend for accurately targeting the ads to potential and existing customers on the web, mobile, video, and Facebook. It’s said to be profitable, unlike some other players in the space that are still burning venture capital.
  The company has raised $33.5 million from Crosslink Capital, Adams Street Partners, and Trinity Ventures. CEO Gurbaksh Chahal, who recently pleaded not guilty to allegations of assault, provided the company’s initial funding with proceeds from previously selling the startups BlueLithium and ValueClick for $300 million and $40 million respectively.
10. O'Reilly, Lara (2015-06-30). "RadiumOne — the adtech company recently rumored to be 'struggling' — just raised $54 million". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2017-01-18.
  The article notes:
  Adtech company RadiumOne has raised a $54 million 50/50 equity/debt financing round, which it plans to use to open more offices across Asia-Pacific and Europe, expand its data and platform technology, and fund more sales and marketing hires.
  The round appears to be a sign that the company is in stable financial health. RadiumOne tells Business Insider the company reported $125 million in revenue in 2014, that it is on track to achieve around $200 million in revenue this year, and that it is net profitable.
  The financing should also squash anonymous rumors that circulated the adtech industry in March that RadiumOne was struggling to raise capital and that it had just three months of cash left. At the time, RadiumOne chief executive William "Bill" Lonergan sent out a memo to staff flatly denying the allegations, adding that no jobs were at risk.
  It has been around four years since RadiumOne, previously valued at $500 million, last raised investment. The last investment was $21 million in Series B financing, according to CrunchBase.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow RadiumOne to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) rewrote the article in 2014; her neutral rewritten version is here and is a clean version to revert to if necessary.
That the current version of the article contains promotional content does not mean the article should be deleted. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RadiumOne participants and closer: LukeSurl (talk · contribs), Philg88 (talk · contribs), Moswento (talk · contribs), Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs), Cirt (talk · contribs), and Vulcan's Forge (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and analysis - All of the sources are clear published and republished company website information in business publications, one of which BusinessInsider we no longer consider independent because of its similar choices to Forbes which host self-published or self-hired company information, next VentureBeat has been established by AfD in the last year that it's unsuitable because of its willingness to republish press releases and label them as articles. The analysis of these sources show clear consistency and the obvious signs no one but the company put it there:
RadiumOne was able to make an immediate impact because it gave advertisers far more up-to-date information to make value judgements. RadiumOne's platform runs and generates data in real time. Its agility comes from being able to continually adjust content to match the changing social web demands of web users — a first for online advertising. With RadiumOne's own tools to map user behavior — they labelled it their Dynamic Audience Platform — they can apply lessons learnt from statistics based on live interaction. This lets RadiumOne's analysts segment and then match advertising to the most appropriate users, with a stream of real-time information to constantly inform their positioning. The technology can also identify new audiences from first-time site visitors. Being able to scale new and existing audiences in this way gives RadiumOne an advantage because, in having granular detail on web users, they can accurately predict footfall and reponse rates for advertising. RadhiumOne are, therefore, making online advertising less of an art, more of a science, with clearer returns on investment. (Clear advertisement with even guide information to customers such as "Scale new and existing audiences, RadiumOne are making online advertising, more of a science, with clearer returns on investments) Thus clear violations of WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing and WP:What Wikipedia is not #Advertising
The round appears to be a sign that the company is in stable financial health. RadiumOne tells Business Insider the company reported $125 million in revenue in 2014, that it is on track to achieve around $200 million in revenue this year, and that it is net profitable. (Clear company quote)
It has been around four years since RadiumOne, previously valued at $500 million, last raised investment. The last investment was $21 million in Series B financing, according to CrunchBase. (CrunchBase is one of their own company business profiles, hence not independent and therefore violating even WP:CORPDEPTH which states such contents are unacceptable)
ComScore lists San Francisco-based RadiumOne as the ninth largest online ad network, with 169.7 million unique visitors in January. Criteo SA, another Web-advertising agency, had $616.3 million sales in 2013 and ranked fifth, while Rocket Fuel Inc. had revenue of $240.6 million and was 16th on Comscore’s list. RadiumOne has narrowed its search of lead investment banks to two, and anticipates that the IPO will take place in the third quarter of 2014, the people said. (Another clear company quote, down to the blatant specifics of their finances, which violates both WP:What Wikipedia is not#Advertising and WP:CORPDEPTH)
RadiumOne provides businesses with marketing and analytics tools that generate data that the startup uses to target ads for its clients. It earns a cut of the advertising spend for accurately targeting the ads to potential and existing customers on the web, mobile, video, and Facebook. It’s said to be profitable, unlike some other players in the space that are still burning venture capital. (Clear advertising since it makes unsupported claims as "said to be profitable, unlike some other players" which is both vague and also PR-form since it only ascertains their own company puffery)
All of this is nothing but republished company information in tech publications that are willing to publish them, such as TechCrunch which we've long established here at AfD now as being nothing but a tech blog, which openly and willingly publishes press releases, down to the specific "Company information courtesy of radiumone.com", "The company's report is published here", etc thus still violating even the simplest WP:CORPDEPTH, and worse, policy WP:NOT. None of the sources escape the blatant consistency of clear PR, which each time fluffs the company's own unsupported claims of "The company can be this or that" or "The company is better than other similar companies". Next, each article above is from each company financial quarter, not a consistent flow of coverage (2010), (2012), (March 2014), (March 2015), (June 2015), (September 2015) and then that's it (that only shows this is a "young and starting company" which the article confirm, since we currently have the republished company website information, so that emphasizes the fact it was simply to motivate their own advertising. SwisterTwister talk 15:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For analysis, I've reduced the above post to cites to policies or guidelines and other references:

clear violations of WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing and WP:What Wikipedia is not #Advertising
violating...WP:CORPDEPTH
violates both WP:What Wikipedia is not#Advertising and WP:CORPDEPTH
violating...WP:CORPDEPTH, and...policy WP:NOT.

Unscintillating (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One point is that the claims about what has been decided at AfD are not traceable, i.e., these are proofs by assertion. Unscintillating (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing deserves attention, as this redirect was created in a recent AfD when I noted that it was a red link. I posted the following, which has yet to receive a response:
Although you've now created a Wikilink for this conversation, [19], that points to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a directory, you haven't explained the relationship of the Wikilink to the conversation. As stated at WP:VAGUEWAVE, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand." In this case, you've also yet to explain which part is relevant, and it is a long section. I found two sentences that use both the words "business" and "list".
* "Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings."
* "7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances..." That section goes on to say, "Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose."
Do you agree that there is (1) no list of patent filings in the article, and (2) no listing of business alliances without supporting sourced prose?
Unscintillating (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources give significant coverage so it meets the requirements for WP:NOTABILITY. I'm sure a company that is valued at a half a billion dollars, is going to get ample attention in business news. If there is a problem with the article, it can be fixed, no reason to delete it. I'm going through it now to remove some stuff that shouldn't be there. Dream Focus 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is not a pillar policy nor has it ever been considered one, it's a suggestive guideline for subjects that may be notable, not instantly. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! So you can just ignore any Wikipedia rules you don't like? Great. I guess for over ten years now, all of us participating in deletion discussions have been getting it wrong? Dream Focus 13:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTADVERTISING says, "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:NOT arguments are not based in policy. As a surmountable problem, advertising in an article must first be identified. As found by unanimous keep's and withdrawal of the nomination at the previous AfD and confirmed here, multiple reliable sources with international attention have covered the topic, satisfying notability requirements. Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is actually policy, so it can be used in any case at all, the problem in advertising have been listed above repeatedly including the fact the company itself involved their own plans into making this article, that alone violates our "No Company Advertising" policies. WP:ITSNOTABLE also covers the "It was kept last time". SwisterTwister talk 00:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So for the second time in this one AfD, I will quote WP:NOTADVERTISING. WP:NOTADVERTISING says, "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." You haven't identified any advertising problems. Your search for [RadiumOne advertising] comes up with sources because advertising is a product of this company, which is not the same thing as them advertising themselves. Further, Wikipedia has no objections if notable companies advertise. I am not aware of any policy that says that notable companies cannot advertise. There is also the definition of advertising in merriam-webster that starts, "the action of calling something to the attention of the public". If the public chooses to look up an article in our encyclopedia, then we are here to enable them to do that. Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that the entire previous AfD amounts to an WP:ATA argument of WP:ITSNOTABLE is dismissive of the work and time of the five editors who studied this topic, reported their results, and modified the article; including the nominator who withdrew the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "the company itself involved their own plans into making this article", appears to be paranoic ideation. Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOT is in fact policy alone as it's the highest policies we have and it overtakes any suggestive guidelines we have, and further is the fact I analyzed all sources above, showing how they're all published and republished business announcements, hence WP:NOT applies even if it was a major publisher. Also, AfDs are never judged and based by the fact of the last AfDs and even the AfD policy states this. Importantly, see how the history itself shows removal of advertising] only to be restored by SPAs again, thus WP:NOT applying because it shows we're blatantly being misused as a business webhost. Next, is the fact that removal of advertising has occurred in this AfD timeline itself, including g the removal of published PR, hence WP:NOT applies since it shows this is not intended as an encyclopedia articpe nor something we accept as notability, hence delete. As it is, WP:NOT was the first policy we made so it would be clear what the encyclopedia here accepted and unaccepted, and advertising was among the first listed and therefore we've been using it since then, and it existed even in 2009; further, the first AfD ended with Withdrawn, not a full basis of Keep, thus nothing barring a 2nd AfD at all. Next, "multiple reliable sources with international attention have covered the topic, satisfying notability requirements" has never been in pillar policy, and in fact, our policies show that would never even been an instant factor, and even WP:CORPDEPTH (a suggestive guideline) itself says sources must not be business announcements and PR, of which this current article's sources all are, thus unconvincing. Current sources:
1 is a clear local business announcement and interview
2 is a legal suit for the CEO, trivial news story
3 is same
4 is same
5 is same
6 is a business announcement
7 is same
8 is same
9 is same
10 is same
11 is legal suit again
12 is business announcement
13 is same
14 is same, but republished overseas
15 is business announcement
16 is business announcement
17 is same, and it's boldly stated as such
18 is business announcement
19 is same
20 is yet another boldly stated business announcement
So none of this escaped the company's own largest stake in self-PR and that's exactly why our policies bar such advertising.

SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some specific claims made without an explanation:

ST: "multiple reliable sources with international attention have covered the topic, satisfying notability requirements"...our policies show that would never even been an instant factor,

What is an "instant factor" and where does this appear in policy?

ST: WP:CORPDEPTH...says sources must not be business announcements and PR,

What CORPDEPTH actually says about business announcements is, "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,". "PR" is not mentioned. Right?

ST: this current article's sources all are [business announcements and PR].

It is not reasonable that each of 30 of the article's sources are either "business announcements" or "PR". Right?

Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I were to weight all the comments equally, this probably adds up to delete at this point, but Cunard presented a bunch of sources which have not gotten a full review, so relisting this to allow further discussion of those sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sourcing provided by User:Cunard, particularly this article in the WSJ, establish that the company has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Revert to less promotional revision in the history if necessary. Υπογράφω (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which past version contains both a non-PR and notability-substantiating content? Because history clearly shows it's only been advertising. Also, please show how, where and why this could be supported by such a change? Since that's what our policies need after all. SwisterTwister talk 01:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the revision suggested by Cunard (talk · contribs) above. It was a clean rewrite following the previous AfD. But regardless, whether or not there is a clean revision in the history is actually immaterial to the deletion discussion, which should focus on whether or not a satisfactory article can be written given the available reliable sources -- and it can. Υπογράφω (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that version is nothing but a simple business listing with clear announcements and mentions for sources; WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing would still apply and then "whether an article can be with available reliable sources" isn't applying. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. Perfection is not required, from any revision. Restarting from a stub is not an insurmountable problem. We don't delete an article just because it doesn't cite available reliable sources -- we add them to the article and continue improving it. Υπογράφω (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first question that should always be asked at an AfD is "Does this topic pass GNG". Forget about how the topic is written and whether it is promotional or not. *If* it passes GNG, then it should not be listed here but should be cleaned up. Far too many articles are listed at AfD for reasons involving "Promotional content" but where the topic otherwise passes GNG. In this particular case, there are a number of references that show that the topic meets GNG and CORPDEPTH and the sources meet WP:RS.

This slate article is an independent third-party reliable source. As is this and this and a load of others, all reporting on the same event (although they don't count separately as per WP:ONEEVENT ....)
I can't see the content of the book by Rob Garner but it may be more than a passing mention - does anyone have a copy?
This book "Pioneers of Digital" does a case study on RadiumOne
And this book "Television and the Second Screen" also writes about RadiumOne and market research

There are more than enough third party references to meet GNG. If the article is crap, then rewrite it. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it's a good quantity, it's still not overcoming our policy WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing because simply attention for its controversy us the only good thing for an article weighing here, hence WP:1E. Also, "There are more than enough third party references to meet GNG. If the article is crap, then rewrite it" is overcome by the fact GANG has never been a policy, so it can never be taken as a guarantee factor. Also, this article has been rewritten by several users but nothing genuinely convincing has happened so WP:NOT once again applies, a policy, and policy is all we ever need. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're basically saying that you're happy to delete an article on a notable topic that meets WP:GNG and with sources that meet WP:RS??? Sorry, but you need to reread policy. Your response above shows you are constantly misinterpreting core policy and this is not the first time I've seen you at AfD !voting to delete a topic that meets notability but where the article needs a rewrite for whatever reason. It is starting to become a problem. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You created the redirect you keep mentioning, and its going to be deleted soon. [[20]] There is nowhere in WP:NOTDIRECTORY that applies here. Dream Focus 00:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You want to delete an article when it meets WP:GNG and WP:RS?" Yes, because it still violates WP:NOT as my full analysis earlier showed. For example, people continue stating this is notable yet the history clearly shows no one else has attempted to improve it, despite starting so. Our policies themselves state we have to actually improve said articles for them to be acceptable in our policies. If this company was in fact notable, anyone would've improved it as the fact, and without it, WP:NOT still applies. Similar, Draftspace exists for areas to improve, but mainspace is not the place. WP:Wikipedia is not a webhost. SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. You have a problem with the article, fix it or shut up about it. Don't expect others to do it for you. Also see the policy Wikipedia:NOTPERFECT. Dream Focus 02:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer Please note, we don't delete an article where the topic meets GNG, we clean it up instead. Reviewing some of the Delete !votes above indicates some editors have misinterpreted core policy and are proposing that WP:NOT trumps WP:GNG which is incorrect. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had no difficulty finding articles in reliable sources talking about the company. This establishes notability. These include: Bloomberg, UK Business Insider, Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, Fox Business, The Guardian, The Entrepreneur, CNN , Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, as opposed to those only in the article. The article would benefit from some of the sources within it being replaced with ones that are more reliable, which are widely available in internet searches. This and concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - I've been planning to comment sooner given the sheer deepness here, but I'll begin with "we don't delete an article where the topic meets GNG, we clean it up instead" has never been covered in policy, and especially not WP:What Wikipedia is not. Next, the analysis of the above sources:
Bloomberg is in fact their own stocks listing and own published company bio, so it's not satisfying any of our standards since it's not independent
UKBusinessInsider is a trade publication, focusing with trivial business activities regardless of the subject, because that's what the contents still are, and how we judge them
CNN is yet another case
Fortune is perhaps the worst case so far, because it actually begins with the company businessman quotes, continues with large paragraph of "Here is what another article said" until finishing with such blatancy of "Here are the company investors"; the fact it ended with that, after going into such specifics is alarming enough. WP:CORPDEPTH itself states such sourcing is unacceptable because it's clear business advertising, and WP:What Wikipedia is not is clear about it, thus there's no policy-backed basis of accepting it.
WallStreetJournal is another case as it's simply a news story about the business aspect
The HuffPost is all from business-specific columns, which guarantee any attention for the company to its own gains, not an encyclopedia's
TheGuardian is an equally violating one because it begins with: this is a company interview with the businessman but it gets worse with such quotes as RadiumOne is bringing a new approach to online advertising by using social data to get the right ads to the right audience – in essence we focus on social interactions, allowing our targeting to be more relevant and on a greater scale...."What does an average day look like for you?", "What are your challenges", "What made you work in the media?", "What is the key to your job", "What is your management style?", "What online resources?", "What advertising is exciting you?", "What are your business tips?", "What are your other thoughts?" (All this alone violates WP:CORPDEPTH, and I actually only spent a few minutes until that same article finished)
While FOXNews is about a controversy, it's still only in the business columns section
The Entrepreneur is simply about the legal case, which then applies WP:1E as it's clear this is the only largest impact the company had, apart from its own PR
Exactly the same with VanityFair
This all finishes the sources offered, and it only took me a few minutes to analyze and see what concerns existed, so merely asserting that we should accept them as substance is not the same thing as actually showing us how, why, and where we should use them in our policies, especially when there's never been a policy that states "Articles are guaranteed notable as long as reliable sourcing exists". As long we save Wikipedia's integrity as a non-advertising encyclopedia, it won't exist. As it is, the Keep votes never based themselves with a genuine policy. I'll also then note this article has only been changed and improved once and it was before all my analysis here happened, any changes now have only been cosmetic such as changing the company's own mirrored portfolio. For example, this current article's largest section is in fact the "Products" section which has four paragraphs (note the lead has 1 large one and then the "History" section has two), all sourced by anything from published or republished PR, tech trade publications which hosted their own announcements or anything else between, and what's else is there's the same consistency of the company publishing its own PR at the same time their financial quarters happen, so there's no one else behind that but the company itself hence still not satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. Next, even our simplest standards will state "Articles may be notable", it's not a guarantee because we judge and base each article by its own merits, including how it can and will affect an encyclopedia. If we choose to keep such largely one-sided basis of a "Products" section that only advertises them, we're damaging ourselves. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

ST: *Bloomberg is in fact their own stocks listing and own published company bio, so it's not satisfying any of our standards since it's not independent

Bloomberg has been approved at RSN.

ST: *UKBusinessInsider is a trade publication, focusing with trivial business activities regardless of the subject, because that's what the contents still are, and how we judge them

Who is "we"?

ST: CNN is yet another case

CNN focuses on trivial business activities? CNN is short for Cable News Network and is a prominent news media worldwide.

ST: ...WP:CORPDEPTH itself states such sourcing is unacceptable because it's clear business advertising...

CORPDEPTH has nothing to say about sourcing for an article as it is a notability guideline, and notability guidelines are not content policies.

ST: *WallStreetJournal is another case as it's simply a news story about the business aspect

A news story about a business aspect seems to be fine.

ST: All this alone violates WP:CORPDEPTH...

I'm not aware that there is any such thing as a violation of CORPDEPTH.

ST:*While FOXNews is about a controversy, it's still only in the business columns section

A source in the business column section about a controversy seems to be fine.

ST: *This all finishes the sources offered, and it only took me a few minutes to analyze and see what concerns existed, so merely asserting that we should accept them as substance is not the same thing as actually showing us how, why, and where we should use them in our policies, especially when there's never been a policy that states "Articles are guaranteed notable as long as reliable sourcing exists".

This is a run-on sentence. The word "substance" is not a policy-based word, and I'm not aware that anyone advocates accepting sources as substance.
Article topics are not guaranteed notable if they pass WP:N, rather they are presumed to merit an article. WP:N states, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - See WP:CORPDEPTH which says: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability, Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: Routine notices, brief announcements, notices, quotes....". If something as simple as WP:CORPDEPTH still can't be satisfied, there's no convincing signs. Substance is stated in not only that but every other applicable page for notability in companies. Also, WP:N actually states as is: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if" note both the emphasized "presumed" and "if", making it not a guarantee at all, and that's why WP:N states it's not a pillar policy at all. "A source in the business column section about a controversy seems" is unacceptable because it fits WP:CORPDEPTH's statement of "routine notices" and "brief announcements". We as the community judge any articles, and that's we take them to AfD. As for Bloomberg, regardless if it was approved, it's still explicitly a business profile that includes their own authored bio, that itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:N and WP:What Wikipedia is not, therefore outweighing anything a mere noticeboard announced. "and is a prominent news media worldwide" is not what their own articles have shown and noted and their articles, especially the particularly blatant ones, will note "Source is the company website" or "Information taken from the website courtesy of company", instantly violating WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:N and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Especially when CNN has knowingly used freelance journalists as it is, instantly violating our policies in having news be by trustworthy journalists, not someone who can be hired by the company. Regardless, this isn't taking away or outweighing what I explicitly quoted above. No one else cared to actually analyze the sources themselves and see the clear policy violations, so the vote has no weight. For example, the clear fact the company was involved and continued to involve itself, violates WP:NOT and also our policy WP:PAID. For example, I found multiple violations in the fist list of sources offered despite the stated "Satisfies WP:RS" when it in fact had not, because the sources were from both trade PR publications and with explicit labeling of them in the said links. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP has never been policy and by our standards for policymaking, it wouldn't easily be taken as policy, because it's simply a suggestive guideline, and even though, statements of improvements have been listed, no one else ever cared to confirm these possibilities of improvements. Also, WP:NOTPERECT, while in the editing policy, is not in fact ever mentioning company or company subjects, thus it cannot immediately be taken to be a guarantee of accepting this at all. In this case, also, WP:NOTPERFECT itself still states that articles must satisfy our policies, in which this one is not. The quote of "Fix it, don't expect others to" is not applicable and has no weigh because of the fact anyone could've fixed this to satisfy the policies, and yet they haven't and there's been weeks now, suggesting there's no possibility of improvements, especially not when the sources have now been analyzed without serious objections. To answer the comment of "But a lot of other sourcing exists" is not applicable because, as shown earlier, a careful search here easily and quickly showed nothing but published and republished PR exists, thus especially not acceptable in WP:RS at all. Even there, such sources as MuMbrella which repeatedly appears in the link, is listed as a "trade publication" making it instantly unacceptable, and continuing there shows such similar ones as "Statement: This is a republished company press release" (also violating WP:RS), and "This is a business tech blog servicing the tech business" (not satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH either as it's a business PR publication). Continuing into this search showed every variety of local news station stories, tech blogs focused to PR services, freelance contributed articles (violates WP:RS as it basically means anyone could've hired or paid for it). I continued into nearly 10 pages into it (surely any good ones would've appeared instantly), until I actually started getting some of the same links. If this is what people label as "other sourcing", it certainly isn't satisfying our policies, and policies is how we this encyclopedia judge articles. In fact, I performed two searches in the time I nominated this article, and both times found nohing but PR, so there's no substance for me to improve this at all thus deletion. Because of the still existing fact this article is outweighed by the giant 4-paragraph "products" section, it violates WP:NOT which states: Wikipedia is not a business webhost, Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services Even if we were to remove a few sentences, that would still make it a violation. As for the earlier suggestion of "ignoring rules...we can keep this article", WP:NOT is a policy that has always allowed deletion of anything unsuitable so there's no ignoring it at all. In fact, our standards have actually changed since 2014, when the article was this, and even then, the article never actually improved better from that state, because it only had a few paragraphs and sentences; simply because it wasn't nominated then quickly is not a defense at all, and we're actually obligated to a higher level now because of the recent paid advertising campaigns. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example, to show how the company was clearly involved here, see Factsandtruthonly, Eavasaurus, Paige Montgomery, Pseudosound (this one actually cared to state their COI], Thanksvijay (one contribution is suggestive enough) and finally Ekcpr so this all alone suggests there was clear campaigning and repeatedly (and this isn't even actually listing the IPs, since there was an enormous amount as it is), so they either never acknowledge our policies about it or simply ignored them, and this is all since 2012, surely enough time to familiarize with what our policies are. In fact, to emphasize the fact their own company campaigning, see this, this and this; note one of the Keep votes actually added a "Needs rewriting" template before being removed by another, so it shows there's no balanced consensus of what or what is not needed here, not to mention, any final actions of said "possible improvements", hence unconvincing in policies. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ST states (copied from edit window to preserve emphasis)
Also, WP:N actually states as is: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if" note both the emphasized "presumed" and "if", making it not a guarantee at all, and that's why WP:N states it's not a pillar policy at all.

WP:N does not have an italicized "presumed", so there is no italicized "presumed" to note. As for an italicized "if", I counted 23 "if"s, but saw none that were italicized. I also searched for "pillar", and only found one link in a template at the bottom.

Here is the lede from Oldid 744731865:

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. |}

Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from that, it says A topic is presumed to merit an article if It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy - This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page....see WP:What Wikipedia is not before finishing. The policy itself never states that merely being sourced is a guarantee factor at all. In this case, because the subject is only leaning against one happenstance controversy, there's not a lot of different better weigh for a company article, one of which we know for a fact the company started. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash^talk stalk 21:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evan O'Dorney[edit]

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

This mostly a WP:BLP1E stemming from his winning the Scripps Spelling Bee. I don't believe being a Putnam fellow or whatever other acolates he has meets WP:ACADEMIC. It's a stub article and has been this way for years. Prisencolin (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS citations show no solid achievement yet (but that may come): WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:TOOSOON / WP:NOTNEWS. Half of the article is about the interview incident, which appears to be trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: The article has been substantially revised. That may have been true at the time the article was nominated, but it is far from true now. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's not notable as a grad student, obviously, but he doesn't have to be. There are plenty of mainstream news sources about him, for multiple events in his life, including being the subject of CNN stories twice (the spelling bee and later the Intel Science Search). And even the silly spelling bee interview video is still being mentioned in major national media eight years later [21]. He clearly and obviously passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's only WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

What part of my "for multiple events in his life" did you not read? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS In this 2013 book the National Research Council calls him "as famous for academic excellence as any student can be". If they say he's famous, who are we to argue? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original work in maths is needed, first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.228 (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Barack Obama has written academic publications; do you think that means he needs to be notable as a writer of academic publications to be notable at all? Also, he actually does have plenty of publications and preprints representing original work in mathematics [22], but they don't contribute to his notability yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements. I'm not entirely convinced that child prodigies are notable per se, but this article sufficiently demonstrates that GNG has been met. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is mentioned in multiple mainstream sources and clearly meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David's argument that he meets the GNG. – Joe (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep as nominator. Other editors have shown that this should probably meet GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monarchs of Great Britain since 1066[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Already extensively covered at List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs, which properly make the distinction between English and British monarchs, which this article fails to do. "Great Britain since 1066" is a misnomer, since Great Britain did not exist until 1707. Υπογράφω (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I object to this deletion as there is no page on Wikipedia that list the Kings and Queens after the Battle of Hastings. There is a list of British Monarchs and English monarchs, but no page which chronicles the Monarchs from 1066 to the present day. I agree that the article may need to be renamed. I also anticipate expanding this article. Chocolatebareater (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Chocolatebareater (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK Meters (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of English monarchs includes an entire section on the monarchs of House of Normandy beginning with William the Conqueror in 1066 and all the later monarchs. Any standalone articles presenting a subset of this list would be redundant. De728631 (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it only goes up to 1717. Also, it doesn't include a table showing how long each Monarch spent on the throne.Chocolatebareater (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For post 1707, there is List of British monarchs. ValarianB (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond the fact that it's redundant, Great Britain didn't exist until hundreds of years after 1066. This list is imaginary, at best. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain, also known as Britain, is a large island in the north Atlantic Ocean off the northwest coast of continental Europe. Υπογράφω and Chris Troutman are claiming that a large island populated by millions of people and a thriving culture suddenly appeared in the Atlantic Ocean in 1707. This is not in any history books as far as I am aware. Please provide sources for this claim. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the articles in question deal with monarchs, we are clearly referring to the Kingdom of Great Britain, the political entity which came into existence in 1707, rather than the geographical entity. Υπογράφω (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The only kingdom I recall reading about that was located in the British Isles in 1066 was the Kingdom of England and nobody called it England then it was the Kingdom of Wessex. What about all those other people across the island of Great Britain? Did William the Bastard claim to be their king, too? To quote Monty Python, "strange women, lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." Chris Troutman (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a Kingdom of Scotland during the period in question. Also, British Isles is not synonymous with Great Britain.
Taking the title to refer to Great Britain (not the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom or any other political construct), the article should be expanded to included Scottish monarchs in the period following the Norman conquest. A chronological list of all monarchs in Great Britain, including monarchs of Scotland and monarchs of England in parallel at least until the Union of the Crowns, could be useful. [User:Jacknstock|Jack N. Stock]] (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork and per Chris' arguments. There was no sovereign of Great Britain until 1707, so in addition to being a content fork, the title is just plain misleading. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: content fork, and deeply flawed and misleading title, per Chris Troutman, etc. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the title needs changing, but the list in its entirety can not be found anywhere else on Wikipedia. Also, no other page has a table outlining how long each monarch spent on the throne. Chocolatebareater (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is: List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign. DrKay (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while 1066 is special, a list with that starting point does not improve the very good existing articles. A table showing how long monarch's reigned might be useful, but I'm not sure, but that coule be included on the other lists and that discussion can continue on the talk pages of the other lists. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can't because there isn't another page with this information on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolatebareater (talk • contribs) 6:55, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

Delete Copies content already in existence, except for the length of reign, though in this article it is measures in days, which is strange and unhelpful. If there's interest in a reign length, perhaps suggest a column be added (in years) to the existing articles. ValarianB (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant fork. DrKay (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:REDUNDANTFORK as we have a much more comprehensive article covering the same topic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that one of the main reasons for editors suggesting the article should be deleted is due to the title. Has anyone got any suggestions of a more appropriate title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolatebareater (talk • contribs)

The list has no value. We already have lists at the appropriate titles for the appropriate subjects. This is redundant to those lists and chooses an arbitrary subject which is ahistorical. You would do better to contribute to what already exists than attempt new articles. New articles are not the sole objective of Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The poor title is not the issue. If it were just that it could be fixed. Don't waste your time trying to come up with a better title because that won't change the fact that this is a redundant fork of an existing article. We already cover all of the information that is in your list and we don't need another list about it. Meters (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've looked at changes made to the article but it now has information about length of the reigns of individual monarchs and houses, and I intend to extend this further. The information does not all exist on one place which is why I created the article. Chocolatebareater (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't fork an article just to add a bit of information. We add the information to the existing article. We have the information on reign length in List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign. If we want it in the other lists we can add it to them. We don't need yet another list. Meters (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I had wondered whether to say merge, but am not sure of the usefulness of the regnal lengths data. Whether the England/GB split should be at 1707 rather than 1603 is questionable, as the union of the Parliaments only changed the royal title of Queen Anne, not her role. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Jones (Australian author)[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources at all (except mirrors) on Jones. However, his books are part of the National Library of Australia. Does that make him notable? Rogermx (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Rogermx (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are a library of record; part of their mission is to own a copy of every title published in Australia. (Wonderful library, btw. Wonderful archives staff who were very helpful to me once when I needed an obscure source.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched, even added a source, but found nothing substantive. To be fair, there have been several notable Grahams Jones, in addition to so many non notable ones who get into the news for one cause or another that searching for this one is very like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. For what it's worth, I cannot source him. Anyone who can should feel free to ping me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- E.M., thank you for clarifying that point on the Library. Rogermx (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything of note or nearly anything at all. Aoziwe (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Jones[edit]

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

There is nothing in the article to indicate that she is any more notable than thousands of other actors/actresses who have had only 12 almost entirely minor roles in more than 20 years. A full third of her very few roles are bit parts without even character names ("Girl Student", "Adoptee #1", "Woman"; "Shouting Woman"). There is a Facebook page for an acting studio with her name, but not a single third-party, journalistic citation other than a passing mention that she is a Scientologist — not a word about her being a notable actress. She apparently is the daughter of actor Henry Jones [23] but notability is not inherited. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been nominated for deletion for about a month-and-a-half with no other comment. It seems past due for an admin to delete, and I presume there's a backlog. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Steps II and III of WP:AFDHOWTO were not completed correctly. I have completed them, listing this discussion in today's log. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did some searching for sources and didn't come up with much:

A passing mention that's she's a Scientologist in the NYT
A passing book mention
Her IMDB bio, presumably written by an agent, claims critical acclaim for her role in Ron Sossi's production of "The Threepenny Opera". Here's the entirety of her mention in the LA Times review (December 9, 1977): "Randall Edwards and Jocelyn Jones make a worthy Polly and Lucy, respectively".

That's all I could find. Not enough to establish notability. Υπογράφω (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hysen Ibrahimi[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails to meet any of WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:NWRITER. XXN, 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent third party reviews that fall POLITICIAN and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article certainly reads like PROMO. So, I ran a Proquest News Archive search on his name. Got 1 hit (Six Kosovo Assembly members leave LDK to join Daci's Democratic League

BBC Monitoring European; London [London] 14 Jan 2007: 1. ...hitHysen hitIbrahimi, Lulzim Zagragja, Shaqir Shabani, Zize Pepshi, Remzi Durmishi,...) This is simply not enough to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Pasta[edit]

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

Cricket Pasta is the name of a brand of pasta made using crickets. The couple of references that specifically mention the product appear to be niche publications, while the remaining references don't mention the subject of this article and are about insects as food in general. The article was created by a sock of a repeatedly blocked paid editor (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/New Editor 121) so the article may meet speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G5. All other significant contributors to the article, such as User:Primapagina, appear to be mostly single-purpose accounts as well and may be related to the sock farm. In any case, the subject of this article fails to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources and therefore does not meet notability criteria. Any useful information about the use of crickets or other insects in food could potentionally be added to other articles such as cricket flour instead. Edgeweyes (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once all the promotional content and unnecessary filling have been deleted, the limited remaining content could easily be incorporated into an article such as Entomophagy. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of the content is already incorporated into Entomophagy#Crickets, which also covers the overall subject quite well from multiple perspectives. I agree that this article is excessively promotional as it is more focused on the companies that the subject matter. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Excessively promotional. If this material is removed, any worthwhile content could be merged into Entomophagy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a promotional article, with little to say and few on-topic citations, other than that insects such as crickets can be eaten, which is already in entomophagy as noted above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy DeVille[edit]

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

A biography of a living person that lacks reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. Article is cited to industry publicity materials, social media, interviews, and other sources unsuitable for determining notability. The award listed is not significant and well known, with the award category -- Unsung Siren -- strongly suggesting that it's WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have an article. Article copy itself consists mostly of trivia, such as:

She worked as a shampoo girl at a hair salon...^[1]
In 2008, she stated that she wanted to own either a beauty salon or dive bar after retiring from porn. Etc.

References

^ Big D (2006-11-02). "Inside Roxy Deville". XRentDVD. Retrieved 2012-06-23.

Article was created in 2008 and quite possibly was meeting WP:PORNBIO then. The SNG was significantly tightened since then, and the article no longer meets it. Hence the AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Closed thing to a legitimate claim of notability is a role as a naked extra ("Dante's Girl #4") in a Sex and the City film, and that falls far below even PORNBIO standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet either GNG or PORNBIO. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porno actress, hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan McCarthy (politician)[edit]

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

Delete. This is a WP:BLP of an officeholder at the county level of government, which is not a level of government that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because a person exists -- county council members get into Wikipedia only if they can be reliably sourced as significantly more notable than the thousands upon thousands of other county councillors in the United States who don't have Wikipedia articles. But there's no evidence of reliable source coverage shown here at all, as the article is referenced entirely to the state government's primary source directory of political officeholders in the state, which is not a source that can confer notability in and of itself. Simply put, nothing here -- neither the content nor the sourcing -- is enough to make him notable for serving at the county level of government. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county executives are generally non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete articles that I create. I'm trying to really enhance the information under the Cecil County pages and politics in the county along with the towns, primarily in the town of Elkton. I am not at the sole discretion creating pages just simply because people exist. they're useful articles. they're also articles that NEED to be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codreezy (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NPOL states "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability" - McCarthy could be notable if he received significant (generally non-local) coverage in multiple reliable sources. He has not, so he has no claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
note that sources show an equine vet named "Alan McCarthy" treating Northern Dancer at ~~Windfields Farm~~, Windfields Farms (Maryland) a notable farm ~~in Ontario.~~ I am assuming that this was a different vet and also not the Winfield Farm mentioned in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out that he is the doc who Northern Dancer at Windfields Farm, articles in multiple sources say so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep I'm out of time after adding a couple of sources about his career as a vet to the (equine) stars. Have not looked at his political career yet (got thrown when the first link I clicked on a proquest search of Alan + McCarthy + Maryland was about horse racing), but we at least have to consider it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete euthanizing a notable race horse does not make an otherwise non-notable politician notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Upcoming Bollywood Movies of 2018[edit]

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

Unsourced list of not-yet-released movies. Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Υπογράφω (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Also seems to be a WP:LINKFARM as it is just a collection of internal links.~~ Fails WP:DIRECTORY as a list of loosely associated topics (#1) and a simple listing with no context (#7). May also be WP:OR and not satisfy WP:NOT#OR -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, here we have a list with no references, I can see this list working, but not without references. I would say that this needs a good dose of WP:TNT. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of references. Eventually an article on this subject will be appropriate, but at that time the proper title will be List of Bollywood films of 2018 (which is currently a redirect). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The premise is suspect, as by definition the list would be snipped throughout the year until being devoid of entries come 1/1/19. ValarianB (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Ajf773 (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Oy, where to begin. Tehseenahmad75, the creator of this article is a sockpuppet of Tehseenahmad188. The content in this article would intuitively belong at List of Bollywood films of 2018, which the creator of List of Upcoming Bollywood Movies of 2018 attempted to create (along with one of his sockpuppets) before it got redirected by Chrissymad. I believe there's a pernicious campaign going on here, possibly to perpetuate hoaxes. Tehseenahmad75 created Boothnath 3, which has zero Google News hits and the only hit I found via the custom Indian news search engine was one write-up about a children's performance called Boothnath 3. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt until closer to 2018... per everything said here. Also @Cyphoidbomb: I really appreciate your use of pernicious here. I need to work that into my vocab more... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's out of the question to have a list article for upcoming films provided it's amply sourced. There is certainly precedent at 2018 in film and 2019 in film and 2020 in film, but this particular incarnation as "List of Upcoming Bollywood Movies of 2018" with caps out of control and inconsistent with other articles is just fooey. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Aldridge[edit]

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

Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer, without the reliable sourcing necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. The only claim of notability discernible from this article as written is that she exists, and the only "references" provided are the WorldCat directory entries for two of her three books. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a writer is entitled to have an article just because her existence can be verified; she must be the subject of enough media coverage to pass our notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Revised and updated to emphasize relevance, include the worldcat reference for the third (very influential) book, now in the second edition with a separate Chinese version. Aldridge is the first famous woman quant, and there are too few women profiled on Wiki as it stands today. She is the top quant in the area of trading automation, that is becoming the definitive standard of the finance industry.Angelo1122

WorldCat directory entries count for exactly zilch toward demonstrating notability on Wikipedia, because every single book ever written by every single writer who ever wrote a book has one. It takes reliable source coverage in media to distinguish a notable writer from a non-notable one, not just the ability to verify that her books exist. And as for whatever the bleep a "quant" is, being a "top" one would still only constitute notability if reliable sources were writing about her topness, and not just because you assert that she's a top one of those without sourcing that claim properly. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lipps[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards or nominations. Negligible reliable sourcing, virtually no biographical content. GNews search shows RS hits predominantly refer to a major-market radio personality (who died recently); only substantive article link also refers to the radio personality. GBooks hits are almost entirely trivial. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO without awards and WP:GNG/WP:BASIC without significant coverage by reliable sources. The only non-IMDb/non-IAFD source is a book with a brief mention that verifies one sentence of content but is otherwise trivial. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porno actress, hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG or specific requirements of PORNBIO DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD G5; User:ACE1234 Favonian (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team Orion (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Disputed proposed deletion. Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some digging, this is related to the deleted article Director Edward Jeffries (per AfD). There is also an SPI and other related socks trying to push this director and his film career. Pinging @Favonian to see if they want to take any administrative action regarding sockpuppetry. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although Υπογράφω made this deletion nomination, he or she also took the one action which possibly could save it from deletion, by repeatedly removing marketing copy from the article. However, a single purpose IP editor repeatedly restored the promotional content, with the result that I have speedily deleted it under speedy deletion criterion G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). It was as blatantly spammy an article as I have seen for a very long time. (I may also say that if the promotional content had not been repeatedly restored, I think this discussion would probably have resulted in deletion anyway, for the reasons that Υπογράφω has given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karaat Infrastructure Development Private Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Couldn't locate any significant coverage in reliable sources. Υπογράφω (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) f eminist 04:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manvel Gasratian[edit]

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

Unproven notability. Unreferenced article since 2008. XXN, 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is now minimal sourcing showing him as a renowned Turkologist and Kurdologist. If kept, the article should probably be moved to Manvel Gasratjan as the better transliteration from the Cyrillic. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About renaming, see WP:RUS. XXN, 21:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As he was an academic with scholarly publications before 1995, I think the first three columns of Romanization_of_Russian#Transliteration_table are more helpful than the essay in this instance. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after improved sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep the current article, although a stub, sufficiently demonstrates notability as a scholar. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, due to current form but has promise and meets standard for GNG given what is stated, even if it is limited. Kierzek (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More exactly what makes him notable? Probably he is important and "renowned" (how it's stated now in article), but is he notable? XXN, 21:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is often impossible to judge notability of stub articles (such as this). Since his writings will have been in Russian, a lack of English-language sources is unsurprising. What does the Russian WP have? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: ru-wiki doesn't have an article on him. I've managed to turn up a few Russian sources, but it's always difficult to judge their reliability. I'll try and sift through them. – Joe (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not know, but an academician may well be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a scholar who wrote in Russian pre-internet and pre-1991, so satisfying WP:PROF#C1 in the usual ways isn't going to happen. That said it does look like he made a significant impact in his field (Kurdish studies), even if sourcing is a pain in the arse. We have the one English-language source that describes him as "renowned". As far as Russian sources go, he has an entry in the Biographical Archive of the Soviet Union [24], but I haven't been able to access it, and a very brief entry in this 2017 index of Turkish scholars [25]. There is also a more detailed biography in this online encyclopaedia [26], but I don't know how reliable that is, and two blog posts describing a symposium organised in his memory at the Institute of Oriental Studies [27] and an obituary written about him in a Kurdish publication (which seems to have disappeared unfortunately) [28]. Again, they're not RSes, but they're suggestive. I think someone with better Russian and better access to offline sources like the BASU could make a decent biography out of this. There may well be additional sources available in Turkish or Kurdish. – Joe (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan timeline of Prime Ministers of Singapore[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG; there needs to be evidence of reliable secondary sources comparing the lifespans of these three people in order for a stand-alone article to be justified. Spiderone 14:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It also does not seem to meet WP:V as there is only one questionable source for this subject and there seem to not be any reliable sources for this subject. The one "source" that there is is just a wiki on Singapore which is not reliable. So, there are 0 reliable sources for this meaning it fails WP:GNG like the nom said. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 16:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KAP03: That source is not a wiki. It is an encyclopaedia of Singapore related topics and it is written by people from the National Library. It is a well researched and reliable source, although a tertiary source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; same rationale with the deletion discussions of all lifespan timelines (unencylopedic, redundant to existing lists on the article of parent topic). Mélencron (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to hold off from commenting, but I see that Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States exists and it is very similar to this article. In fact, I get the feeling that the article creator possibly used that article as am example. If we are going to delete articles such as these, we might as well delete all of them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemongirl942: That argument seems to be WP:WHATABOUTX and should be avoided in deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 15:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHATABOUTX is much more nuanced than that. I am not saying that keep this just because we have another article like that. I am trying to find if this has any encyclopaedic value (and if another similar article had encyclopaedic value and survived a deletion discussion, what is wrong with this article). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a needless content fork (especially with only three entries) when such details can adequately be covered in the biography pages of each subject. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have posted notices for more input [29], [30], [31]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Informative and does no harm. — JFG ^talk 01:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:HARMLESS Spiderone 09:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) f eminist 04:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Butkevich[edit]

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

Lack of individual notability. Unsourced article since 2006. XXN, 14:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notability clearly established by:

Chambers, David; Krivosheyev, Maxim (2016-07-02). "Mikhail Butkevich: the bridge to the contemporary Russian avant-garde". Stanislavski Studies. 4 (2): 125–135. doi:10.1080/20567790.2016.1234017. ISSN 2056-7790.
"Mikhail Butkevich's Theatre of Players: Theatre and the Art of the Game - ProQuest". search.proquest.com. Retrieved 2017-01-22.

Υπογράφω (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The sources Υπογράφω found provide a solid basis for notability ("a crucial figure in the development of contemporary Russian theatre"), and googling turns up numerous other mentions. This looks like a bit of a WP:BEFORE malfunction to me. – Joe (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... "looks like", but it's not!

And you really think this is enough to establish his notability? Reading his biography here I didn't saw nothing which makes him remarcable. Even in ru.wikipedia they don't have and never had an article about this person. "Snow keep" he says... XXN, 19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being the subject of two full articles in peer-reviewed journals and mentioned in several other scholarly sources is more than enough to establish notability per WP:ANYBIO. The text I quoted above also clearly indicates Butkevich satisfies criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE, "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". – Joe (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- clearly notable. I added a citation and ext link: diff. This article looks especially compelling:

"Mikhail Butkevich: the bridge to the contemporary Russian avant-garde", in Stanislavski Studies: Practice, Legacy, and Contemporary Theater, Volume 4, 2016 - Issue 2

--K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Orlov[edit]

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

Unproven notability. Unreferenced article since 2008. XXN, 14:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There is a clearly notable Russian artist named Boris Orlov, but there are discrepancies with the article here, in particular the dates and primary medium. It's possible that there are two artists by this name, and the one described here is of lesser notability, or that (questionable) online sources (http://www.gelos.ru/2008/july/18.07/art.shtml, http://artru.info/ar/34559/, https://art-town.ru/component/virtuemart/manufacturers/orlov-boris-gerasimovich?Itemid=860) that give the dates 1925–1981 are in error. At least one source conflates the two. Unless someone produces reliable sources for the 1925–1981 artist, we're best off deleting the existing article and writing a new article about the Boris Orlov with holdings in the MoMA and Tate and a major Moscow Museum of Modern Art exhibition. Υπογράφω (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there are probably two artists with this name. The second one mentioned by Υπογράφω has an article in ru.wiki: ru:Орлов, Борис Константинович. XXN, 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash^talk stalk 14:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. I. Shlyakhter[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Found nothing about him in Google top results searching for Russian form of his name Шляхтер. XXN, 14:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?. Two well-cited papers in Nature. Citation data not normally enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found two book sources about the natural reactor discovery, including one by Freeman Dyson who writes quite effusively about Shlyakhter. I think his publication record on other topics (e.g. one of the Nature papers noted by Xxanthippe is on global warming, and he also has some reasonably well cited papers on risk analysis), while not really enough on its own for WP:PROF#C1, is enough to save this article from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep thanks to later additions. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Reasonably well cited, a single-author paper in Nature, and the natural reactor discovery does appear to be considered significant [32][33], which together passes WP:PROF#C1. – Joe (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the natural reaction discovery is mind blowing, and shows that he contributed a significant advance to his field. Also, others in this thread were able to discover other facets of his work that are worthy of note. Definitely worth keeping this bio. Steve Quinn (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've expanded the article a bit and added sources, including some on his later work on risk analysis, which appears to be quite notable in itself (two papers in nature, coverage in secondary sources and the press). – Joe (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements; I believe notability has been established. Also suggest moving the article to Alexander Shlyakhter. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 count wrestling[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 13:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 13:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doing a quick search and I am not seeing anything reliable with sigificant coverage here. Yes Cagematch lists it's results, but that's not "sigificant coverage" and thus by itself not enough to establish notability. MPJ-DK 12:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Beach Hockey[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just to be pedantic, WP:SPORTCRIT applies to individual sports-persons, not to leagues.WP:ORG does, however, apply and in that case, this fails on WP:CORPDEPTH. Only coverage was by ESPN which was also investor and therefore not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest grossing Nepali films[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of highest grossing Nepali films

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

The references are not reliable. Even if they are, I do not think there is any rationale in having a list with only 1 entity. Jupitus Smart 05:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A redirect would work just as effectively as a deletion, provided a proper target could be found. I had to chop a good deal of content in these edits because the sources were poor and didn't support the claims anyway. Nepal has a bit of a challenge establishing reliable sources that can comment reliably on film finances. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you did Cyphoidbomb, but I do feel that even though what you did was the correct thing to do, it has left the article without any context in remaining as a stand alone article. Maybe when better sources come up we can re-instate the article. Besides the only reference still remaining talks about a movie called Kohinoor and has no mention of the movie it is listed against (In this case Chhakka Panja). Also lack of proper sources for other movies may give of the idea that Chhakka Panja is the highest grossing movie, when it may not be so. Jupitus Smart 09:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm merely proposing that redirection is an equal possibility to deletion. I know nothing about Nepali news sources, so if they have a strong journalism base, maybe it's reasonable to redirect until content can be found. If Nepal doesn't have a wide selection of reliable news outlets, then maybe it's more reasonable to delete. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless sources are found, this fails WP:V, and from what I can tell, there isn't anything coming up to demonstrate reliable stats on this. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V; entirely unsourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Parker[edit]

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

Unnotable streetballer who is more well known, apparently, for criminal activity than his basketball career. Streetballing is not a league and needs significant coverage, which the subject fails to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 04:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His case was a HUGE sports story and it still gets revisited today. He was heavily covered by the largest press machines in the country and was on the cover of Sports Illustrated magazine. Examples include this one, this one and this one. Notability is not temporary. Rikster2 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments presented by Rikster2. Notability is not temporary. Lepricavark (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article sources and other identified is this discussion are sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Gab4gab (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash^talk stalk 10:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lipovetsky[edit]

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

Unreferenced biographical article since 2004. Questionable notability. In ru.wiki does not exist even a single mention about this person. XXN, 10:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: a real shame that this has been unsourced for 13 years, as sources are available. I am not the least bit concerned that the quite tiny ru.wiki does not have the same quantity of topics covered as do we. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this could be an area where WorldCat holdings could be important, and here I notice that at least four books seem to be held in a lot of libraries: Performing Violence, >1000 libraries; 50 Writers, >700; Charms of the Cynical Reason, >1000; Russian Postmodernist Fiction, >350. For purposes of looking at WP:AUTHOR, here is an excerpt from a review of Performing Violence in Theatre Journal. Here is another review, for Charms of the Cynical Reason. This is just at a pretty quick glance. I notice that his real name is Mark Leiderman and that his pen name has an alternate spelling (Lipovet︠s︡kiĭ). Looks like he has become a full professor since the article was last updated. I have to go for now but can add these to the entry later if no one else can. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per article improvements by EricEnfermero (thank you); notability has been sufficiently demonstrated. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factoriangular number[edit]

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

This mathematical article is based on four recent articles (2015) by the same author, published in the same journal. The journal is not a reliable source, as it has not mathematics in its topic, and is not reviewed by Zentralblatt MATH nor by MathSciNet. A Scholar Google search shows that the title of the article is a neologism that appear only in these four articles, and that these articles are not cited by other authors. Thus the topic is non-notable WP:OR. D.Lazard (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Searching the term gives these three links: [34]; [35]; [36]; from an unrelated website. There is also this, this, and a .edu site here, here and here. The sequence also appears in the OEIS and it cannot be OR because the article is referenced. How do you define notability of a mathematical concept? Also, why did you put a COI tag on the page? Laurdecl ^talk 10:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There is a paper in the IJST, which is peer reviewed (here), so there is fact a reliable source in the article. Laurdecl ^talk 10:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This confirms that this is WP:OR: Except for the last comment, all non-anonymous links that are provided by Laurdecl (the author of the WP article) are authored by the same author, and either not published or published in the same journal. About the question of notability, a common criteria is that a mathematical concept cannot been notable, if it has never been mentioned in an article reviewed by MathSciNet or Zentralblatt. The reference provided in the last comment is by the same author, in a journal which is not reviewed by MathSciNet nor Zentralblatt (source: the site of the journal itself). D.Lazard (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@D.Lazard: Sorry, but I don't know what "MathSciNet" or "Zentralblatt" are and I don't see any policies that mention them. This integer classification has been detailed in peer-reviewed journals which are certainly reliable sources. How is this OR if there a five references on the page, PR journals among them? Laurdecl ^talk 11:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, delete – when I created this (it was at Requested Articles), I assumed that more work on this would exist. This doesn't seem to be true, so perhaps this article is too soon. Sorry to D.Lazard for removing the PROD. Laurdecl ^talk 07:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article cites five recent papers, but they are all by the same people — I would need to see papers from at least two independent research groups before I think there can be a plausible claim of having the multiple independent reliable sources requested by WP:GNG. In addition, and perhaps even more seriously, all five are (or maybe rather were, since the list is down) on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers (APJMR as a standalone journal, IndJST from its publisher), so they are not reliable and we cannot use them as sources. That leaves only OEIS, and although I do consider OEIS reliable (any change there has to be reviewed by an editorial board) I don't think we should have articles whose only sourcing is from OEIS. And also note that OEIS omitted their "nice" tag, which they use for non-boring sequences. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability criteria require the existence of secondary sources. The cited papers are primary sources. The links provided above by Laurdecl are to services that index journal articles, so they aren't secondary sources either. The OEIS has much looser criteria for inclusion than Wikipedia (see the FAQ, which says you should submit "Any [sequence] that actually show[s] up in your research.") so it does not establish notability, either. As long as there are no reliable secondary sources, this topic is not presently suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ozob (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability for the reasons mentioned above. Not being aware of MathSciNet and Zentralblatt is a clear indication that one is not in a position to judge reliability of mathematical sources.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: excellent point on judgment, Bill. Arcfrk (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted by above editors, and because it seems to have been discussed only by one mathematician, and makes no mention of why these numbers are significant. (I am thinking of the paradox of the first uninteresting number.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Okereke[edit]

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

subject lacks notability thereby failing WP:GNG. Cited references are basically primary sources —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of this article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, and WP:GNG. He has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Moreover, his novel and short stories have not been critically reviewed or discussed in detail. Of the eight sources currently cited in the article, five are primary sources. The remaining three are links to retail bookseller sites. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete possibly WP:TOOSOON for this young writer, but certainly I searched and can't find adequate sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash^talk stalk 10:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ci Durian[edit]

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

River that does not qualify under WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. No non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. Previous WP:PROD was removed, am following this with a full deletion nomination. KDS4444 (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: searches for sources might benefit from this river's local name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spellings:

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

--HyperGaruda (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Ci Durian to avoid confusion with other Durian Rivers. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep ~~to List of rivers of Indonesia. Lacks coverage needed for a separate article.~~ Better sources found, I agree with Keep. Gab4gab (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See This source which talks about Ci Durian on several pages. The map shows it running north from the highlands to the sea around Tanara. Or this source which also shows the river and says it was the western boundary of the Dutch Banten province, separating it from the Banten Sultanate. Other sources say it once had a large delta, although the river now is canalized, entering the sea at 6°01′28″S 106°24′41″E / 6.024340°S 106.411504°E / -6.024340; 106.411504. JICA's Ci Ujung - Ci Durian Integrated Water Resources Study (1992) discussed plans to dam the river. A sizable river with political and economic importance. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Aymatth2 sources. The article shouldn't have been created with so little info, but it does seem to be notable...Jokulhlaup (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reason for the initial prod was there was nothing in the very small stub to verify where it was (central, west or east Java should be a qualifier...) and in some potential source areas, there was nothing about this river JarrahTree 11:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is understandable. I found very little on "Durian River" Java, or on "Sungai Durian" Java, the Malay form. But Ci Durian started turning up sources like this one on Banten. Apparently it is also known as Chi Kandi, Tji Kande, Tji Durian, Tjidoerian, Tjidurian. The map shows it is about 60 kilometres (37 mi) long with a drop of about 1,800 metres (5,900 ft), and one of the larger rivers in the region. I will expand the stub. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --do ncr am 18:06, 24 January 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 January 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a name like Durian (after the fruit) is too common to make searching easy, and the remnants of colonial spelling don't help, but the Ci/Tji Durian/Doerian is quite a major river and certainly worth an article, whatever people have now done to its delta. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aymatth2's sources and subsequent article expansion. --TimK MSI (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - from Aymatth2's excellent work - why, even speedy closure and keep it is so good now compared to the original JarrahTree 01:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Right now, the AfD template is on two pages: Durian River and Ci Durian, and both are listed at the top of this page. I don't know if refactoring is warranted, but this is confusing. — Gorthian (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after major expansion and sourcing. Pinging KDS4444, maybe he or she will change his or her opinion. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination KDS4444 (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Snow Keep. Bad faith nomination by sockpuppets. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Festa[edit]

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

Very blatantly fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:ADVERTISEMENT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NEVENT, WP:SPS and WP:PROMO Wikipedian Forevermore (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC) — Wikipedian Forevermore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete hilariously non-notable, not even close to meeting WP:N Robert Rockers (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC) — Robert Rockers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a stub and in rather poor shape, but a quick Google search of the news section shows a lot of coverage of announcements made at Jump Festa and events that occure. A search of Anime News Network's own site also brings up coverage of these announcements and events. I'll also note that there is suspicious activity between Wikipedian Forevermore, Robert Rockers, and Michael James Norris in that all three accounts were created today and whose only edits are related this article. It is very evident that these three accounts are the same person. —Farix (t | c) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Strong Keep ~~As likely~~ Possible Bad faith nomination by known sock Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cow cleaner 5000. Even if that is not the case, the RS specialist game/anime press report on this event as it is often used to announce or even show new entries in franchises published by the parent publication.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- While the check user did confirm that the three accounts are the same user, it did not confirm that they are socks of CC2K. —Farix (t | c) 23:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However given the circumstances I don't see any reason to retract that part of my statement (I have tweaked it and my vote). Instead I think the second part is still worthy of a speedy close as the event itself is well covered by RS sources. Some of which I see you have added. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Someone should open up a sock investigation here as 3 different accounts is a red flag. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by The Farix, the investigation has been completed which confirmed the three accounts as "technically indistinguishable" from each other.SephyTheThird (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:-spam WP:BADFAITH nom by longtime sock with an overly anti-anime bias. Nominator is blocked so I think we can call WP:SNOW and save six days of discussion. Nate • (chatter) 01:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Gainza[edit]

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

a BLP and self-authored COI appears to be based on one source which is a book that covers 70 Cuban artists [37], [38]. I am guessing this person is one of them. I could find no evidence of notability and additional sourcing is needed to comply with WP:BIO . Actually, it is unclear if this person is still alive. Sources seem to cover a sports person but that is not this person.

Three book length travel guides merely mention his studio (one has a paragraph identifying his studio). No biographical information found. [39]. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless additional sourcing can be found. I agree that the blurbs for his galleries in commercial travel guides are not doing enough to establish notability here. A keyword search of the Cuban Art in Exile text suggests his entry in that book is less than three pages long; being the only source we have, this is insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the brief snippet I can preview of that entry suggests some worrying similarities to the the content that has been added here. Can't say for sure that it's outright copyvio, but it looks problematic. Lastly, some of the prose in the article is highly polemic, making a number of different accusations relating to persecution on the part of Cuban authorities without providing any kind of sourcing to back it up. This is an issue under any circumstances, but only exacerbated if this is in fact a self-authored or COI piece, as seems to be the case. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pele Bhattacharya[edit]

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

No reliable sources in article. Google search shows social media hits and a Wikipedia fork that copies speedy deletions. Google search doesn't find reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear misuse in a business listing with the sources being as trivial and unconvincing as the article, nothing accepted in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no involvement in any notable films Spiderone 15:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. czar 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man Arrangement[edit]

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

Non-notable arcade game whose supposed claim to fame is a trivial name glitch. Search turned up no third-party sources, while article is written like a game guide and has remained unsourced since the day of its creation an entire decade ago. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Video games that are part of one of the most famous series in video game history, not only initially released worldwide in multiple regions, but also additionally ported multiple times to multiple consoles within multiple anthological collections are triply notable real-world products. While some of the detail within the article might be argued to be fancruft, the product itself is a clearly notable subject deserving of an article. Deletion should not be used as a substitute for cleanup, so the argument that the article is written poorly is only an argument that the article should be improved, not an argument to delete. —Lowellian (reply) 12:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pac-Man video games. Very surprised by the above rationale—articles are not presumed notable for being parts of a series, and in fact, many games in a series can be spin-offs or minor releases. The adequate answer is to cover the game in proportion to its sourcing, which the nom correctly noted that this game has none. It has been covered in some recent compilations, so there's the choice of whether to cover it in the PM Museum or PM Collection articles, but suffice it to say that that there is little coverage of this specific game, and that it can be covered adequately in summary style at the extended list article. @Beemer69, I recommend uncontroversially redirecting such articles to a list or parent dev instead of going to AfD—it saves everyone the time, as a title in a notable series will always be a useful redirect to wherever it is actually covered on WP. czar 20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Barnhill[edit]

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

Article created by a COI editor, unelected candidate who ran for office, does not meet WP:NPOL and nothing in article appears to suggest he meets WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Candidate does not warrant an individual article, but should appear at North Carolina Senate election, 2016 and Michael V. Lee. There's a few sentences that could be usefully merged over, but that would mean leaving a redirect. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected state senate candidates are not notable. On the other hand we should have an article on Michael V. Lee, but I am not holding my breath. If he was a Democrat it would be created in a heart beat, but articles on Republicans are much slower to materialize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single failed candidacy, no other notability apparent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a non-winning candidate for election to a state legislature — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable because of the election campaign per se. His can be mentioned in the relevant articles, but there's no reason for us to maintain biographical information about him beyond his name and vote total. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Coss[edit]

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

Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Rhythm guitarist and backup vocalist" says it all. Nowhere near notable for own article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 given that it keeps getting re-created and swiftly re-deleted, I'm going to salt it this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho Summer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the third AfD for this subject and, as far as I can tell, it still does not meet the notable standards of WP:NBAND and WP:ORG. The sources cited in the article are very weak, or fail WP:RS entirely. - Mr X 19:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G4 + Salt - Article recreated after it was deleted following an AfD discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho Summer were listed on a country's official charts which is one of the listing on the notable criteria, there are many other media links, more than some other listings on wikipedia infact userrivalmanic 12.48, 15 January (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivalmanic (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only chart mentioned in this article (the UK New Releases Chart) isn't mentioned in the article about the Official Charts Company which publishes the British music charts. Thus, it doesn't seem to be a major chart that should qualify an artist for an article under WP:BAND criterion #2. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new release chart is a sub heading of the official UK charts, still a chart. extract from wiki notability.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This certainly seems to qualify with the number of independent links. Rivalmanic 19.50 UTC 26.01.17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivalmanic (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the creator of this article so you may not be totally unbiased in your views. I can assure you that the "UK New Releases Chart" is merely a sub-page on the Official Charts Company website that doesn't even list the songs in any sort of order - go and take a look - and therefore doesn't add to Notability for Wikipedia's purposes. I hope this clears that point up. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Light2021 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Lunacy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Amazingly, this has been here for over 10 years with no source other than a Facebook page. A search for coverage found nothing significant in reliable sources other than an album review in the Italian version of Metal Hammer. They had one album distributed in Japan by Victor, which may suggest some notability, but I think we need more than that to keep this. Previously kept at AfD in 2008 on the basis of releases and the fact that articles exist in five other language WPs. There are now articles in ten other languages, but they don't have a single reliable source between them. Michig (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The band's output seems to have fairly broad visibility in online heavy metal circles, according to Google (searching for "dark lunacy" review). Some years ago, there was a concerted effort to vet online metal review sites, which resulted in many of them being judged unreliable; I don't know what happened to that list and don't remember what was on it, but the band has attracted notice from sites such as metal-archives.com, Sputnik Music, metalstorm.net, metal-temple.com, chroniclesofchaos.com, metalreviews.com, metal.de, metal-rules.com, musikreviews.de, lordsofmetal.nl, and powermetal.de. That's an awful lot of international and polyglot attention for an Italian band, which, combined with the Wiki articles in ten languages, is at least a prima facie indicator that the group may be noteworthy. Are all of these review sites considered blogs or unreliable sources? The French version of the article is extensively footnoted with some of these reviews, and has sources noting international tours (and a DVD "Live in Mexico City"...). Chubbles (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Cartu[edit]

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

This article does not meet notability requirements to be on wikipedia. This page may be created by Josh Cartu himself or near people. This article is biased and inaccurate. As in the talk another user stated: "Additionally, buying valuable automobiles and taking them on rallies does not indicate notability" Cleanwikiweb (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - this is a poorly written article about a guy who seems to be good at publicity, if not racing cars. I'm not sure that this is such a mess as to require deletion for that alone. Since I know little about racecar sports, I'll leave the substantive debate to others. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vedesh Sookoo[edit]

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

A biography of a singer that fails to establish notability. A google search provides no information to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Article created by WP:SPA with a total of 3 edits all of which are to this article. CBS527^Talk 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Searches find only trivial mention of the subject. Much more is said about the song 'Hunter' than it's writer. Gab4gab (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) f eminist 08:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti in Toronto[edit]

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

I see nothing here to make me think that this passes WP:GNG. Much of the article chronicles issues with graffiti that are in no way peculiar to |Toronto. A brief trawl of what my library has on street art unearthed a 'world atlas of street art' which has nothing indexed under Toronto. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Since Toronto is a most major city in Canada and we do have articles, like Graffiti in Russia, Graffiti in New York City, etc, nothing prevents Toronto from having the same article. It's quite well sourced. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's well sourced with local news items. There's nothing to establish that the Toronto graffiti scene is in any way remarkable. All of the content belongs in tha article on Toronto: there is graffiti in Toronto; some people think it's art and others think it's vandalism about sums it up.TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouls also point out that Russia is a country, not a major city, and that the graffiti scene in NY, like that in Philly, is-or at least was- truly remarkable. So, a bogus comparison . Not to mention WP:OTHERSTUFF TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I think the topic is notable. The article, not so much. It is filed under politics in the Toronto navbox, but I think there could be a good article if it was on the art itself. As a Toronto resident, I believe there is a thriving culture. It may not be on the scale of some of the US cities, but I've seen some outstanding work. This article seems to be by-product of the Ford era. If there is a place under an art article about Toronto, I would support a merge. As it is, though, not much of an article. I would be willing to work on improving it. Alaney2k (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of street art & would love to see this article expanded to have some real content about the work. I came to it via SuggestBot, but after doing a bit of copyediting on it I concluded that, as it stands, there was (a)nothing to suggest that the Toroto graf scene was remarkable and (b) nothing substantial about the scene.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And otherstuffwise, I'm surprised that Street art in Bristol does not exist; a truly notable scene. So much so that there are several organisations doing guided tours of the appropriate alleyways.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not written very well, but the subject appears to pass the general notability guideline. There is coverage in books such as this and this and in news articles such as this. Sources can be added to the article. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC) I added one of the sources to the article. Gulumeemee (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also found an academic journal article written about graffiti artists in Toronto. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets GNG per sources presented in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Delyth[edit]

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

At points I thought this showed signs of notability, but what looked like a review was on closer inspection a sales pitch from a shop selling her book etc. Very promotional, and under that she doesn't seem to meet notability. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with rational: reads like a promo, and shows little if any notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see what would be left if we removed all the undesirable elemnts of the article, (self-)promotion, links to commercial sites, unreliable, related sources. There is no significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. What I miss most in this artist bio is a critical assessment of the work. Mduvekot (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on the comment from User:Timotheus Canens, I'm calling the articles below the horizontal rule WP:SOFTDELETE due to the minimal discussion they got. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 100 metre freestyle[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Also adding these for the same reason:[reply]

Please visit the AfD page for the full set of links for these articles.

Basketball at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

Basketball at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's tournament

Basketball at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's tournament

Football at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 4 × 200 metre freestyle relay

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 4 × 200 metre freestyle relay

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 50 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 50 metre breaststroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 100 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 100 metre breaststroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 200 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 200 metre individual medley

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Men's 400 metre freestyle

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 50 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 100 metre freestyle

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 200 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 400 metre freestyle

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional – Women's 400 metre individual medley

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasionalb – Men's 4 × 100 metre medley relay

Swimming at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasionalb – Women's 4 × 100 metre medley relay

Weightlifting at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

Adding these:

Swimming at the 2012 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

Football at the 2012 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

2012 Bali-Nusa Tenggara Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2012 Sulawesi Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2012 Kalimantan Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2012 Java Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2012 Northern Sumatra Zone Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2012 Sumatra Men's Pre-PON Tournament

2011 Maluku-Papua Men's Pre-PON Tournament

Delete all – more examples of sports statistics spam that no one will ever look at. Laurdecl ^talk 01:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - not a notable enough competition to have these things. Smartyllama (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All non-notable sporting events per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin should note that the articles after the horizontal rule were added after the above comments. T. Canens (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roxley[edit]

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

An unremarkable board game publishing company going about its business. Significant RS coverage could not be found. One source listed refers to a Kickstarter campaign which suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to be included in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any RS coverage, and very little unreliable coverage, so it appears as though the company's not well known anywhere. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Santorini is likely notable (plenty of reviews, some in reliable sources) and the game is reasonably highly ranked at boardgamegeek. Super-motherload has less in the way of sources (but still some) and is similarly ranked. Dicetower did an interview with the company ([40]). None of that is hugely convincing, but between the source in the article and the rest, it's borderline IMO. Hobit (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siglem 575[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Newly created poetry structure. Unknown within the internetworks. Seems to be the work of one or two individuals. All references seem to be blogs. Unworthy of Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we get these every now and then: some made-up poetry form. Appears on a handful of personal blogs, which have all been added to the article as refs -- zero Gbooks hits. Nothing at all from any reliable independent source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources are only announcements and the information is equally similar and unconvincing, nothing else is substantial. SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the nomination itself has been started by a sock, editors in good standing uniformly comment that the subject doesn't pass our notability guidelines, after two relists there's no opposing opinion, so deleting. —SpacemanSpiff 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patil[edit]

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

Reason : Article is of low importance. Person is not well known or notable. Against wiki policies.TrulyFan (talk) 05:51, 7 January 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 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not per nom. The nom seems a new editor with relatively less (or perhaps no) idea of how to nom. Despite my initial assumption that the nomination was faulty (based on the nom statement), I've not been able to find reliable sources to support notability of the individual on GNG/SNG/BASIC. This can be deleted. Lourdes 06:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a link to a clip of audiovisual material on the IndiaTV YouTube channel from March 2016 which is not in English but in which she appears as part of a feature recorded for Women's Day. Otherwise there is a lack of reliable sources in the article and a I didn't come across any in a brief search. Some awards are mentioned in the article but there is nothing to indicate that any of these are high-profile. As such, she hasn't demonstrated notability when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Care must also be taken as it looks like there's at least one other Archana Patil who does get good Gnews results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator was banned today for sockpuppetry for possibly running a political campaign from multiple accounts. Does WP:SK#4 apply here @SpacemanSpiff: ? ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c. Nope. Spaceman has much more experience on India related topics than I have. So he may differ on this (or probably not). Lourdes 16:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the other afds that I closed for obvious disruption, this one has valid comments from editors in good standing, so I don't think this should be closed on that basis. —SpacemanSpiff 14:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've searched again and even gone to my library to see if there's something that can be made of this article. Unfortunately, still can't find anything. Would refer to WP:BIODEL for the closing admin, as there is none opposing the deletion of this article. Thanks. Lourdes 04:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[XRentDVD-1] Big D (2006-11-02). "Inside Roxy Deville". XRentDVD. Retrieved 2012-06-23.

[1]