Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 September 12 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. This is a fairly long debate that has been subject of canvassing, so I'll write a detailed close.

  • LISTCRUFT is an essay and in and of itself not a reason for deletion, while NPOV issues need to be explained a bit better before they make a convincing case for deletion instead of editing and "not an encyclopedic purpose" is too vague to make a good deletion rationale. Many of the keep !votes are making thinly supported (and largely irrelevant) accusations of bad faith or vandalism, "it's useful" arguments, arguments about other lists that fall under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, claims that GNG is met but no proof (and given the problem of SYNTH, usually I like when people discuss evidence of notability of "comparison of x" list - and I see a rebuttal as well), speculation that the list was written to promote PC gaming and other points that aren't grounded in policy (or don't appear to address any of the delete points). Most of these questionable arguments come from people who are rightly or wrongly tagged as SPA or as canvassed !voters. In addition, there does not seem to be agreement that the list would actually be useful due to concerns about e.g how broad its inclusion criteria are and how complete it could ever be.
  • In terms of actually policy grounded points I see claims that the list is INDISCRIMINATE (not all such claims directly reference that policy but I am inclined to consider BU Rob13 and Elmidae as arguing in that sense), a not overly detailed rebuttal thereof by Slazenger, a concern about "nonsense comparisons" that sounds like a concern about original research (but I am not terribly clear on this), a concern about NOTCATALOG, another about the list being SYNTH as well as a question by Guy Macon about why some consider this article unsalvageable. I am not sure how much weight to assign to arguments that the article is utterly impractical to have, given that a complete article would be extremely long. There are further some proposals to repurpose or narrow the list, without much support or opposition seems like. One such argument proposes the expansion of another article and the redirection of this page to it; I am going to defer to the talk page of that article.

So the long way around, the vast majority of compelling arguments are the ones worrying about the list being INDISCRIMINATE and recommending deletion. And so delete it is. PS: For people who wonder what each ALLCAPS WORD means, just paste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOMETHING into your address bar and replace SOMETHING with the ALLCAPS WORD you are curious about Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of gaming platforms[edit]

Comparison of gaming platforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the PROD for the article didn't really contain an argument why the list was unencyclopedic, I believe the article is listcruft with no clear encyclopedic purpose. The article was created to push PC gaming and NPOV issues can't really be fixed without disproportionate effort to expand and maintain. The stats surrounding PCs and other operating systems are far more nebulous than those of the other consoles, making it extremely difficult to be accurate. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article and discussion have been linked to by the PC Master Race subreddit, with over 10,000 upvotes. --PresN 12:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The administrators of PCMR has asked for people not to actively contribute or to make accusations. Dark-World25 (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not serve an encyclopedic purpose. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 00:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind explaining why? Does this article "serve an encyclopedic purpose": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software ? Encyclopedias I know are full of tables with comparisons. Do you think gaming platforms aren't relevant? Real Joe Cool (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Real Joe Cool (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
      • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a sufficient counterargument, regardless of what they think, the articles should be considered on their own merits. While asking why is a legitimate question, it should stop there, without bringing the debate onto other articles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • In its current state, it looks like half an article that is completely impregnable to anyone who doesn't know the lingo. Also, I have issues with the "Platforms in Competitive Gaming" section that feels like it just adds to the PC superiority thing the article has going on. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see, thanks for the reply. So if I understand correctly you think the article is biased and fixing it would be too much work for too little gain. While I disagree, I can see your point. Thanks. Real Joe Cool (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Real Joe Cool (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. - So, User:TheTimesAreAChanging? I do not intend to participate further here. clarification: here=this AFD What is "the editor's" issue? I also like the dreamcast, but I am not spamming canvassed suspicions. I am not feeling welcome by this hostile behavior. Please do not forget assume good faith. Maybe I also just want a useful encyclopedia. Real Joe Cool (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • My "issue" is that it is odd for users that have not edited in several years to suddenly reappear for the sole purpose of influencing a contentious AFD. You made a single edit two years ago, and have otherwise been inactive for five years. Thank you for clarifying that you "do not intend to participate further here."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • @TheTimesAreAChanging: I am also very much inactive on Wikipedia and influencing this AfD is the only thing of note I've done here since possibly ever. What's important about canvassing isn't where an editor heard about the discussion from, but whether he/she is contributing in NPOV. Real Joe Cool asked for a much needed clarification on an argument and made none of his own, so it's a little heavy handed to accuse him of canvassing. Please remember WP:FAITH! tonyxc600 comms logs 04:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • @TheTimesAreAChanging:I'm an active user, here only due to the publicity this got and to share my own valid opinions and contribute to something I feel I might have some insight on. I wholeheartedly agree that you going around tagging canvassing accusations is not contributing at all to this discussion. If someone has a good idea, i don't care if they're a ten-year editor or someone who just created their first Wikipedia account. Please remember TheTimes, RfDs are not seeking a majority vote, simply ideas. You'd do well to focus on the topic rather than on the individuals contributing. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 00:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Yes, of course we're "looking for ideas", but we're looking for the ideas of informed, neutral editors who are interested in building an encyclopedia, not conforming to the POV pushing efforts of a Reddit group. It's not hard to tell who is who when people make their first edit in 3 years to make an emotional plea with no basis in policy. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • To be fair, it's clear at this point that there's canvassing going around both for the Keep and Delete argument with a lot of WP:ATA tossed around on both sides, including genetic fallacies that the article's/the AFD's origin somehow deny them consideration on their own merits. None of that serves to build a consensus. We should rather concentrate on establishing what issues there are with the article's purpose and contents, and whether those can be rectified without resorting to deletion. Per WP:ATD, just the existence of content (or, in some cases, conduct) disputes between editors does not by itself constitute grounds for deletion. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand, since arguments have erupted below, and its not as quite as "open and shut" as I would have guessed: The concept is already better covered in a number of other ways that make far more sense. (History of video games, generations of video game articles, each individual generation articles, like the 8th gen, etc.) This massive comparison of all these random things (power, sales, features) between everything under the sun that can possibly play a game (consoles, PCs, mobile devices, etc) is a massive WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith nomination. The recent kerfluffle was organized by the exact same editors who vandalized the PC Master Race article about a year ago with a whole bunch of spurious references to Nazi stuff. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is WP:TDLI. If what you claim is true, then there should exist a policy based argument to retain the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, their claim is that the nomination itself is WP:IDLI. TLDI would be "this is just a nomination from some console fan upset about PCs". ReidE96 (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that ReidE96 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
        • Seeing that I've been tagged - no. I don't edit often, but seeing the AfD mentioned elsewhere I took a look as it's an area of interest. I don't appreciate the implication by whomever applied the canvas tag that those opposed to this who contribute infrequently were canvassed. ReidE96 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is zero evidence that the PC Master Race article was ever vandalized. There was a subsection dedicated to its etymology that included a single objective sentence to Naizi ideology, which made sense in context, and which also helped to elucidate why some journalists objected to its appropriation. Alas, some editors attempted to delete the sentence on dubious grounds, and having failed, went running off to Reddit to muster support. — Niche-gamer 09:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article definitely has encyclopedic value - it has a large amount of objective useful information organized in a table. Any specific parts which are deemed not objective or have questionable sources can be removed and/or corrected individually, rather than nuking the whole article. Aaronfranke (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Aaronfranke (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Per WP:VALUABLE you should state exactly why the information is "useful". What parts can be kept for it to be encyclopedic?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison function of this article in itself is pretty usefull to me. The fact that I don't have to visit every individual page but can use the table is enough reason for me to keep this article. Adding to that is the fact that it includes gaming platforms that are not considered consoles makes it even more useful ~ Zirguezi 07:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "It's unencyclopedic" is the last and weakest reason to delete a page, and hasn't been justified. It's reasonably well referenced and edited by consensus until recently. Nomnating it for deletion because people are arguing about it now is not the right way to solve edit disputes. It doesn't appear to "push PC gaming" any more than Fossil fuel pushes oil consumption. —Ben Brockert (42) 05:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Large amounts of objective information. If this isn't encyclopedic, most other comparison list articles aren't either. ReidE96 (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that ReidE96 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they may not be encyclopedic either, so that isn't a legitimate reason to keep this one.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The OTHERSTUFF page itself acknowledges that it can be a valid argument - mainly invalid for deletions when saying things like "other thing exists and this is just as famous". I don't think anyone here is arguing gaming platforms are non-encyclopaedic, and given the wide presence of comparison articles on wiki they're fairly established as being a suitable format for an article. Thus, the article should remain. ReidE96 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article consists of a series of unrelated consoles from various generations. This information is presented much more clearly in the "Xth generation of video game consoles" articles. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 05:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The biggest problem with that reasoning is that they are focused on video game consoles, not gaming platforms. The three largest platforms for playing video games are Windows PCs, iOS devices, and Android devices - all of which are gaming platforms, but none of which are video game consoles. I'm not sure if they really fit cleanly into those pages. Moreover, this list cuts across generations, allowing direct sorting and comparison between generations and across time. The video game generation articles are dedicated to particular generations, they aren't list articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a particular reason to include gaming platforms in the comparison? The way I see it, operating systems are totally different from consoles, and in fact consoles have their own operating systems, rendering the comparison incomparable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gaming platforms is more abstract. I also see no grounds for exactly how you would fail to compare i.e. a "PC" and an "XBOX One" - please elaborate. Drunkenvalley (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Drunkenvalley (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
          • PCs can be custom built in any configuration. Xbox One cannot. There is the potential for a PC to be weaker or stronger than an Xbox One. Therefore any kind of comparison will fall flat. And if we remove the PC, the article is merely a duplicate of other articles that exist on Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't matter the a PC can have many different power levels, that doesn't change how many games are available on that platform. I think this page just needs some edits to clarify information. Rodentman87 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)— Rodentman87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • I agree. There is a big difference between gaming platform and gaming consoles. Both lists serve their own function ~ Zirguezi 07:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listcruft is an indiscriminate or trivial list, but a comparison of video game platforms is neither of those things - gaming platforms are themselves an encyclopedic topic, so there is no reason why a list comparing them would be problematic. The PC, IOS, and Android platforms have a lot more total sales than console platforms because of their much greater longevity and use for non-gaming purposes, not because of bias, and the page itself is quite neutral, simply listing out data, as is the case with most list pages. The argument that it is being used to promote PC gaming seems questionable, and it being a lot of work to make better isn't an argument for deletion, but expansion. If you have some idea of what improvements you'd like to see, it might be worth bringing them up on the talk page. My biggest concern with the article as-is is that it is missing the first four generations of gaming consoles, as well as whether or not "PC" should be broken out into multiple platforms, as Android and iOS are considered separately, so it might make sense to break out Windows, DOS, Linux, MacOS, ect. However, neither of those things are reasons to delete the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that PS3 used to be able to run Linux means that you are essentially comparing hardware with software that is run on hardware. Therefore the article is too problematic to exist in its current form, and if it was distilled to only consoles, it would be rendered superfluous by existing "X generation" articles on consoles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Comparison pages should be made for directly comparable material. As the page stands now, it is a list of random statistics of various platforms across multiple generations that offer no clear overview of the differences/strengths/weaknesses between them. Compare with Comparison of wiki software brought up above. That page provides relevant information to readers regarding directly comparable differences between wiki software, whereas this gaming platform page is more of a summary for each platform than a comparison (most blatant being input & online services columns). In my opinion, 'gaming platforms' as a concept is simply too varied to allow for direct comparison to occur: no amount of work will allow a fair comparison between a PS4 and an iPhone. tonyxc600 comms logs 05:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that tonyxc600 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    • The PS4 and the iPhone are both just computers. The PS4 is just one which is much more focused on video games. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, but there are very few valid points of comparison between them, beyond the fact that they are both computers and they both run games. They serve far too different purposes as gaming platforms to be able to compare. It would be like trying to compare books and TV as sources of entertainment - the category is simply too broad. As a thought, perhaps it would be a good compromise to redirect this to a simple list of gaming platforms, rather than a comparison? tonyxc600 comms logs 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Definitely. I mean, something we can also try is comparing system software instead of trying to compare hardware. Console games are loaded from the console's operating system, and we have articles of their operating systems. How far can we get with that? FosterHaven (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominated under WP:IDLI if nothing else the edit history of the last 24-48 hours demonstrates one side would rather destroy an article of genuine encyclopedic worth than risk having to concede their position to the counter argument. OSUBrit (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that OSUBrit (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    • An unfounded and unjust accusation, opinions expressed here are my own gathered from reading the talk page and viewing the edit history of the article. Accusations of canvassing appear to be being tacked onto any comment that certain editors find unfavourable to their personal opinion, thus undermining their argument and devaluing the impact of tagging the few genuine canvassing comments which have appeared. OSUBrit (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm abstaining from this discussion due to my occasional participation on the PCMR subreddit, but I thought it would be prudent to alert everyone that posts claiming that this AfD is some effort to "censor the superiority of PC" are currently trending on both /r/pcmasterrace and /r/KotakuInAction. This is just a notification in case we get WP:SPAs on this though, please do not brigade those posts from our end. Let's remain the voices of reason here. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 06:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will be completely honest, this article has serious, but surmountable flaws. This article attempts to compare apples and oranges, insofar as comparing dedicated gaming platforms (XBox/Playstation/etc) to multi-use devices (PC/Mobile phones). That being said, I see this RfD as being fueled by both WP:IDLI and WP:RUNNERUP. WP:Listcruft does not apply under my interpretation as it does not neatly fit under any tenets that Listcruft is frequently used for. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the only view I could see someone currently arguing on, but I strongly believe that this is not the case. The organization of the article needs to improve, perhaps going so far as to separate the article in dedicated platforms and co-opted ones, but the content is useful as a jump-off point and to show the diversity of gaming platforms. I'm also confused by the seemingly incomplete list of platforms; the article has been active for four years yet seems mightily incomplete. My only concern for the future of the article is the length of the list and useability concerns ten generations down the line. We have the articles on "X Generation", but this could/should serve as a high-level, easily-digestible list. Overall, I believe defining "gaming platform" more rigidly would be in everyone's best interest. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition would have to be sufficiently broad to accept existing gaming platforms while filtering out cases such as programmable graphing calculators, ATMs, printers and smartwatches (yes, some of them do run Doom). I'm thinking along the lines of one of these:
1. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which one of common consumer use cases is playing video games.
2. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which playing video games is one of main advertised features or one of main reasons for its' adoption by consumers.
3. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which playing video games is one of main advertised features, one of main reasons for its' adoption by consumers, or which has been a target platform for production of commercial video game software
Leaning towards the last - if the game industry recognizes it as a valid target platform, then there's no question it should count as a gaming platform. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per OSUBrit's observation. MeanMotherJr (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the AfD appears to be borne out of WP:IDLI, with little argument as to how it fails to be encyclopedic. Drunkenvalley (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Drunkenvalley (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Keep the list is absolutely relevant and encyclopedic. It might have quality and inconsistency problems but deleting it now would prevent us from making it better. ~ Zirguezi 07:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Zirguezi (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Weak keep, rename to Comparison of home video game consoles While it looks initially quite useful, problems arise when you realise the amount of gaming consoles out there. This is just a random comparison of a few of them, and the article needs serious reform, preferably to provide a comparison of home video game consoles for their respective generations. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 08:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @My name is not dave: You may want to consider that such a thing exists already in the form of articles such as Second generation of video game consoles which list all relevant statistics for the consoles and can be compared should a user want to. A duplicate article for all generations would just be a waste of editing time.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be quite comprehensive actually. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @My name is not dave:Comprehensive maybe, but serving no clear purpose. There is no real reason to compare different console gens, as they will obviously be superior to the last. Comparing the gens amongst themselves is far more arguably enyclopedic because it demonstrates how they competed with each other.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would invalidate the comparison - the subject matter are gaming platforms in general and not consoles specifically. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As observed above, the nomination seems a clear case of WP:IDLI, and a desperate attempt at arbitrarily disqualifying the PC as a gaming platform after simply removing it from the article failed. Hard to see good faith in this. Any problems the article has (and I mean actual problems, not just "it was started by some people from a PC-focused subreddit") should be discussed on the talk page and fixed, instead of resorting to such drastic measures. Indrek (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose This page would be better served as a comparison of online platforms for games (Steam, PSN, Xbox Live, etc.) and then link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games. Or perhaps as an actual big ol' list of hardware that summarises across all generations. Trying to compare PC to dedicated gaming consoles is really difficult to do as not every statistic needed is tracked so easily for PC. Also, considering how broad the term PC is and how the line between PC and Console is further blurred each generation, trying to compare them in the way presented here seems fruitless. Ranger10700 (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ranger10700 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Comment I was led here by the post on the PCMR subreddit. I see two major, competing issues. The first is that gaming is complex, and comparing the various platforms on which one can game is a difficult thing to categorize. If you try to limit the article to 'dedicated' platforms, then you're ignoring the great majority of games and the three largest platforms for gaming (Android, iOS, and PC.) On the other hand, the current comparison table is a mess. At the moment, you can't even usefully sort on most of these fields, because the formatting is so inconsistent. (alpha sorts on entries that are supposed to be numeric??)
This article, however, isn't that old, and it might be possible to straighten it up with a little more discipline. A master list of gaming platforms is a useful thing to have; the ability to click through on many of these columns to further data could be pretty compelling. This page would have been very useful to me about two months ago, had I thought to search for it. I'd suggest giving the page editors some time (six months??) to adjust the article and bring it up to a more reasonable standard; a minimum requirement would probably be to make number fields sortable as numbers.
It isn't actively causing harm, isn't visibly pushing anyone's agenda, and could potentially serve as an excellent synopsis and launch point. Putting the page editors on notice, and then re-examining in the future would seem a reasonable solution. I'd suggest deferring any deletion decision. Malor (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Malor (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Delete Article has no encyclopedic value. Only exists due to canvasing from other internet communities like reddit. Let them create their pointless wiki pages on their own websites. Wikipedia should aim to be encyclopedic. 60.226.224.192 (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— 60.226.224.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic content worthy of a list. Deleting under what looks to be a claim of WP:DONTLIKE is not what we stand for here at Wikipedia. To those coming from various Reddit threads, please familiarize yourself with the various related arguments to avoid before !voting, otherwise your opinion may be discounted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is useful in comparing gaming platforms and only uses facts and number and absolutely no opinions. 84.108.117.2 (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— 84.108.117.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep As per TitaniumDragons point, I think PC is too all encompassing: The definition of PC the table appears to use could equally well encompass every other item in the table as they are all "personal computing" devices, but that is not a reason to delete.RobbieAB (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that RobbieAB (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic value due to nonsense comparisons which are very hard to fix because of massive platform differences. Also the table is severely lacking information regarding some of the cells, for example majority of backward and forward compatibility entries are either misleading or very inaccurate. Same applies to a lot of other entries as well. This table would confuse or mislead a general consumer even if he knew all the definitions and wouldn't be useful to anyone else since individual wiki pages for platforms have much more and better structured information. Also if the table is left and fully completed it would become insanely bloated and again, be no use for anyone. P.S. for the redditors who keep spamming "Keep" without actually reading the article involved, please do, you'll see that it's terrible to begin with. SomeGuy147 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— SomeGuy147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep This article falls under the category informational list per the wikipedia notability guidelines, and does not meet the criteria for deletion. Aside from that, this demand that the article be deleted is an attempt at vandalism, after the vandals grew frustrated with struggling to effectively maintain their bias in the list. The list itself provides interesting and useful information that is relevant to a number of separate topics which firmly fall within standard wikipedia article guidelines, such as gaming and esports. It also seems that the primary point of contention was mostly revolving around spurious claims about gaming platforms are organized. Yakri (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Yakri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep There is an encyclopedic value to data pertaining to the usage of various systems used for electronic gaming, which is itself a form of leisure; and how human beings pursue leisure is important for the purposes of research and historical posterity. Stc1992 (talk) 1:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Stc1992 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Keep keep the comparison as following: comparison between latest models of pc-xbox-playstation-nintendo. And throw other remaining consoles and platforms in a different table. This way, the comparison is fair and the article is actually useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenm v2 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Kenm v2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep the comparison article, with the same modifications Kenm2 suggested above me. There is nothing on the article that makes it worthy for deletion. Lempamo (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The core problem here is the last column on the table, trying to show how many units were sold; while consoles can be assumed to be principally used for gaming, we cannot make that assumption for PCs or mobile platforms, and when you consider the longevity of the PC platform, the table does appear to be a very poor form of synthesis to show how much better that the PC platform is than the others, sweeping some facts like that under the rug. There is a place for comparing the best estimates of playerbase (groups like ESA and EEDAR have such figures), but that begs a fresh start without so much focus on the technical specs. My "weak" here is only because there may be some content in this that is neutral that could be used towards that, but I don't think a whole lot. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability guidelines and does not meet the criteria for deletion. Suppafly (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above, bad faith nomination, topic certainly meets Wikipedia guidelines, and complexity of the issue. Javert2113 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The PC should be allowed to compared to consoles,so people realize that there is a better option than some sort of overpriced plastic boxes. --XtremeGaming (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that XtremeGaming (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Comment I'd like to remind that per WP:ATTP, bad faith nomination should not be an argument for keep at this point, as the discussion above obviously show that there are legitimate concerns to the article's usefulness. As the nomination is is clearly valid, Please base the discussion on the worth of the article itself. tonyxc600 comms logs 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, and more specifically per Zxcvbnm's "hit the nail on the head" explaination. Why are almost all the Keep !votes new accounts ? talk about sandbagging. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete. Delete. Emphatic delete, despite the fact that I don't ever remotely expect this or any of the dozens or scores of similar articles we have to ever actually get deleted. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Wikipedia is not a place to go to find product recommendations or help deciding which console to buy. The place for that is literally anywhere else on the internet, besides the fact that this is nearly the very definition of WP:SYNTH down to its core. Pull up the roots, strip off the fruit, dry up the branches, and make it wither. TJWtalk 16:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - TJW said it better than I ever could. This is just WP:SYNTH at its best (or worst, depending on how you look at it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This list is lacking scope and purpose. As it stands, the list compares platforms across several generations based on indiscriminate and arbitrary specifications from which no substantial conclusions can be drawn. These platforms were released years apart when the gaming industry was at various levels of maturity and different technologies were available, so trying to compare them in a sense of "which one is better" doesn't make sense. If the purpose for comparison is different, well unfortunately there is no prose nor any basis in reliable sources that help explain to the reader what the purpose of the list is. There IS value in comparing platforms to others in their generation, but it's not worth re-purposing the list in that sense because that would be duplication of the history of video games generation articles. Also, there IS value in articles discussing the value of PC, iOS, and Android as gaming platforms, but reducing that argument to a comparison table isn't valuable when those platforms are quite open-ended and don't have characteristics that are as easy to define as, say, the Dreamcast. TarkusABtalk 16:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This would be pretty horrific to maintain since it would need to include pretty much every post PDP-1 computer, a bunch of pinball machines, several oscilloscopes and at least one pop-corn machine.©Geni (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove PC as a platform, per the above reasons mentioned in both keep and delete noms. A PC is a PC because it's customizable, and can have worst specs than a PS3, or a monster with an 18-core CPU with three-way SLI Titans. Because of that, how do you add that to the list without giving the theoretical maximum spec build, which in theory has no limit? Could super computers with an OS that allows gaming also be added too? I think this is better to add in prose instead of a table. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, lets delete everything then, considering that consoles are over-priced computer with a custom OS. If you want to see it this way, then you certainly would not object to adding Orbis OS and Xbox One OS into the list of operating systems? Also perhaps if you go there, you would find that Orbis is based on FreeBSD, an Unix based operating system originally designed for servers and PCs, and the Xbox OS is based on Windows. Also, since loading a Linux distro or Windows on a console would turn that into a PC why don't we classify them as PCs? Dark-World25 (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that isn't fully true, what about the consoles that used a BIOS to boot and not an OS, such as the PS1 and GameCube? Your argument doesn't wouldn't matter for those, nor does it matter what a modern console's OS is based on, because they are marketed as gaming consoles and not a PC. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Steam Machines are marketed as gaming consoles... Dark-World25 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Following the same logic leads to removing every system that has functions other than gaming. Not being solely a gaming device does not mean that it isn't a gaming platform (see: Playstation 1 with ability to play audio CDs, Playstation 3 with OtherOS and any console capable of service as a DVD or BD player). IMO the issue is more in how PC should be handled rather than whether or not it belongs on the list. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which is why other proposals include making this page only comparing home consoles which have a set architecture, which is probably the best course of action. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call that a valid option, let alone "best". The article's purpose is comparison of all platforms targeted by the video gaming industry, not just consoles . If you want to keep it but restrict it to only console systems, it would be redundant with list of home video game consoles --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ironically it seems that certain editors are clearly canvassing this page with accusations of canvassing towards any account that has the audacity to have not edited an article in the last week, or whatever other arbitrary reasons they can think of. Not that some of these comments could not, or should not, be discounted, but the sheer heavy-handedness of the approach as clearly shown from this discussion's edit history is disturbing. OSUBrit (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Considering the fact that only "keep" votes have been tagged, combined with the allegations of canvassing on the article's talk page (e.g. [1], [2]), this is starting to look like an attempt to discredit opposing viewpoints. Indrek (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common and accepted practice. Random people don't just wander into these discussions en-masse like this. Its obvious people were asked to contribute here. Many of these video game related deletion discussion go on for weeks and only have 3-5 participants. So it comes off as fishy when 20 newbies comment in the first 24 hours. But beyond that, it doesn't really matter if its directly pointed out, any halfway decent Admin is going to see right through this. A vast majority of the keep votes stick out like a sore thumb. They're not based on any policy or guideline. They vaguely allude to them, and then devolve into thinly-veiled arguments to avoid like WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. Arguments like that are generally thrown out and not factored into the final decision. As such, those editors are basically discounting themselves, whether they're labeled as being canvassed or not. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well of course only "keep" votes have been tagged, because if you follow the link to Reddit, it's urging people to vote keep. That's the very definition of Stealth Canvassing, telling people who obviously have not or will not participate in many, or any deletion discussions besides this one to dog pile on it. Ultimately, if this is the only discussion you commented on recently then it will be obvious you were canvassed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    if you follow the link to Reddit, it's urging people to vote keep Interesting. I guess you must have dug deeper into the comments section than I did, because the only urging I saw was to not vandalise any Wikipedia pages (plus a proposal to archive the article to the subreddit wiki). Indrek (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if there is a comment regarding that, some people will do it anyway, especially when the topic generally hints to keeping the article as the "right thing" without considering that the page might not have a basis for existing in the first place. At least the fact that the talk has been canvassed is clear, w/e it was intentional or not. SomeGuy147 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)— SomeGuy147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep but the article is incomplete and additional information on other gaming platforms should be added. The ones included in the article now are not the only 'gaming platforms' in existence, so we should aim to add more information here, instead of taking it away. However, this means the page will likely need to be reorganised to make information more clear. Perhaps the gaming systems could be separated into different sections to make the article more clear, for example a section about dedicated systems (of which I mean things that are mainly used for gaming, such as Game Boys, Game Boy advances etc) and a section about non-dedicated systems (ones which may have additional non-gaming functions, such as the Xbox One or smart phone devices).--Stikman (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dreadful article that makes no sense. Why do iOS devices have backwards compatibility as a yes with the reason of "Yes, but notably short-term due to frequent OS changes" when this is identical to PC's "partial"? And what makes it backwards compatibile on iOS? That implies it was designed for an earlier system but works on the later ones through emulation or other means, but in iOS it is just running natively, so is that even backwards compatibility? And at the very least as I said, its partial. What is backwards compatible anyway? If it can play one system's game fine, is that enough to be "yes" to backward compatibility? But why isn't it partial because it can't play all the earlier systems games? It's just an illogical thing to even have, there is no clear "yes" to it, it needs to be further explained. The rest of it is just a jumble of random information that is no use to anybody, there is no way of even making a direct comparison between most of these things. The computer sales statistics don't even seem to take into account PCs that have been built by home users, and does it include systems like the C64? That was a home computer. Or is it just x86 PCs? Just a horribly flawed article and should be deleted, one of the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia to the point where I made an account just to say how bad it is. Cabbages69 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Cabbages69 (talk • — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cabbages69 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete primarily for scope and maintenance issues. As it stands, this is a selection (what criteria?) listing picked (what criteria?) summary statistics (what criteria?). To be worthwhile and defensible, it would have to be vastly more inclusive, at which point it duplicates a number of better-developed articles, and rigorous, at which point half the article would have to consist of footnotes justifying the chosen metrics (a couple of the currently present footnotes already nicely demonstrate the problem). This is not a feasible proposition. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is being targeted for deletion because people don't like the facts on it, the same people who are nominating it for deletion are editing it to make it look worse. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 19:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: (Note, I came here because of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Heads up on a heated AFD, not because I was canvassed, and have participated in hundreds of prior AfDs.) Could someone taking the delete position please explain, in detail why, the current article could not be improved instead of deleted? Also, a message to the Redditors: Thing are run quite differently on Wikipedia compared to Reddit, but if at least a few of you would be willing to learn how we do things here and help to improve the article, that would be a huge help. Please read WP:NPOV carefully before deciding. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Guy Macon:The argument is essentially; this is a Frankenstein amalgamation of a bunch of other list articles into a massive master list of every console ever created, but the creators of the article didn't actually plan to fill out the list; rather, they made it as a way to promote PC gaming as superior to any other gaming platform in existence. Ultimately its massive scope makes it unencyclopedic, as it's unnecessary to compare literally every gaming platform when they go by different metrics.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see this list as a way to promote PC gaming. Even if it is, that falls under a NPOV issue that can be repaired. My issue is that the fundamental idea of comparing all gaming platforms in existence is an ultimately unfeasible attempt in comparing apples to oranges. As I said above, there is no way one can compare an iPhone and a PS4 as gaming platforms in any sort of useful capacity. If the article was refactored to group similar platforms together, it it would then become duplicates of existing articles such as History_of_video_games. However, I do concede that there currently lacks an article which succinctly provides an overview of all gaming platforms, and therefore tentatively agree for the creation and redirection to a 'list of video game platforms' page. tonyxc600 comms logs 01:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tonyxc600:The problem with that idea is that there is already a Category:Video game platforms for those who wish to browse every video game platform in existence. A list form would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to how vague that classification is.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • A category listing does not provide any useful information beyond the name of the subject article. Nothing about regional availability, launch date, library size, market penetration - all of which are relevant to the subject matter and all of which serve informative, encyclopedic purpose. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The comparison is very relevant to the topic provided from a different perspective than articles like console generations. Just because it could do with a little improvement is no reason to delete it altogether. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of clearly-defined scope. This is a hodge-podge mix of stats best incorporated into the lists of consoles. We don't need both lists of consoles and a list comparing consoles. Those are the same thing. ~ Rob13Talk 21:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT is very clear that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, that is it does not gather facts and statistics together without any rationale for the decision to gather that information in one place, which is defined by how reliable sources justify said groupings. This listing is a complete apples & oranges comparison of multiple generations of console hardware with two smartphone operating systems and apparently the entirety of PC history, as if a 1981 IBM PC and a 2017 Dell are the same thing. None of these items directly compare, and I am aware of no reliable sources that would consider a comparison of this type apt. Sure, we compare within generations, but there are other articles that already contain that info. We might as well be comparing a Model T a 1950s Cadillac, a modern Ferrari, and a racing bicycle for all the good that would do us. Indrian (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Indrian: I partially agree. While I appreciate the idea of comparing these platforms, PC and mobile platforms do not share a common baseline of all the statistics being compared here. I still think that re-purposing the article as a comparison of online gaming platforms would be a much more appropriate idea. Ranger10700 (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ranger10700 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Redirect. Just to bring in a different viewpoint, as all keep arguments seem to be concerned that the article is indeed notable, and delete arguments concerned with NPOV issues & maintainability of the comparison, would a good compromise be expanding List_of_home_video_game_consoles to list of video game platforms, and merging in non-dedicated platforms such as mobile and PC in a separate section? Seems like a good way to retain the useful aspects of the current article without the horrifically unsourceable and verbose comparisons. tonyxc600 comms logs 01:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can get behind this. I think a lot of the issues stem from the fact that PC and Mobile gaming are significant subjects that are more complicated then the current format here allows. This list, in it's current "scope" if you could even call it that, does not need to exist. Ranger10700 (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Combining them does sound like a valid solution on face value, but comes with its' own problems. How exactly do we define a platform? "PC" isn't a homogenous platform it's been lumped together as, but rather than a category encompassing several distinct software platforms (some of which are historical, eg DOS) and sub-platforms that operate within those. Creating an exhaustive list of platforms would also require including a number of other microcomputers (Amiga, Spectrum etc). --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been constantly vandalized, but that shouldn't mean it needs to be deleted. Clubjustin Talkosphere 03:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is encyclopedic. Article should not be deleted but improved. --007a83 (Talk|Contribs) 04:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism is not a reason to delete a valid article. Purge & Ban the offenders, keep the page. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith nomination, attempted censuring of PC as a platform, deletion and edits (vandalism) does not conform to WP:NOTCENSORED. Dark-World25 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is comparing platforms. This is just an attack by triggered console users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppington (talk • contribs) 10:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The humourous value of each of these purblind little outbursts, and the fact each is basically a request to completely disregard the comment, must be entirely lost on the gathered reddit crowd... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article, in its current state, has no clearly defined scope. What are we comparing? Is it current gaming platforms or every gaming platform in existence? The various table columns are not helping much, being a hodgepodge of technical specifications and marketing. I think the idea behind this article is good, but it would require a complete rewrite from the ground up. I wouldn't normally advocate the TNT approach, but no previous version of this article works, and if it was redesigned with a clearer scope and a new article name to match then perhaps we can move on from this ridiculous war of PCs vs. the rest of the gaming world. Does anyone actually believe that editing a couple of obscure Wikipedia articles is going to persuade the world that PCs are superior? ZettaComposer (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly due to scope issues. It is possible this could be an encyclopedic topic, but I highly suspect the obvious offsite canvassing issues evident above would prevent any real improvement on making it less non-neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC) (card-carrying member of the PC gaming master race)[reply]
  • Move to List of gaming platforms and Merge with List of home video game consoles as suggested by tonyxc600 (additionally Split off list of online gaming platforms and list of online game distribution services into separate articles)
Let's get it out of way: I have been canvassed. Now, on the subject:
  • I do not see the article fitting under WP:LISTCRUFT by any stretch of the definition.
  • The accusations of uncencyclopedic nature do not stick. The article does not meet WP:DEL-REASON unless you can shoehorn it under WP:NOT, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE within that . Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "A Wikipedia article should (...) <be> a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." , which this article is.
  • Wikipedia uses a number of similar broad lists to group and compare devices that share a common role, as seen in List of home video game consoles and List of sports cars .
  • Circumstances of the article's creation do not in and of themselves qualify the article as a deletion candidate. To claim otherwise is a fallacy of origin.
  • The article seems to have been intended by the PCMR subreddit to serve as a centralized source of reference for certain aspects of gaming platforms, their market shares and libraries. That information can - and in my opinion, does - have encyclopedic value.
This said, the article has some issues that warrant a heavy retooling:
1. The article overlaps thematically with list of home video game consoles and list of home computers (to an extent)
2. The article suffers from trying to integrate multiple sets of information about its' subjects into a singular table. Some of them would fit better into distinct articles.
  • The article attempts to expand on the above two by including market data such as size of library and market adoption that those articles do not include (but that may be present on individual console generations' pages). If this article were to be deleted, an article covering the video gaming market (which the video game industry article is at best tangential to) might be justified.
  • The article attempts to provide a list of online gaming services and game distribution services available on the platforms. This appears to be something that would warrant at least one, perhaps two separate articles of its' own - List of Online Gaming Services and List of Online Game Distribution Services, perhaps - as it is beyond the scope of the nearest related article ( history of online games in this case )
3. The article suffers from poorly defined scope - some of the edit wars and vandalism accusations revolve around disagreements as to the definition of a "video gaming platform" . A definition has to be formulated regardless of the articles ultimate fate. Video game defines it as "the specific combination of electronic components or computer hardware which, in conjunction with software, allows a video game to operate", but that definition is overly broad (you know how many platforms Doom has been ported to, right? ).
Proposals:
1. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which one of common consumer use cases is playing video games.
2. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which playing video games is one of main advertised features or one of main reasons for its' adoption by consumers.
3. A video gaming platform is a computing platform for which playing video games is one of main advertised features, one of main reasons for its' adoption by consumers, or which has been a target platform for production of commercial video game software
I feel that these are sufficiently permissive while filtering out cases such as programmable graphing calculators, ATMs, printers and smartwatches. Leaning towards the last definition, myself.
4. The article is woefully incomplete in its present scope. To be exhaustive, it would have to cover nearly all platforms on both list of home video game consoles and list of home computers .
5. The article lists PC as if it was a single, homogenous platform. Ignoring the matter of hardware, each operating system (or, in case of Windows, a family of operating systems) formed a software platform not usually compatible with the others.
  • Whether the article is merged with list of home video game consoles or retained, PC should be split into separate sub-platforms - we need a consensus on the lines along which that categorization should be made. An approach that seems reasonable would be using the operating system as a basis (PC/Booter, PC/DOS, PC/Windows, PC/Linux).
6. The article naming is itself somewhat problematic - it's labeled as a comparison, where not all of the aspects are directly comparable (as noted by other editors). Relabeling it as a list of gaming platforms would lead to less confusion.
--The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-This should be placed on the articles talk page for consensus on if it should be moved, the current issue is whether this article meets Wikipedia delations policy. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emotionally charged statements do not make a valid counter-argument nor aim towards arriving at a mutually agreeable consensus. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and try to understand how (or rather: if) this AFD relates to them. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Allows a more broad comparison of all generations of gaming platforms than List of video game consoles's subsections, should supersede it. Kikimaru (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kikimaru (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Keep: Issues raised do not meet Wikipedia deletion policy, suggest more appropriate avenue be used to resolve these issues and improve the article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 19:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifnord (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luichy Guzman discography[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Luichy Guzman discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just merge it into the Luichy Guzman article like you proposed in yesterday's AfD. This is a waste of everybody's time. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Luichy Guzman. Heck, I'll do it myself if someone wants to close this out. Is there such a thing as a speedy merge? Ifnord (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ifnord (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stops (app)[edit]

Stops (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company that has failed to acquire significant coverage since it's founding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG due to said lack of coverage. The subject article does not describe what sets the subject apart from other augmented reality platforms, and as such fails WP:MILL. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obviously, as I nommed it two minutes before this AfD was raised. -Roxy the dog. bark 23:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emdad Sumon[edit]

Emdad Sumon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are not from reliable source. All of the references are from unreliable, Non-notable news media. Mar11 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (actually a couple of questions:)) is there a WP:COI with this article as it contains these words: "he had been beaten by my mother for seeing movie ..." and "Since 2004 he started my journey commercially ..." or is this a translation issue, and, more of a side issue, there is a Bangladesh company called Codex with a website codex.com.bd, almost identical to this article creator's name, Codexbd, is this a problem? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, this cannot be a translation issue; it is very likely that there is a COI. Also, the username obviously violates WP:CORPNAME. --nafSadh did say 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like Bangladeshis have learnt how to create Wikipedia "pages" and such articles keep popping up at the same rate at which Facebook pages used to pop up in early days of Facebook Pages. --nafSadh did say 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Purely promotional and no indication of notability. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the GNG and BLP. I'm not sure of it's being worthy of A7, but it is a "speedy" delete in my eyes. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sockpuppetry gets your arguments thrown out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debadityo Sinha[edit]

Debadityo Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO . Lots of references, but nothing seems to be specifically about him. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careful approach required when deleting. The person has been quoted by several national newspapers and magazines. He may be notable in his area of work. The person has a website listing media articles [1] Rajindra raju (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashi 1980. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashi 1980. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coate's[edit]

Coate's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage even after its disfunction. Fails WP:NORG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No secondary references in article ... and nothiong signficant that I could find easily elsewhere. Rhadow (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17 Cosmetics[edit]

17 Cosmetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fixing the broken link yielded an article with barely a mention of this company/brand. Doesn't turn up elsewhere. Not notable. bd2412 T 17:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy. The Afd runned for 7 days, as recommended by fellow wikipedians that I should myself move this users page about themself to their user space, so I have userfied it. Thankyou (non-admin closure) Anoptimistix (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchita[edit]

Ruchita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Usersify This is a page created by the User:Ruchi04 about themself. The user is a brand new editor. Immediate deletion of their first article can discourage them from editing Wikipedia, article does not have any potential harmful content or promo/adv concern. Requesting an administrator to move this page at the users subspace. Regards Anoptimistix (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. An alternative would have been WP:BOLDly moving the page to user space. Otherwise, the page is a speedy deletion candidate (no substantial content/test page). • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a pointless Afd. Yes, if you're concerned about biting a newcomer, then engage with him or userfy it yourself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adisa Kabiru[edit]

Adisa Kabiru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely promotional article with no indication of notability. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608, this subject under discuss need to be kept as Google rank it in the folowing sites: http://search.enableimpact.com/people/kabiru-adisa,https://researchcooperative.org/adisa-kabiru-adeniyi,https://www.founder2be.com/profile/adisakabiru and https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=adisa%20kabiru&stype=topics

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christoffer Ek[edit]

Christoffer Ek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual who fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:NMODEL. Only claim of significance is participation in a non-notable marketing campaign for a non-notable company. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per SamHolt6's comments. PureRED | talk to me | 18:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at Norwegian sources, I'm not entirely convinced the company wouldn't be notable. Nevertheless, I fail to find any sources that could point towards more work after this campaign, nor indications that print sources would help more. There's an article in small local paper Säffle-Tidningen from around the time of the campaign mentioned in the article, but that won't take us far. /Julle (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J947(c) (m) 19:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. Alisaffi[edit]

A. Alisaffi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Strongly suspect a hoax here. The name turns up absolutely no non-wikipedia mirrors, and nothing on Google Books. At least one of the print sources seems to be invalid, as its ISBN turns up no results. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a hoax; the sources are just offline. Andrew D. (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrew Davidson: Then why am I unable to verify that any of the sources exist? It still seems fishy to me that there is nothing online about them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everything notable is online. That's why editors and writers have such a deep engagement with libraires and the curation of their own personal book collections. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Andrew is correct, the sources are simply offline as I informed you TenPoundHammer on the article and on my talk page. He lived pre-internet and people wrote about him pre-internet. I don't create hoax articles. Its not true that there are no online sources, this Greek auction for instance https://www.karamitsos.com/auction.php?id=444 has many Alisaffi forgeries for sale but that is not the sort of source I would use to write an article. I should be grateful if you would withdraw the nomination since you are in error. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep a thousandfold. I'm the branch secretary of the Preservation of Offline Sourced Articles. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Here are two online webpages that mention him: 1 and 2 though as Philafrenzy says this type of page would not be used as sources. Besides which Philafrenzy knows his stuff and has created numerous philatelic articles, so why would be bother to make a hoax one. ww2censor (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete even if this weren't a hoax, it does not seem to meet notability guidelines given the relative obscurity of the subject and the lack of sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there are sources, and the obscurity of the subject is irrelevant...No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. The best modern source for his work is the book by Bill Ure, Forgeries of Greek Stamps of the 19th Century, which discusses his output in detail comparing and contrasting it with that of other forgers. see here (Greek). His work is also discussed in Fritz Billig's Großes Handbuch der Fälschungen (German 1933-38) and was noticed as early as 1903 and discussed in Demcker, Goldfuss and Pirl's Germania-Berichte (Vol. II). So we have multiple reliable sources that discuss his work in depth, published in different countries and languages and over more than a century. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As References section and Further Reading list show there is considerable coverage of the subject. ——Chalk19 (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topo (climbing)

Topo (climbing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This definition of a term of art for a particular sport has been unreferenced for six years as a short article. PROD was removed without improvement. It could be a wiktionary entry or a paragraph in another climbing article. It does not warrant its own article. It had its chance. Rhadow (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC) References added. Rhadow (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The page seems to be doing ok as it is and WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete as we have no deadline. It seems that the nomination is a drive-by made without any due diligence or consideration of alternatives per WP:BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. With a 5-minute WP:BEFORE style search, I was able to locate two books talking about this kind of map and added them to the article. There are other refs that discuss these diagrams and various groups like SuperTopo, dedicated to creating topos. Hence there seems adequate sourcing out there for this topic. Topos are usually a part of a climbing guide, so a merge to Climbing guidebook would also be reasonable. But outright deletion of verifiable material is the wrong course of action per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. --Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhadow: so are you withdrawing this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this reply on my user talk page, the nominator seems to have side-stepped the question of whether he actually wishes to withdraw this, but we no longer have a nomination rationale that calls for it to be deleted so criterion 1 of WP:SKCRIT would seem to apply. I'm closing this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Woody Johnson#Personal life. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Johnson[edit]

Casey Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This dead person has no actual personal notability at all which would meet Wikipedia guidelines, other than being a rich heiress who died. Having diabetes, being rich, appearing in minor roles, and having a family fight do not rise to anything more than "celebrity gossip" and, in this case, the deceased was not a celebrity. In addition the name of a minor adopted child is repeatedly bandied in the excuse of a BDP. Note that "fake cites" had been found in this article in the past, which makes one reasonably doubt the notability of the dead person, unless we start listing all dead relatives of marginally notable people as though their notability were inherited. Collect (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Woody Johnson#Personal life, where the subject's life is described in an easily-read paragraph without any tabloid issues within her father's article. Nate • (chatter) 07:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is something else that is waiting to be added, I'm not seeing enough to pass notability. The lede sums it up... "an American heiress, socialite, and celebutante as well as an occasional actress, model, and author. She was the great-great-granddaughter of Robert Wood Johnson I, co-founder of Johnson & Johnson." Being the great-great anything of someone wealthy and notable isn't enough. A brief mention on the personal life area of her father might be warranted.Sgerbic (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Woody Johnson#Personal life - there is some stuff that does belong in Woody's article, such as the diabetes book. The association with celebrity (Redacted) Tila Tequila, I'm not so fond of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable subject of tabloid coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the New York Times is a tabloid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete or redirect/merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 10:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and "Redirect" name only to Woody Johnson#Personal life. The article is full of trivia (some of which is unsourced or poorly sourced) and not suitable for a bio of a recently deceased person. There's no stand-alone notability and no need to preserve article history. A "Merge" would not be appropriate either as per my comment above. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, per nom. A redirect, without content merge, per K.e.coffman, would be ok. Ifnord (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellp[edit]

Ellp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PROD was repeatedly removed without improvement by SPA author. The references are weak; there is no evidence of notability. Rhadow (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think it should be deleted since it's clearly not notable per se. And the person who created it made almost 70% of all its edits, plus he curiously named his account same with the article revealing clear intent for advertizing Ammarpad (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if you remove the promotion it just becomes an assertion of existence. Not notable (yet). W Nowicki (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. bd2412 T 02:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Johnson (television personality)[edit]

Chad Johnson (television personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article was not creted by an SPA and @Edwardx: would do well to remove that personal attack. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A simple cut and paste error, easily fixed, and I have now done so. Please bear in mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith before suggesting that anyone is making a "personal attack". Edwardx (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, in future I wil assume laziness and/or incompetence when you open AfDs. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: I suggest that you delete the immediately-preceding WP:PERSONAL comment about another editor. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Narky Blert (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: I suggest you read WP:Dick. Ifnord (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifnord: @Narky Blert: I was going to leave this well alone, but as you two have decided to bring it up again, I'll respond. When an editor falsely calls another an SPA, and then admits that he did so because he "cut and pasted" an AfD submission, instead of bothering to actually write one applicable to the article he wants deleted, I will assume laziness and/or incompetence on his part. As for people turning up late to a disagreement and stirring it all up again for no good reason, I'll just assume shit-stirring. I will not be responding further. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:ENT #1, significant part in multiple TV programs, in this case 5. Coverage in national publications in UK and US. Even if people disagree on that, we have a responsibility to look for WP:ATD, and there are good redirect/merge targets. Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Person is active in their field with a substantial notoriety in television. Page cites reliable sources, person has had substantial media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cz463 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • meets WP:ENT #1, significant part in multiple TV programs of significant notoriety.
  • meets WP:ENT #1, person has been part of a cast of two major television programs that garner an average of 7-8 million viwers.
  • meets WP:ENT #1, significant part in television broadcast programs as correspondant.
  • meets WP:ENT #1, person has appeared in major networks like ABC and CBS.
  • meets WP:ENT #1, person works in has appeared in notable british programme in major networks Channel 5
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unconvinced this personage is notable, some sources but many are not reliable sources, or are primary sources. Working in television does not make you inherently notable. Google shows nothing useful. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aguyintobooks, what is your reason for not looking at WP:ATD? For the record, Aguyintobooks and I disagreed on another AfD, so within an hour he has stalked articles I've created, tagging 9 for notability or deletion and then this. Not exactly impartial, and can't have done WP:BEFORE considering how many he's just tagged in one hour. A minute or two is not enough before commenting, and you judged two other articles I created as non-notable within 4 mins each side of this, so you haven't looked properly. Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I checked this one yesterday, its unrelated. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  21:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From WP:BLPSOURCES, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism". That covers London Evening Standard, Daily Mirror and The Sun - 6 of the 10 citations. The only cited source which looks even remotely WP:RS is The Observer, and the citation is headed "Welcome to Entertaining AF, a new celebrity column from Hollywood reporter Emily Bicks". My searches turned up nothing better. His broadcast appearances have been as part of an ensemble cast, and almost by definition such roles are not "significant" enough to pass WP:ENT. Wiki does not have articles about everyone who has appeared on one – or even more than one – reality show, and for good reason. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NBIO, fails WP:ENT. Narky Blert (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • StubifyHe's clearly well-known, but not enough RS to support it. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When you take out the WP:BLPSOURCES violating content, there's nothing left. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep My understanding (I'm not exactly The Bachelor's target audience) is that he was the most significant member of the show, and has been a significant part of other notable shows (meeting WP:ENTERTAINER) with international coverage. However, there is no escaping the issue that most coverage is in tabloids, which does not mean he lacks notability, but it makes it difficult to source to a good level. It is close but I vote to keep, by a whisker. If he was non-notable, I would argue for a redirect rather than deleting this article. It usually gets more than one hundred views a day, readers are interested in him, and there are good choices to redirect to. Nevertheless, weak keep. MartinJones (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 01:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ichi Sound[edit]

Ichi Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vanity page from a SPA editor. Search turned up the usual social media/music download sites, but no independent, third party evidence of notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches indicate an absence of notability. Nothing I can find suggests they're notable, even their record label fails notability. If this is deleted then the connected article Ichi Sound EP, a 200 copy produced EP, should also definitely be deleted. Canterbury Tail talk 14:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I note that the one unambiguous argument to keep comes from an user whose limited editing history is entirely dedicated to the subject of canabis culture. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CannaTech[edit]

CannaTech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event with minimal coverage. Some of the organizations at the event are notable, but the event itself fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see any notabilty. Number 57 08:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it probably is notable (as a global event - seems this brand runs world-wide (e.g. a UK event - [3])- as there does seem to be sourcing for this (google news, after filtering out cannatech.news, and filtering out the copious PR material still seems to pass a threshold). The article does definitely need improvement, and I'm not so inclined on this subject and there isn't much worth saving in the current stub.Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although the article lacks substance, there are plenty of reliable resources on the internet to be able to compile a neutral article. This event has gained an international audience and have received in-depth discussion on local reliable and independent sources.[4], [5], [6]--MickeyDangerez (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we are having this discussion due to yet another bogus removal of a speedy nomination (diff). Fails GNG; not notable, created during the cannabis editathon and is the kind of promotional, non-notable thing that events like that can spawn sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: good call on the questionable speedy contest, I hadn't seen it.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the absence of advanced WikiProject criteria such as WP:NPOT, WP:NWEED, or WP:N420 the GNG says to delete. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. It may also be WP:TOOSOON, once it gets more than cursory mention in reliable sources it may cross over into notability. But, not now. Ifnord (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an event / trade conference, and not a notable one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 13:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HandMade in America[edit]

HandMade in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Shaded0 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:G7. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 14:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of Cornwall[edit]

Overview of Cornwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not add anything not provided in the Cornwall article. Mostly empty. Does not improve WP. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete & cleanup Agree with nom, don't have the sources at hand (waiting for a friend) to finish it right now so I have moved the page to project-space, please delete the redirect I left behind. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  13:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J947(c) (m) 19:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Benton[edit]

Susanne Benton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: thoroughly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 12:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added sources to the article, expanded it, removed unsourced material and referenced all her roles. She's had major starring and co-starring roles in several films and appeared on several TV shows as a guest star. There are also articles about her life. Passes GNG and NACTOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Benton's roles meets WP:NACTOR and there is in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.  gongshow  talk  01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Meets subject specific guideline, having played senior international football multiple times and also GNG by the looks of things Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irena Bjelica[edit]

Irena Bjelica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded a year and a half ago, PROD declined by creator; it just popped again in my watchlist. The problem is notability in particular WP:NSOCCER. The strongest I found was this match but it was a qualifying round so I doubt it meets the "Tier-1" criterion. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC) TigraanClick here to contact me 12:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is an international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Montenegrin International Footballer (3 x WC qualifiers are def tier 1), meets WPFOOTBALL, at least 1 English language devoted article [7] other coverage in Montenegrin, but GNG says coverage does not need to be English. ClubOranjeT 07:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per arguments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:G7 author's request. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Andres Caro Rivera[edit]

Juan Andres Caro Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. He cannot claim any inherent notability from being the "direct descendant of the Colombian President" (WP:INVALIDBIO)). He is "politically active" but as an activist, he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN either. A search on Google, Google Books, and Google News provides no further information. The subject is the founder of the 'Conservative Interest Group' but no information on its notability could be found either. The website in the infobox points to the 'Larimer County Republican Party' page which does not mention Mr Caro Rivera. I would have nominated this page for speedy deletion (A7) but this has already been done and declined here. Further, the WP:SPA contributor is named after the initials of the 'Conservative Interest Group' with the date of US independence, suggesting a possible WP:COI. Delete as vanity page. Loopy30 (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I did some other Google searches (Juan Caro CSU Conservative Interest Group and Juan Caro Larimer) as well and only found trivial mentions or otherwise insignificant coverage. There is no indication of satisfaction of WP:GNG. While I agree with the statements about INVALIDBIO and POLITICIAN, I will defend my decline of A7. WP:CCOS says A claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability and Therefore, a claim of significance need not pass any of the general or specialized notability guidelines, such as general notability guideline, music notability, or biography notability guideline. Being a politician and a "direct" descendant of a president alone does not necessarily make one notable, but I would think that they have a plausible chance of being notable based on the statement alone (cf. point 6 of WP:CCOS and what's written below it). Even if this is an edge case, speedy deletion should not be used, as it is only for clear cases. Furthermore, lack of notability is not recognised as a speedy deletion criteria (cf. WP:NOTCSD); the correct venues are AfD and (once) PROD. LinguistunEinsuno 14:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Linguist111. No slight intended on the CSD decline comment, only to mention that CSD has already been tried. As far as being a direct descendant, if this is correct then he would be about 5 generations removed (or 1/32nd related). Note too that in this case the subject is "not" a politician either, and the article only claims that he is a political staffer/activist. Loopy30 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conservative Interest Group of Colorado has been invited to testify and lobby in favor or against legislation and is on the state senate record for testimony. Conservative Interest of Nebraska is also active.
Also inheritance can be claimed and the Caro family continues to be politically active today: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Jaramillo_Caro
Loopy, Linguist, if you both believe the page should be deleted I will not contest it.
Cig1776 (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. No independent notability demonstrated as an individual and it doesn't appear that the organizations he belongs to pass notability either. The claim of inherited notability regarding Sergio Jaramillo Caro isn't relevant here, as he was a former government minister and with articles in Newsweek and El Tiempo, so he passes notability in his own right, regardless of who his ancestor was. The fact that the article creator's initials are the same as the Conservative Interest Group doesn't inspire confidence that there isn't a WP:COI going on here. Richard3120 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the substantiated points supporting this page?
If there are none, let's remove it.
Cig1776 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cig1776: In response to what you've written here, I appreciate that you've included sources in the article but unfortunately they don't assure the subject of this article meets the general notability guideline, which says a topic is presumed notable (and therefore meriting an article) if they have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think the problem with the larimergop.org source is that it is not independent, but instead primary (primary means personally close to or written by the subject, like a personal website or the website of one's employer). flbusinessgo.com appears to be directory - directories can help to verify material, but don't establish notability. Overall the coverage I've found doesn't indicate that Caro qualifies for a standalone article. Looking at the article's history, it appears you're the only editor who's added any substantial content to it, and so if you want to/think it should be deleted, you can add the text {{delete my page}} to the top of the article and an administrator will delete it shortly. Thanks. LinguistunEinsuno 04:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J947(c) (m) 19:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zhibek Nukeeva[edit]

Zhibek Nukeeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable beauty pageant winner. Tragic death also does not confer notability. Quis separabit? 11:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This AfD can't delete this topic from the encyclopedia, so the claim that the topic is non-notable is at most, as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, a topic for discussion on the talk page or if necessary at RfC.  Were there any evidence to support the argument, a wrong venue result might be considered, but no evidence is provided.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Beauty pageants are not my specialised topic, but I'd have thought winner of a national title qualified as notable with or without death. Certainly mustn't be deleted, at the least a redirect to Miss Kyrgyzstan needs to remain. PamD 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: National-level pageant winner alone meets GNG, additional newsworthy events, if tragic, also establish notability. Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Kyrgyzstan where the subject is mentioned, per prior outcomes. No encyclopedically relevant prose and insufficient sources. Stating that the subject is notable / meets GNG without providing sources are not valid arguments in a deletion discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG. Yet another unnecessary nomination of a pageant winner. gidonb (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaina Taub[edit]

Shaina Taub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress, performer, entertainer. Maybe just too soon Quis separabit? 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At first glance of the provided sources I was certain they would be the usual name checks in cast listings, trivial promos, etc. However, once I actually opened the links, I see she has received third party, non-trivial write-ups in both the New York Times and the from organization that runs the Tonys/OBIE awards -- two of the best measures for a Broadway performers notability. Being singled out in The Hollywood Reporter reviews is borderline trivial, and The Intervalny as a source is a non-factor. A google search reveals additional run-of-the-mill type coverage and listings not cited in the article. So call it a weak keep if you want, but I think there is just enough that she passes. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 13:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Ramgir[edit]

Mayur Ramgir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstration of real notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Mu. Consensus is to redirect to Revolutionary Vol. 1, but that's already done, so I don't think there's anything more to do here. I'm not going to protect the page; that can always be done later if it turns out to be necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song)[edit]

Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS. Did not chart, most likely was not released as a single. Some coverage within listicles and filler but that does not bring notability. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sourcing from WhoSampled which has every song on it. A trivial mention within an interview on a niche media website ("Brown Pride") does not mean notability either. Noted in the psychological evaluation of an underage killer but that again does not make it notable Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The song's lyrics have 600.000 klicks on "genius" shouln't that account for its notability?https://genius.com/Immortal-technique-dance-with-the-devil-lyrics Plus - even if it might not count as a proper argument according to Wikipedia's standards - this is probably a song, everybody who ever hears it wants to look up. If you don't believe it, listen to it and then read the article.2A02:8109:A73F:D760:BC9F:97A2:B142:1648 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:8109:A73F:D760:BC9F:97A2:B142:1648 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having its lyrics viewed 600,000 times is not notable. There's a Russian cartoon on YouTube with 2 billion views. There is no coverage of this more than any other album track - and it isn't even that notable an album. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so from 2009 to 2012, when it was undone by a new user who is now blocked? Point remains that the term is a useful redirect and the bold move to redirect (instead of AfD) would have likely been uncontested. (If you are worried about not having a third party, AfD is primarily for deletion discussions and is one (extreme) way of getting outside input, but you could also post at noticeboards and WikiProjects. But begs the question that a third party isn't needed unless it's contested.) Redirecting on your own also saves others' time spent at AfD. But since this discussion is still "open", I wouldn't unilaterally redirect now unless you also close (withdraw) the AfD—the closer usually takes the final step. czar 15:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to album seems the best course here. If necessary, page can be protected as a redirect. Doesn't meet Wikipedia notability criteria. MartinJones (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 13:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Barykova[edit]

Tamara Barykova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability for this project. Being a victim of oppression is deplorably common, and not in itself noteworthy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a two sentence article claiming subject is/was a student and a victim of religious oppression just won't do. Must be deleted anyway due to blatant copyright violations. If anyone wishes to recreate they will have to start from scratch. Quis separabit? 19:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[email protected], the article was previously longer, and is now very short because I have removed the copyright violation (unless you see something that I have missed?). So copyvio in itself is, I believe, no longer a reason to delete the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I cannot read Russian, so it's unlikely I will offer an !vote. Searching for a possible redirect, I found Anti-Catholicism in the Soviet Union (which is obviously not applicable) but I cannot find Anti-Catholicism in Russia or an equivalent. -Location (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure language matters much here because "being a student and a victim of religious repression" is not a claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's all there is, then you're right. But I would need to be able to read Russian to know if there was more. -Location (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I ran a search, but I can't source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Might fit in the Soviet article, as this individual was born in 1914 and the revolution was in 1917. So possible the oppression occurred in that era, we just don't have enough. I've pinged a wikipedian who speaks Russian to peek at the sources. Let's stay tuned to see what, if anything comes up. Montanabw(talk) 18:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless expanded to a proper article that provides some context for its claims. My guess is that this does refer to USSR, not imperial Russia. If born in 1914 and a student she (or he) would have been 20 in 1934 at the time of Stalin's purges. USSR tried to control the church by trying to het the Catholic Church to unite with the Orthodox Church over which the state exercised considerable control. Its claims are potentially credible, but whether they are true or not, I cannot know. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough for a standalone. Possibly merge to Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union, Eastern Catholic victims of Soviet persecutions, Anti-Catholicism in the Soviet Union, USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) or a list article if there is one - she appears to be one in a long list.Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 09:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California Association of Bicycling Organizations[edit]

California Association of Bicycling Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The association fails organisation notability standards. A source search shows no independent, reliable sources and most of the sources the article cites are primary and convey no encyclopedic notability. DrStrauss talk 09:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a brief article, and the only references given are connected with CABO itself (the article itself has a notice saying that the article depends too much on primary sources). Vorbee (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indepth coverage from the few gnews hits. gbooks just lists directory listings. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cala Agulla[edit]

Cala Agulla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability standards for geographical places and features. No indication as to why the beach is important and doesn't meet any of the quick-keep criteria such as being permanently inhabited. DrStrauss talk 09:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as the CatalanWiki has information and sources for WP:V, which equally shows we can accept it in English. SwisterTwister talk 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a populated place, from what I can see. It's a beach in Majorca and therefore needs to meet the higher criteria for natural features in WP:GEOLAND -- not simply WP:V. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:GEOLAND also states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." this beach is a named natural feature, the 1st ref from the Catalonia WP lists stats about the beach (drat:)) but also lists various features of/facilities at the beach so beyond stats (yay:)), the 3red ref (same website) describes in detail the beach, there also appears to be plenty of news about the beach at gnews, eg. "The tourists visiting Capdepera approve environmental management They perceive a massification and propose the return of the drinks containers where they are bought, to avoid being left on the beaches" from AraBalears, regional newspaper of Ara, it is also a Àrea natural d'especial interès, so this looks like a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to its conservationism relevance.--Pampuco (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The status as an Àrea natural d'especial interès is significant. The length of the German article is well beyond that of a stub and demonstrates that the English article could be as well. Furius (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree, the GermanWP article here looks like a great little article, a wikitranslator could turn the english article into one also:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating rationale, would you care to explain any further? DrStrauss talk 20:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 08:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Saint Laurent[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mister Saint Laurent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am baffled as to how this article has been able to remain on Wikipedia for the last 10 years when it was already voted for a delete in 2008. This person had less than 50 wrestling matches in his whole career, and most notable professional wrestlers will have over 300 matches in a year, and even low level independent wrestlers will have at least over 100 a year. He never performed for a large wrestling organisation, and never performed on television. Being a podcaster is not noteworthy as there are other podcasters like Conrad Thompson who is a lot more well-known by wrestling fans, but he doesn't have a page. Leaking a couple of Guns N Roses songs isn't a noteworthy act either. Other people in the world have leaked songs from records that haven't been released yet and they don't have an article all to themselves. 6SyXx6 (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify to article has not been around since 2008. It was deleted then, later recreated and kept in a second AFD in 2013.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me how an article can be voted for deletion but be allowed to be re-created? This person is no more notable than they were at the time of the 2008 deletion. 6SyXx6 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More and better coverage can appear after some time, so AfDs aren't meant to last as judgement forever. Perhaps way back it had much worse sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First, let me say that none of the nominator's rationale for deletion is per policy (sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF). With that said, almost all of the sources in the article are wrestling databases and wrestling news sites (not reliable sources) and don't add up to "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". The article from Classic Rock magazine might be good, but the link doesn't work. I also found an interview in Downtown magazine, but one article + one unconfirmed article doesn't add up to significant coverage either. There does seem to be some mentions of the radio show here and there, but notability is not inherited. Nikki♥311 18:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I participated in the last AfD from four years ago but I was able to recall it. One editor was able to convince most voters that the subject was notable by putting any source that mentioned him, regardless of reliability, in the article. I scratched by delete !vote, but mentioned then that there was a lot of padding going on. As Nikki points out, most of these sources aren't reliable. The ones that are contain passing mentions of the subject. His Championships and Accomplishments section is impressive at first glance as he's listed as having held the prestigious AWA World Tag Team Championship. This is also misleading; he held the WSL World Tag Team Championship, whose company used to be known as AWA Superstars of Wrestling until they were forced to change their name after a copyright claim.LM2000 (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese language education in Qatar[edit]

Japanese language education in Qatar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

even the article admits it's not very widespread in Qatar. no university offers Japanese language in Qatar and one cannot even do the official proficiency test. the only thing of note is Japan School of Doha which has its own article. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of an essay article. Article seems like that of a newspaper column criticizing the lack of language education. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the first sentence in the article reads "Japanese language education is not very widespread" which does raise the question of why we are having an article on it. As it currently stands, this article reads less like an encyclopeadia article than a plea to have more Japanese language education in Qatar. Vorbee (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. It's difficult to see this POV argument ever becoming encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  18:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of download-only PlayStation 4 games (A–I)[edit]

List of download-only PlayStation 4 games (A–I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In addition I am also nomitating the following two related pages

While well meaning this page has some significant issues, mainly in verifiabillity, and accuracy. In the past I've had to remove multiple entries in it as physical versions were actually available, and as it currently sits there are multiple entries on that list that still do have boxed release. While one could reasonable make an educated guess to whether or not games on the 360 or PS3 would have a physical release, that is no longer the case in this generation as increasingly smaller games are getting boxed releases. There is simply no way to maintain this list and it is constantly providing wrong information to the user. Deathawk (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC) --Deathawk (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I could see some worth to having a page like this, especially because there doesn't seem to exist a list like this elsewhere on the internet. But like noted by the nominator, it's actually gradually becoming the standard that games don't get any sort of physical release. That means a list like this doesn't have much worth future-wise either, being just a list of PS4 games. We already have that at List of PlayStation 4 games. Maybe we could note which games have a physical release there, with just an additional bracket. In any case I don't think our list is viable. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. The list concept offers no real encyclopedic merit considering much of the content can be discovered on the List of PlayStation 4 games list article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Mr. Magoo said, I don't see anything encyclopedic about download only games beyond being a matter of convenience when purchasing for people to check the list. But since Wikipedia is not a sales directory, it's unnecessary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Per Captain Raju. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can we just give these articles a chance for once. Landingdude13 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The page has existed for at least three years, with me voicing my concern about the reliability of it two years ago, and since then nothing much has changed. So we have been giving it a chance, the issue is though that it just isn't working. --Deathawk (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. by User:Berean Hunter as WP:G5 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kai[edit]

Peter Kai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. reddogsix (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lolita Run[edit]

Lolita Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly an A7 candidate, but as the page is over 2 years old I'm sending it to AfD. No references, none found, and no claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unable to find anything either source-wise. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Speedily deleted per author's admission that "it's a simple meme made by a simple man" (WP:CSD#A11). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadlets[edit]

Sadlets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Page was just created as well, and maybe Weak Draftify if it is wanted to be kept by others. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Debadityo Sinha's Blog: In Media". Retrieved 13 September 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_September_11&oldid=1142224036"