Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 September	10 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katto (TV series)[edit]

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

Appears to be a new YouTube series promoted on social media (FB & Twitter), and while it may gain in popularity enough to generate multiple RS for verifiability, it is not there, yet. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral note I would usually comment keep or delete, but on this one, more information is needed. Despite the confusing name though, ARY Digital is a domestic satellite/cable channel in Pakistan, though oddly the show gets also officially uploaded to YouTube (though with a barely tolerable lower-third saying you should watch it on TV or in their app instead). If this does air on the main channel it skins by N as a broadcast series, but someone familiar with Pakistani TV would be a big help here. Nate • (chatter) 05:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what motivated me in the beginning, as well; however, I did find the series listed in the station's schedule, so I'm going to withdraw this AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as aired on Ary Digital which is a national television station so passes WP:TVSERIES, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and Governance[edit]

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

Article created by the admin of the site. Parent of the journal, Cogitatio Press, already had an article under the name Cogitatio Press created by the same editor and deleted. There is no indication that there is any “peer review”. I have also created a COI filing at [1]. O3000 (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considered along with the WP:CITESPAM the article creator is posting to many other articles to promote "Cogitatio Press" journals, this is unambiguous WP:PROMO. Bakazaka (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Unification Event (physics)[edit]

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

The term Great Unification Event appears to be an invention of the writer. Others do not use this term. The reference mentions "grand unification" only. More than half of this is speculation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:SYNTH if nothing else. I'm not sure how one would unify "quantum and classical mechanics", or what that is supposed to imply, but the article looks like an attempt to share their understanding of physics. (I also noticed that there seems to be a draft with the same title)— Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fanfiction about physics. Nahin (1992) only talks about two 'grand unifications', the phrase 'great unification event' has seven Google hits, none related to physics. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary stub list, with no objective criterion. MaoGo (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated by Alpha3031. --Steve (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be an invented term. Does not meet WP:GNG. It probably meets WP:A11 criteria for speedy deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep under criteria 1. Nomination withdrawn and article redirected. (non-admin closure). EclipseDude (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rauerhorst Corporation[edit]

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

Company fails NCORP. Opus Development is perhaps notable and would be a redirect target but it does not exist so best option is to delete. Only significant coverage of company I could find was about its founder (who went on to found Opus) meaning there is not multiple independent reliable secondary sources covering this in significance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article title was misspelled. It's actually "Rauenhorst", not "Rauerhorst". They did a lot more than just building the roller coaster at Valleyfair. The company is still around, having renamed itself to Opus Group, and they're among the top ten U.S. design-build firms according to this reference. I renamed the article and edited it to mention that they're more than just a roller coaster manufacturer. But, if the community's consensus is that this article should be deleted, I won't spend the extra time to lobby for this article's retention. (And, ask me about the bad experiences I had in the building right adjacent to their headquarters.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elkman: Do you have RS to back that Rauenhorst turned into Opus? As noted in my nom I think OPUS has a legitimate case for notability but from the coverage I could find it seemed like Rauenhorst went under and then he started Opus. But I could have that wrong. If that is the case I'm happy to speedy keep and we move the article to Opus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The corporate history at their About Us page, when you click on the 1980s tab, says "In 1982, the company unveiled its new name, Opus Corporation, meaning 'a creative work.'" The other tabs, from 1950s to the present day, give evidence that they were Rauenhorst and that it's been the same company all along. This reference also discusses their history and points out that Rauenhorst became Opus. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great. I happily withdraw my nom and am going to boldly MOVE Rauerhorst to Opus Development. I would close this nom myself but I can't find the instructions so I'm hopeful someone else will come by and do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite (roller coaster)[edit]

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

Major case of WP:CRYSTALBALLing. The coaster isn't even open yet. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD of WP:CRYSTALBALL roller coasters:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and a WP:CRYSTALBALL » Shadowowl | talk 18:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning, Computer40, Adog104, Bakazaka, JC7V7DC5768, Chrissymad, Power~enwiki, and Wolfson5: Courtesy ping because you had voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Coast Racers and this article is about a rollercoaster under construction and is created by the same editor. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. MBlaze Lightning 03:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shadowowl. Promotional and WP:CrystalBall JC7V-constructive zone 06:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming my Delete vote, this article can be recreated when needed. JC7V-constructive zone 00:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. However, when this coaster opens it may become a candidate for an article but for now its too soon. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copperhead Strike. Even more so, this roller coaster has slightly more coverage from reliable sources over the phases of its construction to announcement. For example: ParkErlebnis (Construction November 2017), ParkErlebnis (Construction March 2018), ParkErlebnis (Construction June 2018), ParkErlebnis (announcement), FreiePresse (announcement), Vogtland Anzeiger (Construction April 2018), Dynamite backstory. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be very easy to close this as delete right now, but nobody's responded to User:Adog104's list of sources. Relisting to give people a chance to comment on them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The crystal ball policy does not apply as construction is underway. There is sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG even if the project is never finished. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename: Delete per Nom, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTADVERTISING. I also think that if it were kept, after removing the strange wording that makes it feel like an advert, a renaming would be in order. The article could be renamed Construction of dynamite (roller coaster) (if that's even a notable topic) and could focus with an even stronger emphasis on the construction and lead up to the roller coaster. Just an idea but I'm still leaning more towards deletion.Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Tyw7, MBlaze Lightning, Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom, Shadowowl, JC7V7DC5768, AmericanAir88, and Grapefruit17: I went ahead and revamped the article to a better wiki-ed version, and additionally added more sources than I had provided here. Please consider re-reviewing this discussion. Thank you. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adog104, because you've edited the ping, these people never got the ping. I certainly didn't. Wanna try re pinging? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not changing my vote. The main problem, WP:CRYSTALBALL cannot be fixed by any editing. » Shadowowl | talk 00:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. As User:Shadowowl says the concerns of WP:CRYSTALBALL is still there. The page can always be restored after the coaster is constructed. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sure thing! :P @Tyw7, MBlaze Lightning, Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom, JC7V7DC5768, AmericanAir88, and Grapefruit17: If this doesn't I'm sorry for my stupidity with pinging. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – Although I voted "keep" at AfD/Copperhead Strike, this topic falls into a different category for me. Roller coasters are a dime a dozen anymore, and the mere existence of one does not justify a standalone article. There are thousands of non-notable roller coasters that can exist perfectly fine in their respective amusement park articles, especially when there are no defining characteristics of the ride that distinguishes it from its peers. Even more concerning in this case is that the main amusement park housing the new coaster, Freizeitpark Plohn, doesn't even have its own article. Personally, I would think that should come first. There needs to be some justification as to why this ride can't exist as a 2-3 sentence entry within that article. Realize that in the modern age, just about every new attraction comes in with a big marketing bang in the press and social media, but that type of significant coverage does not mean it merits having a standalone article.
Rides that fail to impact their industry in a significant way (setting records, milestones, etc.) should at best be a discussed as a minor detail in a broader topic, such as the ride manufacturer's article or the amusement park article. Fails WP:GNG on the "Presumed" aspect; Wikipedia is not a travel or amusement park guide or a means of promotion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because it looks like advertising/promotion. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless Church (Greenville)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet NCORP. There is coverage of the church, especially since its new pastor was installed but it is not the sort of significant independent coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources that is required of organizations (including churches). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 21:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches under both old and new names turned up a lot of local news coverage about the name change and the new pastor, but that was all. I concur with nom. Fails WP:NCHURCH. Narky Blert (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to St Joseph's College, Bangalore. Sandstein 21:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's Evening College, Bangalore[edit]

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

Advertising based on the own website. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 20:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic itself should be notable, but searching for references leads to numerous press releases and postings by the college. However I have found this: [2] and it gets a mention here: [3] so there may well be enough independent sources to show notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, that are just passing mentions that say nothing in-depth. The Banner talk 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the fact that this was founded in 1882, I can't find in-depth sources. I could only find one week source to confirm it was founded in 1882. There are probably stacks of newspapers form the 1930s somewhere that mention it, but we do not have them. Fails basic notability test for lack of in-depth coverage. I have cleaned up the article and reduced its promotional nature by removing the notable timelines section, keeping those items that were actually independently sourced.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Degree-awarding institution and affiliated to Bangalore University as per List of affiliated colleges of Bangalore University.Note this college was not founded in 1882 that is St Joseph's College, Bangalore .This is a independent college separately affiliated to Bangalore University since 1972 (Please see the list above) .This college is situated in Museum Road while the other college in Lalbhag Road these are 2 different colleges belonging to the same management. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note they have separate websites St Joseph's College, Bangalore states established in 1882 and St Joseph's Evening College states 1972 and they have sought separate affiliation from the University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangalore University--An evening college in a city that witnessed a stunning boom of education business over the late twentieth century.(Frankly, my own experience tells me that shall one pick a Bengaluru-street at random, the chance of being greeted with at-least a single college approaches near-certainty.)Pharaoh of Wizard's analysis has been spot-on (factually) and whilst, St. Joseph college is obviously notable (age and all that stuff) but this one clearly ain't. I'm failing to find even a half-decent reference that minimally covers the college.∯WBG^converse 06:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Joseph's College, Bangalore, it looks like the group is still associated with the main college as of this The New Indian Express article. [4] "The institution has four main buildings, located in the center of the Cantonment : St Joseph’s College of Commerce, St Joseph’s Institute of Management (previously St. Joseph’s College of Business Administration), St Joseph’s Evening College and Pre-University College located in the vicinity of St. Patrick’s Church and Good Shepherd Convent, St Joseph’s College, Bengaluru (previously St. Joseph’s College of Arts and Sciences) which is located on Langford Road near Richmond Circle." Each of these schools can have a paragraph from the main article describing its history and then its autonomy, but it is still derived from the main campus. This is a better solution than redirecting to Bangalore University which has like tens of affiliated colleges, which would not give further information as to its history. Also, should decent GNG sources that focus on the Evening College arise, then it can be split off again. The "Under the same management" part and the strong association with 1882 college is why I think it should be merged. You can look at Google maps and see that the pre-university and the evening college are next to each other on Museum Road [5] 36 Lalbagh and 36 Langford Road for the main campus (formerly College of Arts & Sciences) seem to refer to the same name [6] which is one of the four listed. Autonomous status here seems to mean they can award their own degrees and not on behalf of the main college. But it is still run by St. Joseph's along with the other three schools. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent degree-awarding institution. Affiliated colleges in India are separate institutions, not part of the universities to which they are affiliated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And on what policy or guideline is that based? The Banner talk 13:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's some confusion with this. Its affiliation is with Bangalore University but it is still being run by the same group that manages St. Joseph's College (est. 1882) and the other three institutes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Joseph's College, Bangalore which is the appropriate parent institution. The overall relationship with Bangalore Univ. is too indirect. Though all institutions of higher education should be treated as notable, a merge can still be preferable in cases like this, where it is difficult to distinguish what is and what is not a distinct institution DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Beanstalk Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the lack of independent sources with significant coverage; all references I could find appear to fail WP:CORPDEPTH or are affiliated with the subject. It's certainly a large company, but that does not establish notability by itself (WP:ORGSIG). Fails WP:GNG. Simplexity22 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 12:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giriraj Kishore (writer)[edit]

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

No clear evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is presumed notable for being awarded the Padma Shri per WP:ANYBIO#1. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Frayæ. Satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. James500 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No demonstrated significant coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 18:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirov (novel series)[edit]

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

Literally the only coverage I can find that isn't by the author themself is this blog review, which of course fails WP:RS. Misses WP:GNG by a mile Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete. Nothing that I can find. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree, see talk page. There are numerous translations in Russian and heavy discussion there Портовик (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No. "seemingly unofficially translated to Russian and heavily commented, which is even better than reviews" is weak. "Seemingly"? You're not even sure? And "unofficially" means it's even less than nothing and no, comments are not better than reviews. The rules here are that material be verified by reliable sources, and that established notability. But don't take my word for it, just wait. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack on any reliable sources. I note that what Портовик wrote on the talk page misses the point of several Wikipedia policies. No understanding of what a reliable source is, what a book review is and how the review must also be a reliable source. No understanding of what a copyright violation is, and why they are a problem. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and in particular WP:BKCRIT JC7V-constructive zone 04:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gents, with all due respect, I fail to see your point. We have 38 books sci-fi AH saga, which is sold on Amazon by numbers and is heavily popular across the world. So popular that fans are translating it (already 8 books) by themselves. I have not created article about the author, this is about great books series, which I am completing #37 now. What will wiki gain if you delete the article about this saga? What value will it bring to the community and people? If I need to include ISBN or alike, I can do that - but do you really need it after you deleted descriptions of the individual books? Портовик (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, There is too much deletion , not enough effort of making the article meet the needs of the people wanting to delete it. A copy-wrong claim on an image uploaded by the owner according to the image's page? that reeks of personal Wikipedia power tripping, which is why i don't have account and have left numerous times because I don't care to battle with clueless kids that have all day to play games while professionals work in the industries. Those articles are pathetic examples of what they were and lack nobility . Nominations for deletions should carry a risk if the article can be edited to include citations and other wank "No-bility"(sic) arguments then that person loses their account and any and all achievements. The purging of pages needs to be reined in.

I've seen this in petty edit wars on pages on subjects people are political about, when the image was clearly uploaded from the company who created for their product but lacked all the Wikipedia specifics tags included. The image was deleted purely due to wank, only thing the vengeful striking down firearm pages because someone killed on the news and focused their attention, unlike all the pages on children sports and activities which kill more every day. The page's crime was I edited it when a news media moral panic ratings worthy shooting occurred,. the image had been fine for over 5 years. Too many pages are deleted in this with doesn't meet grand nobility claim. Wikipedia is supposed to be better than what encyclopedias were but is failing by becoming a what the more active users consider worthy and noteworthy. Flagged with citing all the B.S. policies you use to drive off people actually helping and not hanging out in your club house. 2602:306:CE27:DC90:61B5:D955:62DA:3C61 (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only "keep" opinion admits that there's no reliable independent sourcing, and nobody makes any other argument to keep. WP:V is a core policy. Sandstein 21:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cursed Empire[edit]

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

This article on a game has just passed the 12 year mark without any references. A standard BEFORE (Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com, JSTOR) does not unearth any sources. Does not pass the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, on the grounds that the change of name due to a legal dispute with Lucasfilm should make it notable. That said, I was unable to find any non-self-referential coverage of this (hence the 'weak').Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in point of clarification, we have no RS that prove such a dispute ever occurred. I would also suggest that, per WP:INHERITED, companies don't achieve notability simply by once getting a cease and desist letter from a notable company (unless, of course, it was widely covered, which isn't the case here). Chetsford (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I just said that.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I didn't think you expressed an issue with inheriting notability but I may have not read your comment closely enough. Chetsford (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [7] is a fan-review of the book. I don't see references to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vulcan's Forge. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vulcan's Forge, or failing that merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The trademark dispute was minor and there was no coverage of it at the time, no court records extant, and no subsequent notice of it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Lacrosse Club[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2012 (apart from an external link to the official website) and I could not find sources to add that might meet the WP:GNG. Per the website, their nickname is the Bootleggers, but I wasn't able to find coverage of them under that name either. › Mortee _talk 18:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable organisation. Ajf773 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted, it is factual, and is in regards to an actual organization. No need to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianpo (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrianpo, I'm afraid being factual isn't enough. The WP:GNG give our guidelines about notability. Articles should be about notable subjects. Also, (see verifiability) any article needs references to show that the article is factual. This one doesn't, apart from an external link to the official website (see WP:primary). If you can find enough sources to add to the article to make it verifiable and to show that the club is notable, I'll be happy to rescind my deletion nomination. › Mortee _talk 20:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked around a bit, and I can't find good, reliable sources that significantly cover the topic. Doesn't appear to WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan (Pakistani actor)[edit]

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

Unable to verify WP:Notability (person). Article passed an AfD but for the wrong reasons. Rather than challenge the close, I thought it best to renominate for the record. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article was passed as keep in May, but after I researched the claims for keep in the AfD discussion, the information was unverifiable except for passing mention in too few independent movie reviews, in a list of stars on WP articles about the few movies that are "notable", and at IMBD. Wikilinks and IMBD are not acceptable sources to pass N, and neither is inclusion in a list of "stars". It not only fails the required RS to substantiate WP:Notability (people), things get even more confusing when looking at the dab page. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the Keep votes at the last AfD are based on a misunderstanding of WP:BIO. The arguments seem to say that simply meeting a criterion of WP:ACTORBIO makes the subject notable, and seem to overlook that the subject doesn't seem to have coverage in third party sources (unless there's other-language sources out there?), which is still a requirement. The criteria listed at WP:BIO are merely indicators that such sources are likely to exist. Adam9007 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007, the more research I did on this particular BLP, the more it appears to either be a hoax or an entire misinterpretation/conflation of persons. For example, this BLP is listed as starring in the film Waar when he did not star in that film. It was Imran Khan, the prime minister of Pakistan, who did a cameo in the movie. I removed yet another film because there are no RS that list this BLP in the cast or in their reviews - example: the movie Salute - Metrolive does not list Imran Khan in the cast. You should not have reverted my A7 because now we have to go through this time sink over what appears to be either a complete hoax or a one-time film which cannot be verified by anything more than a passing mention in an unreliable source. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; there seems to be nothing about this person other than an (unreliable) IMDb entry, and a listing on the credits of Laaj. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connie's Pizza[edit]

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

advert of a pizzeria. One deadlink and two advertorials, from which notability unclear Staszek Lem (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most striking of the issues with this article is the obvious advertisement displayed from the strangely opinionated wording to the random unnecessary pieces of information that make you think it was written by someone affiliated with the business. If confused see WP:NOTADVERTISING.Grapefruit17 (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. I think this type of subject needs to show it is the official provider of food for notable things outside of its home region or get coverage outside of the Chicago area.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional and non-notable. I think TonyTheTiger's criteria are probably the most helpful for notability in articles of this type. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erik P. Kraft[edit]

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

Unsourced autobiography of a non-notable children's author. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Brad v 16:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. "Chocolatina" has a book review in the School Library Journal [8] (May 98, p 118) [9]; coverage in books for teachers: [10] [11] [12] [13]; multiple editions: BridgeWater Books 1998, Troll Communications 1999, Scholastic 2004, Cartwheel Books 2008; book choice for the Express Times: [14]. Kirkus has review of Lenny and Mel After School Confidential [15] and Miracle Wimp [16]. Publishers Weekly has reviews of Lenny and Mel [17], Lenny and Mel After School Confidential [18], Lenny and Mel's Summer Vacation [19] and Miracle Wimp [20]. Other coverage: [21] [22]. There are almost three thousand holdings of Kraft's books in WorldCat member libraries: [23]. The fact the article creator's user name is "Elkrafto" does not, in of itself, prove he is Erik Kraft. James500 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James. I will note that I'm more inclined than him to believe the autobio but there's nothing in there which is not similar to other children's authors stubs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ran a news archive search on: Chocolatina + Kraft. Then on his other books. not finding profiles, but enough coverage of books to pass AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. despite the rather obvious COI. Sufficient notability DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CarlSagan42[edit]

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

I have been looking for sources for this article a few months ago, and I skimmed through all the articles about him. I didn't find him notable then, and I do not think he is notable now. wumbolo ^^^ 16:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the 15 sources on the article, 9 are from Youtube or Twitch, 2 are from speedrun sites which confirm the existence of his speedruns but give no indication of notability above any other speedrunner, 2 relate only to his academic work, not the thing he's supposedly notable for (and are definitely not enough for WP:NACADEMICS). This leaves only the two Kotaku articles as anything close to establishing notability. Even so, they aren't really significant enough coverage for WP:GNG. They're about Super Mario Maker and speedrunning, not about Carlsagan42. Searching around yields a few other similar references, but nothing that convinces me of notability. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources that are relevant are the Kotaku ones, and they just mention him in passing. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a mention of him on the Nerdist website but even though the article had a video of his, it was about the mod he was playing through - not one he designed - and the article was not about him specifically. There is also an entry for him at Wikidata that should probably go if the decision is made to delete him here. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Au/Ra[edit]

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

An up-and-coming singer who has made some guest appearances with notable artists, but it is too soon for her own article. All available sources found during a search are her own self-promotional sites and the usual streaming/video sites, or they are about the acts that recruited her as a special guest. In the discography area of the article, note that none of her own singles have charted, and ~~she was not "lead artist" on the song with CamelPhat but instead was guest singer.~~ Same goes for the song with Alan Walker, and she does not inherit their notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is currently listed as joint main artist on the UK's official charts. It has been in the chart for 15 weeks as of the present date and is still in the top 30, so she qualifies for being a chart artist.Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, Official Charts has "Panic Room" attributed to Au/Ra & CamelPhat [24] (i.e. she's the lead/co-lead artist). She doesn't have tons of coverage yet, but I think there's enough out there to help her satisfy GNG (e.g. [25]). Camerafiend (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken with the single credited to Au/Ra and CamelPhat; but will let the nomination take its course on the WP:TOOSOON standard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't see any valid reason for the deletion of this article. You will note that "Panic Room" is titled as "Au/Ra & CamelPhat" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles, currently No.30). She isn't just a "special guest" in this song, she actually is the joint lead artist. Also, despite only being a featured artist on "Darkside", this song did reach No.1, and therefore earned her recognition. I would argue that after the successes of these songs, she is not a singer "who has made some guest appearances with notable artists", but is in fact a notable artist in her own right now. Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ALROSA (airline). (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alrosa-Avia[edit]

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

This article should either be merged into the other, more comprehensive article about Alrosa Avia or deleted. The reason for this is because there is very little information on this article while there exists another one that covers the same airline yet has much more information on it. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 15:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article is much too short to stand alone. Content should be merged, perhaps to ALROSA (airline).--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Laboratory Automation Made Easy with AutoIt[edit]

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

Non-notable book (tagged for several years). Possibly part of promotional campaign (SPA/refspamish editor). DMacks (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notablity and no references per Wikipedia:Notability (books). Auldhouse (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus: There was already a relevant mention/cite on Laboratory automation#Low-cost laboratory automation albeit that just could be judged promotional on that article. It did seem relevant there ought to be a link from AutoIt to Laboratory automation#Low-cost laboratory automation ao I've kludged one onto AutoIt article citing some simple contents from the book. Given the current situation with that tweak I'm no longer bothered and I'm now happy to go with per consensus.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hinting at a WP:Walled garden involving one or two COI editors promoting something or someone's work? Because I strongly suspect that is the case. DMacks (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nothing too sophisticated. The reference to AutoIt in Laboratory automation#Low-cost laboratory automation sort of stuck out a little like a sore thumb as no alternatives seemed to be suggested .... e.g. serial in the old days (GP-IB probably too costly) and I've of thought USB, GPIO and maybe wireless linked by Raspberry Pi and Arduino in current times (mind you these might be running AutoIt!). So I'm not sure that the link back to AutoIt is neutral ~~(Neutrality tag on section?)~~. The content I put in AutoIt seemed reasonable ... almost good. The per consensus is I'm not really bothered whether the article that is the subject of this AfD is deleted or not as the core idea of use of AutoIt possible for lab automation is added to the AutoIt article which seems a reasonable and non-promotional addition to that article. I nearly said delete but realised I had not explored that aspect ... I'd concentrated on developing the link from AutoIt back to Lab Automation. Quite frankly its a while since I've tackled this area so I am very not current and it may be I haven't got the right angle.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC) On another look there is one sentence only in Laboratory automation I am possibly concerned about and on reflection it possibly gives itself undue weight and may have not described itself properly ... I've changed a 'The' to 'A' on that. I don't think I'm seeing a 'WP:Walled garden'.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WorldCat, this book is held by 227 libraries: [26]. There seem to be multiple editions. GScholar has citation counts for the author of this book: [27]. This book was published in 2016, and our article was created less than two years ago, so this cannot have been tagged for "several" years. James500 (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged November 2016, so okay 22 months not 24, and zero improvement since the dump'n'run creation. DMacks (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the automation program might be notable, and the book would be evidence for it if it is actually independent, but that does not make the boo knotable in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZoomInfo[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted Please excuse my lack of knowledge on how to use WP, it can be a bit overwhelming for a beginner.

Article is about no name company, with nothing of note in its history.
Search results for ZoomInfo https://www.google.com/search?q=zoominfo:
- The business website
- Wikipedia article
- Misc business related entries (review sites, glassdoor, etc)
- PR spam that made it into news

Company does not seem to have done anything of note to warrant listing.

I discovered the company because they seem to have become adept at google spamming, which im guessing is the same as most of their visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacticomed (talk • contribs) 03:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment The company seem to be included in Semantic Web for Dummies. And it is mentioned in quite a few magazine articles. It also have a US patent. The company has won some kind of tech award as well. Therefore, it could pass the notability guidelines. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Patents are not independent and do not count toward notability at all; they are a paradigmatic example of WP:SPS. The "award" is another SPS - a press release - and also doesn't count toward notability at all. Please read WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGCRIT. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wiley doesn't seem like self published source. I read the author's blurb and he doesn't seem to have any connection with Zoominfo. Given I can't see the full book, I'm changing the keep to a comment. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wiley didn't publish the patent or the press release. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No but the product is covered by Wiley. However, I can't see the full book so I can't judge whether it's a main topic or a passing mention. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Tyw7, I like your original viewpoint at start, at first glance company seems to be ok to include, I only dug because of how I found the company. After digging into the sources listed for inclusion Ive found it to be PR generated, not organic, for the most part. The awards are mostly of no worth besides for PR firms. Pls see my comment below for Pavlor as well. " Hi Pavlor, I reviewed the previous sources of AfD keep, IMO they are address in my original comment, having worked the system before I feel there is a difference between actual news and awards vs those generated by PR firms. In my view none of the news items or awards are authentic or meaningful. For example research the awards given themselves, their history, you will see most have an enrollment fee and award everyone who enrolls. Seeing a news article about this is not uncommon, most get dropped but some filter through, its a numbers game. I apologize if I am not commenting in the correct format. Pls correct if my way of doing this is incorrect." Tacticomed (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)" I do not know if this will ping? (what is this, i only know it as a network echo) you? Does it if i copy paste style of comment? Tacticomed (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|tyw7}} {{ping|tyw7}} are all valid ways to ping me. I've linked to the article describing how to ping people. It's often used to notify users if someone replies to them. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by these books:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=01KdGqBe4WQC&pg=PA174&dq=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja_9vQpPPcAhVDT8AKHdqpCM0Q6AEINjAC#v=onepage&q=%22ZoomInfo%22%20-wikipedia&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kR1Qe4e1PEsC&pg=PA107&dq=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja_9vQpPPcAhVDT8AKHdqpCM0Q6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=%22ZoomInfo%22%20-wikipedia&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1opEAQAAIAAJ&q=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2upXvpPPcAhVhJ8AKHe4PDHE4ChDoAQgoMAA
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRadJIuhVjAC&q=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22ZoomInfo%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4hISDpfPcAhXKLsAKHd8CBC44FBDoAQhGMAU##

But taking a closer look, many of them seem to be passing mentions. None of the books are fully online though. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the sources mentioned in the previous AfD? Pavlor (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlor, I reviewed the previous sources of AfD keep, IMO they are address in my original comment, having worked the system before I feel there is a difference between actual news and awards vs those generated by PR firms. In my view none of the news items or awards are authentic or meaningful. For example research the awards given themselves, their history, you will see most have an enrollment fee and award everyone who enrolls. Seeing a news article about this is not uncommon, most get dropped but some filter through, its a numbers game. I apologize if I am not commenting in the correct format. Pls correct if my way of doing this is incorrect. Tacticomed (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tyw7 (talk · contribs) and Pavlor (talk · contribs), what are your thoughts about the sources provided below?
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unsure what to vote, but maybe a Merge or Redirect to LinkedIn (company owner) could work? Redditaddict6 9 10:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn does not own ZoomInfo, which is owned by Great Hill Partners, a private equity firm. The confusion might have stemmed from misreading the article's infobox which says "Subsidiaries: Bizo (sold to LinkedIn in 2014)".
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:NCORP. While there are some sources that go toward substantive information, notably the VentureBeat article, there is not much information about the company (more about the type of service that ZoomInfo provides, and even then, the sources are not necessarily independent or reliable). --Enos733 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage appears to be PR driven, fails ORGIND. Can't find any coverage on the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hall, Starr; Rosenberg, Chadd (2009). Get Connected: The Social Networking Toolkit for Business. Madison, Wisconsin: Entrepreneur Press. pp. 119–125. ISBN 978-1-59918-358-9. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The book notes:
  ZoomInfo (zoominfo.com)
  
  What Is It?
  
  Zoom Info is a vertical search engine focused on people, companies, and the relationships between them. The site is composed of jobseekers, companies seeking to hire, and businesses looking to sell and market to other businesses. ZoomInfo offers three main searches: People, Companies, and Jobs. They also offer three main services for Recruiting, Sales/Marketing Prospects, and Corporate Research.
  
  Site Stats
  
  Born: Founded as Eliyon Technologies in 2000
  Users: More than 37 million summaries of business profesionals and 3 million company profiles, with nearly 6.5 million unique monthly users.
  ...
  
  Highs what the site is good at and for …
  
  Simplifying the process of finding people by crawling the web, doing a semantic analysis of web pages, and extracting information to add to its profile database. Building a business by representing yourself or your company, or by creating a company profile. Accessing company information including a general description, annual revenue, and number of employees. Creating your own identity to increase your online exposure.
  
  Lows: What's difficult or missing from the site …
  
  ZoomInfo's search engine has been criticized for returning flawed or vague results, as well as outdated information. Getting improved search results typically means signing up for the site's premium services.
  The book also discusses how ZoomInfo serves recruiters with ZoomInfo PowerSearch and how Power Search offers People Search, Company Search, Contact Information, Workflow Management, and E-mail Campaigns. It discusses how ZoomInfo can be used by "sales pros" and corporate research.
2. Pollock, Jeffrey T. (2009). Semantic Web For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 350–351. ISBN 978-0-470-39679-7. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The book notes:
  ZoomInfo
  
  ZoomInfo is a people-finder and business information search engine with information on more than 45 million people and 5 million companies. ZoomInfo's semantic search engine continually crawls the Web, scouring millions of targeted company Web sites, news feeds, and other online sources to identify information on people, companies, products, services, and industries, as shown in Figure 15-5. ZoomInfo organizes this discovered information into easy-to-read profiles that can be queried by anybody.
  ZoomInfo technology represents one of the most sophisticated, automatic content-generation systems and has already secured five patents with two more patents pending. The ZoomInfo data is extracted and compiled for NLP, AI algorithms, and data integration programs.
  The ZoomInfo semantic search engine analyzes sentences to understand their meaning and to extract relevant information about companies and people, such as the industry a company is in and its products or services, or the company a person works for and her job title. It employs artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze Web site pages and to create a graph model of their contents. With these algorithms, ZoomInfo analyzes the type and content of a Web site based on how it's constructed. ZoomInfo is able to deduce that a apecific paragraph is a company description or that a specific address contains the location of a company's headquarters in order to extract the most accurate and relevant information.
  The book further notes that the company's headquarters is in "Waltham, MA, USA" and that the funding was "$7,000,000+ (privately held)".
3. Keenan, Thomas P. (2014). Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy. Berkeley: Greystone Books. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-77164-122-7. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The book notes:
  When I first heard about Zoominfo, an online aggregator of information about people, I immediately went there and found myself. It showed my current professorial position, and even reminded me of some old projects that I had completley forgotten about. However, it also named me as a director of a Virginia-based Aerospace company and said that I taught at Bard College. Neither of these claims were true, so I claimed the profile in 2008 and corrected it.
  I decided it would be fund to see what information they had back then on the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen J. Harper. I was astounded to see him listed with the title "Campaign Director."
  Campaign Director is a long way from Prime Minister of Canada. Zoominfo was using old information, and Harper had not yet "claimed" his profile, which you do by providing Zoominfo with a credit card that matches your profile name. They do not charge the card, at least for their basic service, but they do use it for identity confirmation. I mentioned Harper's profile in some Canadian government circles and soon his profile was claimed and updated.
  Another under Mr. Harper's "Employment History" reveals how Zoominfo "thinks." Some news reporter, or blogger, apparently wrote about "Stephen Hardper, the somewhat reluctant leader of the Conservative" party and the site's "patented" technology dutifully used that as his official title. It gets even worse. I logged on once and found him listed as the "Odious Leader of the Conservative Party."
4. Goto, Shihoko (2005-12-05). "ZoomInfo mines deep for personal data". United Press International. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  By promising to sift through the avalanche of information on the World Wide Web, ZoomInfo is hoping it has found a market niche as a data mine for those who want reliable information about specific companies and the executives behind them.
  Since it was launched in 2000 the Waltham, Mass.-based company boasts the largest index of corporate executives, with over 27 million people already with a profile, with 500,000 new people added to the database every month. In addition, the company updates 4.5 million profiles per month, with about 85 percent of all people listed based in the United States.
  ...
  Nevertheless, some analysts are concerned that the company's prospects look limited unless it offers more to subscribers.
  "It's a one-trick pony, though it's a really good trick," said David Card, senior analyst at Jupiter Research focusing on cross-media programming and online revenue streams.
5. Grace, Francie (2005-03-21). "New Kid In Internet Search War". CBS News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  ZoomInfo's computers have compiled individual Web profiles of 25 million people, summarizing what the Web publicly says about each person. The service, launched Monday, allows Web surfers to search for their profile, then change it for free.
  ...
  ZoomInfo, formerly Eliyon Technologies, is a privately held company with about 60 employees. An existing pay service helps businesses and recruiters use the Internet to find and screen new employees at costs ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, depending the size of the company and usage. The company said its customers include 20 percent of the Fortune 500, including Google Inc., America Online and Microsoft Corp.
  ...
  Richard M. Smith, an Internet privacy and security expert, said the new service seems like snooping, which could create a perception problem for ZoomInfo.
  ...
  Smith said he is skeptical ZoomInfo could truly differentiate between people when creating profiles. That could result in more inaccuracies - not fewer - floating about the Internet, he said.
6. Taylor, Paul (2008-04-24). "Two faces of people search". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  ZoomInfo is also an impressive service – it claims to be the premier business information search engine, with profiles on more than 37m people and 3.5m companies. Irrespective of whether someone has an account, it creates people profiles by assembling them from fragments of information gleaned from websites.
  But like most dedicated people search services, which often start building profiles with information from company databases and similar sources, ZoomInfo encourages users to create their own profile that they control and update.
  When someone else searches for you using ZoomInfo they will see this profile together with “web references” that the service has collected and collated. Inevitably, if – like me – you have a common name, some of these references will be to people who share it.
7. Cohn, David (2005-03-21). "How Not to Google Yourself". Wired. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  A Massachusetts startup is offering a service it says gives a measure of control over the personal data the internet disgorges, giving new meaning to a practice commonly termed "ego surfing" or "Googling yourself," the practice of typing your name into an internet search engine and seeing what pops up.
  Zoom Information's computers have compiled individual web profiles of 25 million people, summarizing what the web publicly says about each person. The company's ZoomInfo service allows web surfers to search for their profile, then change it for free.
  ZoomInfo can't erase information on the internet, or stop people searches on the web from turning up incorrect or unflattering data. But since search engines display the most relevant results first, a well-constructed ZoomInfo profile would theoretically be the first or among the first choices that appear in search results.
8. Nicole, Kristen (2007-11-05). "Didn't You Know Your Biographical Data on ZoomInfo Would Be Used for Ads?". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  ZoomInfo, the people search engine that gets its data from gathering biographical information on just about everyone, whether you know about it or not, is launching an advertising network. And in going along with the current trend of tempting fate when it comes to controversial activity with web surfer's cookies, ZoomInfo will be offering up these cookies to companies looking to provide more targeted ads.
  There are a couple of things to consider here: you'll need to first visit ZoomInfo in order for it to have your cookie. Additionally, you'll have to have a general presence on the web, whether this be for social networking, your own website, or any type of e-commerce activity. So when you purchase an item from a company's website, it could then work with ZoomInfo to compare "cookie notes" in order to provide more targeted ads to you, online, via email, and the next time you visit the company's website.
9. Cashimore, Pete (2005-12-06). "ZoomInfo People Search - Scary Stuff". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  I must admit, ZoomInfo concerns me slightly. Sure, it only aggregates public information, but the problem here is twofold. First, it's hard for people with evil intentions to gather up that data using conventional methods. (Although you could say Google already provides a lot of this functionality, and you'd be right - but even Googling someone takes a bit of effort.) Second, the information is often wrong - this is especially true in the cases where ZoomInfo muddles up two people with the same (or similar) names. So I think ZoomInfo should be viewed in the same light as Wikipedia - it's an interesting portal to information, but the accuracy of that information isn't guaranteed. Let's hope your future employer heeds that warning.
10. Kopytoff, Verne (2007-08-29). "People-search engines try to be more specific than Google". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  ZoomInfo, a people-search engine focused on the business world, is a relative industry veteran, founded in 2001.
  ...
  ZoomInfo is an anomaly in that it charges subscriptions for a souped-up version of its service that is aimed at recruiters and marketers.
  ...
  For now, traffic to people-search engines is relatively light. ZoomInfo reported 895,000 unique U.S. users in July, while Wink had 90,000, according to comScore Media Metrix.
11. Auchard, Eric (2007-04-01). "ZoomInfo expands into Web search for businesses". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  Zoom Information Inc., of Waltham, Massachusetts, said it will offer free access to in-depth information on millions of U.S. companies, tens of millions of people and job listings.
  The company’s system, which crawls the open Web to locate details of individual people and then constructs profiles using artificial intelligence techniques, gives job recruiters and other business users an alternative to proprietary databases.
  ...
  The company, which was founded in 2000, has so far made most of its money from paid services it provides to 1,600 corporate clients, including Google Inc., Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., Oracle Corp., PepsiCo and a fifth of the Fortune 500.
12. Stone, Brad (2005-03-20). "Plain Text: Forever Famous". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  I've just spent an enjoyable afternoon looking up personal information on friends and family on a new Web site called ZoomInfo.com.
  It's ironic. This winter, identity-theft scandals rocked ChoicePoint, Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw, firms that collect and publish information on private individuals. But today, a five-year-old Cambridge, Mass., startup called Eliyon Technologies will roll out a new Web site that ... collects and publishes information on private individuals.
  ...
  Today, Eliyon will make a basic version of the site available to the masses, for free, at ZoomInfo.com. CEO Jonathan Stern described how the technology works. Like other search engines, the company's automated software robots catalog the Web, page by page. But instead of indexing various words and subjects, then ranking each page by popularity or importance, Eliyon looks only for names and occupations.
13. Articles about Great Hill Partners' acquisition of ZoomInfo in 2017:
  1. Sawyers, Paul (2017-08-17). "B2B data platform ZoomInfo was acquired by private equity firm Great Hill Partners for $240 million". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
    The article notes:
    ZoomInfo, the subscription-based B2B platform that sells access to company data such as contact details, employment history, and other background information, was acquired earlier this week by Boston-based private equity firm Great Hill Partners. But the company didn’t reveal how much it was acquired for — until now.
    A ZoomInfo spokesperson has confirmed to VentureBeat that it was acquired for $240 million, and it said that it will continue to operate as is, except under the wing of its new owners.
    ...
    Founded in 2000, Waltham, Massachusetts-based Zoominfo specializes in helping sales personnel identify and target qualified contacts through organizing and validating data. The platform also features user-contributed updates, while it crawls the web to extract mentions and details of companies and individuals in the news.
  2. Perlman, Matthew (2017-08-18). "Great Hill Partners Puts Up $240M For ZoomInfo". Law360. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
    The article notes:
    Boston-based private equity firm Great Hill Partners has acquired business-to-business contact information provider ZoomInfo for $240 million, the company confirmed to Law360 on Friday.
    Zoom Information Inc., headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, announced the acquisition on Monday without disclosing the price. A representative for the company told Law360 on Friday that Great Hill had become the majority owner in the $240 million transaction, and that the move was intended to cash out early ZoomInfo investors, some of whom had been involved with CardScan Inc., the company it...
  3. Schultz, Ray (2017-05-15). "Great Hill Partners Acquires Zoominfo". MediaPost Communications. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
    The article notes:
    Zoom Information, Inc. (Zoominfo), a provider of B2B data, including email addresses, has been acquired by Great Hill Partners, a private equity company specializing in high-growth, mid-market companies. The terms were not disclosed.
  4. Bray, Hiawatha (2017-08-17). "ZoomInfo bought by private equity firm for $240m". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
    The article notes:
    Business contact database provider Zoom Information Inc.of Waltham has been acquired by Boston-based private equity firm Great Hill Partners for $240 million in cash. ZoomInfo chief executive Yonatan Stern said he decided to sell the privately-held company, better known as ZoomInfo, because “it’s time for me to move on . . . . I’m not going to retire, but I want to move the center of my life to Israel,” where Stern has lived there since 2004. ZoomInfo employs about 200 people, most of them in Waltham. The company has a database containing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of 200 million business people worldwide, including 80 million in the United States. Companies use the ZoomInfo database to precisely target their sales and marketing efforts.
14. Bradley, Helen (2007-10-01). "Up close and personal". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes:
  Another tool for checking what there is out there is ZoomInfo, which is an aggregator that seeks information about people and collects it all in one place. You can search for your own name at ZoomInfo and create a profile about yourself linking it to the information that ZoomInfo finds about you. At www.ZoomInfo.com, click the People Search tab type your name and click Search. When the results appear, click your name to read what the program found.
  If any of this information relates to you, click the This Is Me link when that item is open and you can complete your profile if you first register on the site. If ZoomInfo finds multiple items relating to you, you can link them all together in your profile by selecting those that are you and click the This Is Me link. Click Accept to add the entry to your profile. It's a good idea to create a ZoomInfo ID as a central resource for information about you. It will be available to anyone looking for you on the web.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ZoomInfo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoomInfo participants: Crazycomputers (talk · contribs) and Arxiloxos (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist per the multitude of sources presented late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Cunard:, I reviewed some of your links.

1) Highly out of date and incorrect information, they get most everything the company offers wrong, see https://www.zoominfo.com/business/pricing for what they actually offer.
2) Unsubstantiated claims read from a PR firm press release, note no footnotes. The company is basically a data broker / warehouse, I know it doesn't sound as fancy but its the simple truth. They sell wholesale access to peoples personal data, and have recently started posting some information publicly to gin up their search rating, possibility testing selling on a consumer level.
3) A person used it and wrote about it in a book about privacy, feels like passing mention. If a book mentions a person buying a soda on his way to work should it be the basis for a listing of the corner deli that sells soda?
4) Actually pretty on point. Its a data warehousing company, and those are a dime a dozen these days. Why is this notable?
5) Article on them changing their marketing strat and publicly listed some of their database to gin up their site standing and indexing, this is why I found them, SEO is not noteworthy.
6) Legit, states generally what the company is and does.
7) See corner deli example earlier.
8) Legit article.
9) Legit article.
10) Legit article, a bit fluffy though.
11) PR spam that made it past Reuters editors.
12) Legit article, if a bit cheesy.
13) Business acquisition, part of a company history but not useful for notability.
14) Legit article.

Overall its mostly random tidbits or passing mentions if not outright gibberish and buzzzwords, again what has this company done that is notable? Can I list my corner deli as well? It feels like the entry belongs in a business index, not an encyclopedia. What has this company done that is notable? Have they made a major advancement in technology? Were they used in a pivotal historical event in a meaningful way? No.

(i include these as you pinged them in your original post, if this is wrong please let me know and I will not do so in the future. Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoomInfo participants: @Crazycomputers: and @Arxiloxos:.

Tacticomed (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting that five of the sources I provided are in your view "legit article[s]". Five legitimate sources means the company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. Sufficient sources over the years to support notability, and any remaining concerns about promotionalism in the text can be handled by the usual editing processes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that many of the Keep !voters above are unaware that the criteria for sources used for the purposes of establishing notability of companies/organizations is much stricter that sources used to establish the notability of other topics. One of the key parts of WP:ORGIND is "Intellectual Independence".

Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

So, "sufficient sources" is not a reason to Keep - this is not about the volume of reliable sources, but about the quality of the sources. It has also been pointed out previously at other AfDs that Cunard simply ignores the requirement for Intellectual Independence and often hides parts of the selected extracts that clearly points to the information coming from the company website or an interview or a company announcement. For example, this upi reference is based on an interview with the CEO and there is nothing that can be identified as being clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Similarly, this Wired reference or this mediapost reference.

While the closer doesn't exercise a "supervote", the closer should be able to see which policies/guidelines are being ignored by Keep !voters and come to a conclusion based on the arguements put forward. I suggest that Keep !voters post specific links to references that they believe are intellectually independent and otherwise meet the criteria for establishing notability below here. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three book sources I have further discussed below are not based on interviews.
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as I don't see WP:CORP met here: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. (Emphasis mine.) The significance is what is lacking, IMO. I don't see a whole lot of (non-PR) content that goes much beyond "this is a company that exists." --Chris (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; the sourcing is routine and / or WP:SPIP. Just a company going about its business; this is insufficient for encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are three strong book sources about the subject:
1. Hall, Starr; Rosenberg, Chadd (2009). Get Connected: The Social Networking Toolkit for Business. Madison, Wisconsin: Entrepreneur Press. pp. 119–125. ISBN 978-1-59918-358-9. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  This book covers ZoomInfo on pages 119–125. That is seven pages of coverage about ZoomInfo in a book.
  It extensively discusses the company and its products and even includes negative coverage like "Lows: What's difficult or missing from the site …: ZoomInfo's search engine has been criticized for returning flawed or vague results, as well as outdated information. Getting improved search results typically means signing up for the site's premium services."
2. Pollock, Jeffrey T. (2009). Semantic Web For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 350–351. ISBN 978-0-470-39679-7. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The book covers ZoomInfo on pages 350–351. It provides detailed analysis about how the company's product works.
  It notes: "The ZoomInfo semantic search engine analyzes sentences to understand their meaning and to extract relevant information about companies and people, such as the industry a company is in and its products or services, or the company a person works for and her job title. It employs artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze Web site pages and to create a graph model of their contents."
3. Keenan, Thomas P. (2014). Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy. Berkeley: Greystone Books. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-77164-122-7. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  In a book titled Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy, author Thomas P. Keenan devotes six paragraphs of coverage about his experience using ZoomInfo. He notes that ZoomInfo had incorrect information about both himself and the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. He notes that people's personal information, including his own is "accumulated automatically and shared without your consent and knowledge" by ZoomInfo. He notes that ZoomInfo can be used to "play an interesting game of 'find my doppelgänger'".
A PR piece would not say "ZoomInfo's search engine has been criticized for returning flawed or vague results". A PR agent would not want ZoomInfo to be criticized as inaccurate in a book titled Technocreep: The Surrender of Privacy and the Capitalization of Intimacy.
The previous two "delete" participants said that "the significance is what is lacking" and "the sourcing is routine". I do not consider seven pages of coverage in a book to be non-significant or routine.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage says:
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
These books provide an overview, description, commentary, analysis, and discussion of the company, so ZoomInfo passes WP:CORPDEPTH.
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other available sources provide negative coverage of the subject:
1. Goto, Shihoko (2005-12-05). "ZoomInfo mines deep for personal data". United Press International. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes: "Nevertheless, some analysts are concerned that the company's prospects look limited unless it offers more to subscribers. "It's a one-trick pony, though it's a really good trick," said David Card, senior analyst at Jupiter Research focusing on cross-media programming and online revenue streams.
2. Grace, Francie (2005-03-21). "New Kid In Internet Search War". CBS News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2018-09-09. Retrieved 2018-09-09.
  The article notes: "Richard M. Smith, an Internet privacy and security expert, said the new service seems like snooping, which could create a perception problem for ZoomInfo. … Smith said he is skeptical ZoomInfo could truly differentiate between people when creating profiles. That could result in more inaccuracies - not fewer - floating about the Internet, he said."
  The article also quotes from author Preston Gralla who says "Just the act of collecting all this information, you could consider it an invasion of privacy."
PR pieces would not include very negative coverage about ZoomInfo from experts calling it "a one-trick pony" or saying the service "seems like snooping", is an "invasion of privacy", and "could result in more inaccuracies" on the Internet.

Cunard

talk

[reply]

Response Cunard, the problem is that you post 10, 15, 20 links to various references with selected quotes from each (selected, in that you often omit the pieces that show the information originates from an interview or connected source and this is deliberately deceptive), taking up pages and pages. Despite you having been told multiple times about this type of posting, you continue to do so. Not only that, but most of the references you post simply ignore the criteria for establishing notability contained in NCORP, especially the requirement for intellectually independence. Either you don't understand WP:ORGIND or you are intentionally ignoring it. Either way, posting as you do is both off-putting and disruptive. For example, you posted this reference previously and again just now. The article relies extensively on an interview from a company source. You've extracted one quote from David Card and I'll ask you simply, since that is the only intellectually independent part of the article you've identified, how exactly does this quote help to establish notability and just exactly what part of that quote meets WP:CORPDEPTH for example? Similarly, you've extracted a single quote from the CBS News, same thing applies. Similarly with the book references. The "Get Connected" reference is self-published from Entrepreneur Press and fails as a WP:RS. The "Semantic Web for Dummies" is a listing among other company listings and I would accept this as a weak reference but not enough on its own to establish notability. The third book reference "Technocreep" is a mention in passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Entrepreneur Press book that provides seven pages of coverage about the subject is not self-published. Get Connected: The Social Networking Toolkit for Business was written by Starr Hall and Chadd Rosenberg. From the book's copyright page:
  Publisher: Jere L. Calmes
  Cover Design: Del LeMond
  Production and Editorial Services: CWL Publishing Enterprises, Inc., Madison, WI, www.cwlpub.com
  
  Copyright @ 2009 by Entrepreneur Press. All rights reserved. … Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Business Products Division, Entrepreneur Media Inc.
  There is more information about Entrepreneur Press at http://entrepreneurmedia.com/books/, which says, "Part of the Entrepreneur Media family, Entrepreneur Press® has published quality print, digital, and audio books for more than 40 years." The publisher is selective; from the website about book proposals:
  Only those proposals that include all of the information defined below will be considered. Due to the high volume of submissions, we do not guarantee a response or take any responsibility for the materials received (by mail or electronically).
  Cunard (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the United Press International article, the journalist included several quotes from people affiliated with the company. That does not make the entire article based on interviews. The journalist attributed the information that was from the company's employees, did fact checking, and did independent research for the rest of the article. The journalist also interviewed David Card, senior analyst at Jupiter Research.
  The article also said "ZoomInfo is weak in listing executives in countries where English is not the main language", which likely is not based on interviews with the company.
  Cunard (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the CBS News article, the journalist included several quotes from people affiliated with the company. But the journalist also included quotes from four people not affiliated with the company:
  1. CBS News Technology Analyst Larry Magid
  2. Richard M. Smith, an Internet privacy and security expert
  3. Preston Gralla, co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Internet Privacy and Security
  4. Chris Sherman, editor of the industry newsletter Search Day
  The quotes from people non-affiliated with ZoomInfo fulfills Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources, which says:
  Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
  Cunard (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very (weakest possible) weak keep Sources certainly aren´t impressive and looking at the article history, I feel there is a SPA push for company promotion (eg. removing negative content here: [28] - well, used source probably was not RS, so removal could have been legitime; suspicious anyway). However, there is enough sources to write a balanced article (as demonstrated by Cunard above) about this company, whose notability is (even by my quite low standards) borderline. Note I agree with analysis provided by HighKing just above my post, but my understanding of WP:CORPDEPTH is more permissive. Pavlor (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlor, could you elaborate on where you believe we differ on CORPDEPTH? Which piece do you believe scrapes over your understanding? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Pavlor as HighKing's ping was broken. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple: for me, few paragraphs of intellectually independent coverage in reliable sources are enough, I don´t need entire books about the article subject to pass my notability requirements. I know this is a minority viewpoint and not well suited for corporate articles, where blatant promotion by SPA/UPE is the norm and where lenient "fools" like myself only help these SPA/UPE to pollute Wikipedia with their corpspam. That is why I rarely participate in corporations related AfDs and rather stay in the field I like far more: old computers and computer history. I will put it bluntly, even years old minor Amiga application has far better coverage in reliable sources than ZoomInfo (eg. DOpus - whose Wikipedia article is also bad and probably SPA edited, but there are dozens of multiple-page reviews and tutorials from the 90s about it). As I commented early in this AfD and was prompted later to state my opinion, I did so. Pavlor (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the sources, Pavlor. I appreciate it. I agree that old computers and computer history would be a more pleasant environment to work in compared to corporations.

Cunard (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: A quick research on Zoominfo shows that it has received a considerable amount of coverage over the last few years as seen on Google news, and is a leader (in worldwide terms) in the field of "B2B account and contact database" (with a website ranked at around 700 in the US, according to Alexa), therefore making it notable enough for Wikipedia. Yambaram (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yambaram: include links to your findings from your research, note I'm not disputing your statements i simply got different results when searching for information on the company. Tacticomed (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough intellectually independent sources to pass WP:CORPDEPTH particularly the later book sources and the critical pieces are certainly independent and cannot be considered pr in the least, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF + invalid disambiguation page + attempted listing of all types of equipment (which is impossible, since a lot of equipment doesn't have "equipment" in its name). wumbolo ^^^ 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there has to be something to say about equipment. Equipment (clothing brand) certainly isn't the primary topic here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would think the page is useful as a WP:CONCEPTDAB until/unless someone decides to write a proper article on the broad-concept itself. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus the Worker Agro-industrial Training Center[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, promo, largely based on related websites (including the own and Facebook). The Banner talk 23:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - seems to be a clear-cut case of WP:G11, so it would be reasonable to tag it as such in case an admin agrees with my conclusion after reading the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more Jesuit agenda-driven promotional spam that fails GNG. SOurces given are peripheral glancing mentions, used to synthesize a promotional view of the subject that attempts an end-run around the traditional wiki practice of using in-depth sources in independent reliable publications.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. several very good sources, so the promotionalism can be fixed. Within our usual expectations for articles on charities-. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons given just above. Jzsj (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jzsj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per DGG, as always. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy - move to userspace. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Jackson Medal and Prize[edit]

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

no third party sources to show notability of the award, as an award. Sources exists that might indicate possible notability for the individual given the prize, but that would not make the prixe notable. The prize is too new for there to be an established tradition or expectation that anyone receiving the prize is presumably notable. The IOP gives both major and minor prizes--the major ones given by this famous professional organization do shown notability, but not all of the minor ones. The future may show differently, but at this time, its not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it is very early days. The prize has only just been awarded for the first time, but given the coverage of the awardee I would not be surprised if secondary sources trickle through. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of further input either for or against I am considering moving it to Draft. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "To be fair, it is very early days. The prize has only just been awarded for the first time..", so it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, might a redirect be appropriate to the Legacy section of Daphne Jackson (already mentioned there), with a little bit of expansion? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a possibility. I have draftified for now. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A different editor has now moved the draft back to main space. As the creator of the page I would prefer that it moved to draft than deleted. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@T0mpr1c3: That's because you can't unilateraly decide what happens here. You can vote, but the consensus on what to do will be judged by a third-party. I would support either draftifying it or moving it to a subpage of your userpage (i.e. userfying). wumbolo ^^^ 08:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either would be fine by me. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: would you agree to userfying? wumbolo ^^^ 14:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I would agree-- I would suggest userification rather than moving to draft, becauseit will be anohter year until the 2nd award. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kissel[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-notable, in-depth coverage. reddogsix (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few passing appearances as a TV personality do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough notable work to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. Fit India 08:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious CHRIS[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC as his single only charted on iTunes. Some coverage, but mostly local in scope. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:NMUSIC is clearly not met, and the article is written by several WP:SPAs. The Chronicle Live reference is decent but is more of a "local interest" piece and suggests this is WP:TOOSOON. [29] and [30] are also marginal. There are also a lot of very bad refs; press releases and trivial mentions. You could make a case that GNG is met, but with the promotional aspect I think it's best to delete. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In-depth and independent coverage in reliable sources like Chroniclelive UK [31], Daily Mercury AU[32], Northern Star AU [33] and many more are enough to pass GNG 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list' and MUSICBIO is optional in case if GNG is not met so this should not be deleted. If anyone found some bad sources that can be removed but that doesn't mean it should be deleted as per alternatives to deletion policy. Best Jesspeulen (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC) — Jesspeulen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I didn't flag this as having failed GNG. Furthermore, you're misunderstanding the alternatives to deletion. That is for when a page may be suitably merged, redirected, disambiguated, or sent to draft. Those don't apply here. The issue with the page is not that it does not meet GNG, but that it does not meet the higher standard of WP:NMUSIC. The coverage is not significant enough to pass the music notability criteria, particularly with the article that is an interview, which consensus demonstrates that interview articles should generally not be used to gauge notability, especially of arts subjects. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Easily passes GNG. There are many newspaper articles about him. Pbfbpb (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC) — Pbfbpb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic - has only just registered and this is their first edit, already with knowledge of GNG. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Keep - In my opinion it just about passes WP:GNG and passes WP:NMUSIC #1. Fit India 08:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are just indiscriminate local puff pieces, nothing significant. Sold 150 copies is telling. Maybe just too soon. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Max Keiser. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Herbert[edit]

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

I'm seeing nothing outside some news-pieces written/created by her and some near-negligible/non-existent trivial coverage.Nothing resembling significant coverage in any source of repute.Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPN.Crypto-currency-spam.... ∯WBG^converse 14:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Max Keiser. A quick look at sources suggests that she is known primarily through working with him. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, Merge or Redirect? Co-hosting the shows, (which is the sole notable&sourced-issue at the article) is already mentioned at Max Keiser. ∯WBG^converse 18:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of the article we can merge; some of the current prose is unsourced or is cited to non-specific passing mentions, but there ought to be a sentence or two we can grab, rather than just a straight redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine enough:-) Whilst I don't see anything, let's see if some other info can be proved to be significant-enough and well-sourced. ∯WBG^converse 10:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or "merge" or redirect as above or to Keiser Report) - RT UK 'supporting personality', has her own cryptocurrency, sorta a producer of an adult cartoon that barely made it off the drawing board in 2005. Occasional self-publicity of the same. Note that there's lots of non-notable articles and general padding of RT material. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might I know, why? WP:JUSTAVOTE?? ∯WBG^converse 04:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [34]. Also, my favorite episode of the Keiser Report is E1117. Try to count the number of times they say "they are losing money on every barrel they pump" wumbolo ^^^ 14:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wumbolo, that piece mentions Stacy twice (as a co-producer of the show).And, in the most trivial-est of all manners, possible.I appreciate that you have a liking for Keiser Report but that's hardly a basis for a weak keep!! ∯WBG^converse 04:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: that's not exactly true. From the source:
Keiser was based in Villefranche-sur-Mer, near Nice, when he met Herbert, who is eight years his junior, in 2003.
Herbert's apparently subordinate role as co-presenter of The Keiser Report, in which her main task is to prompt, and then revel in her partner's hyperbole, belies her acute instincts as a producer and editor. Before collaborating with Keiser, Herbert, the daughter of a NYPD officer who died in tragic circumstances when she was six, began her career working with Michael Phillips (who co-produced Taxi Driver and The Sting). She was later associate producer on the acclaimed but highly controversial animated 2005 series Popetown. A cartoon sitcom featuring the voices of Mackenzie Crook, Ruby Wax, Matt Lucas, Jerry Hall and Ben Miller, it was once described as Father Ted meets South Park. Originally commissioned for BBC Three, Popetown was dropped from its schedule after protests from the Catholic Church, though it is available on DVD.
Herbert and Keiser moved to London a year ago. wumbolo ^^^ 08:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh... ∯WBG^converse 10:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keiser Report; not independently notable and a separate article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gambinos (2018)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying either WP:NFF or WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--The film is scheduled to release at some unconfirmed date and the social-media profile aware(s) us that shooting began on 6th September but I fail to find any evidence of any reputable media-house noting it.∯WBG^converse 13:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, toosoon, crystal, tagged coi. Szzuk (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Smurfs music. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Little Song of the Smurfs[edit]

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

Very unlikely to be notable: theme songs of television shows are seldom notable, there is no evidence of notability, there is no corresponding Japanese article, and it has been unreferenced since it was created in February 2008 (tagged since October 2016). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very minor, but that's no reason at all to delete. It's a key part of the Smurfological canon (I can't believe the things I have to write here sometimes). "theme songs of television shows are seldom notable" is a very dubious claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative search for スマーフのちっちゃなちっちゃなうた:
  Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  Comment: I have revisited this today, and I don't find there are reasons to think this 45 rpm single was "a key part of the Smurfological canon", are there sources to support the assertion? Sam Sailor 08:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. While it is not unsourced, an external link is also a source, I can't find additional sources to support WP:NSONGS, and I don't see a reasonable target for redirecting. Sam Sailor 22:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (Amended, Sam Sailor 16:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as an {{R to related topic}} to The Smurfs music looks like a good idea. Sam Sailor 16:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability (as proven by Sam), Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Smurfs music. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to The Smurfs music - this probably is not notable enough to have its own article (as far as I know, it did not chart, and unlike "Smurf Song", did not get to Number Two in the U.K. singles charts) but it could be merged with the article on the smurf's music in general. Vorbee (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Notable because its a theme for a popular television series. But there does not seem to be much of an article here. Nor is there any way to develop the article. Merge with The Smurfs music. Freetheangels (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete: I would agree that saying "Theme songs of television shows are seldom notable" is quite a big claim, but that's not to say that many don't warrant their own entry on Wikipedia, including this one. Freetheangels is correct, this article in no way can be developed further, I would say merge with The Smurfs music as a first choice but that's not to say that I think deletion is out of the question.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With this much notability we can Merge with and redirect to The Smurfs music. Rzvas (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect/merge. If it's not going to be mentioned by name and if there are no sources to merge, then what is the effect of redirection? It'll end up deleted at RfD. czar 18:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A previous AfD was closed just eight days ago and this nomination introduces no new arguments, sources, or facts that were not presented then. SpinningSpark 12:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xiamen Airlines Flight 8667[edit]

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

This appears to be an ordinary runway excursion without hull loss - the only reported damage to the aircraft was the detached engine from the left wing, i.e. less severe than, for example, Utair Flight 579 (zero fatalities aside). Does not appear to meet WP:EVENT as such. Brandmeister^talk 10:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural close. We just talked about this last month. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Says Mobile[edit]

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

The article looks pretty nice but there are no reliable sources in it and I cannot find any even after multiple searches. Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:NVG as well as WP:GNG. Developer is also not notable and the main Simon Says article is not a viable merge target. Regards So Why 09:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage and no unaffiliated sources, from what I can tell. Fails WP:NVG and WP:GNG. Simplexity22 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only primary refs in the article, google returning nothing of use for notability, news nothing at all. Szzuk (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suhaylah[edit]

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

Not a city, not in this exclave, not sourced. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a one-source article which does not cite any sources. I do not know whether there is, in fact, a city called Suhaylah, but when I did a Google search just now, I got hardly any hits on any information about a city other than the Wikipedia article. Vorbee (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless uncited three-word article of dubious accuracy. Nominator has lived and traveled in the UAE for 25 years. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/withdrawn. Agreed changes can and should be made in the article. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sinadil[edit]

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

Not a city, not in Ajman, not in this exclave, unsourced. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a site of some archeological importance. According to "Petroglyphs at Sinadil in the Hajjar mountains" (1998) its location is "at the northern edge of the Hajjar mountain range, is located at the south of the village of Sayh Mudayrah, which lies on the Dubai-Hatta road, at a distance of only some 8 km to the west of the latter." They also have something to say on whether this site is in Ajman: "Although we initially had been informed that the site with the petroglyphs belonged to the Emirate of Ajman, we learned later that in fact the Ruler of Ajman, H.H. Shaikh Humaid bin Rashid al Nuaimi, had transferred the area to Sultan Qaboos of Oman. SpinningSpark 12:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, there's the rub. Sayh Mudayrah itself doesn't have a page - and it's a wee village of no great note - a settlement which is part of Sayh Mudayrah would literally be a bunch of houses - a cul de sac. Sinadil as a place name is no longer in use and the petroglyphs would be located today at Sayh Mudayrah, not Sinadil. If they were given to Oman, they're no longer in the UAE in any case. I'd sooner see a page for Sayh Mudayrah than the lapsed community. A move? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant that Sayh Mudayrah doesn't have an article. It probably should have, but WP:Wikipedia is not finished. This passes WP:GEOLAND and should be kept. A paper in the Bulletin of the Emirates Natural History Group contradicts your claim that the name is no longer in use. It wouldn't even have mattered if that were true - notability is not temporary. Your claim that this is just a "cul de sac" is stated without any evidence. The map satellite view shows a number of streets and over a hundred buildings at that location. They are clearly separated from Sayh Mudayrah which is not even in the same country, although very close. As for your argument that it is no longer in the UAE, how on earth is that supposed to be a rationale for deletion? I'd love to hear what policy you think that comes under. SpinningSpark 15:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SpinningSpark. James500 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what then, my love. Why don't you invest 1/10th of the energy you did in spanking me and nip off over to the page and change it to a village in Oman, add your cites and facts and keep the thing and then you can do something useful, conserve a load of energy and make us all happier? I removed it from cities in the UAE, I queried it for deletion because it was claimed, unsourced, as a UAE city and now you have so elegantly proved it's notable, in Oman and a village you can SAVE it. Yay you! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already have, and thank you for the sarcasm. Perhaps you ought to put a 1/10th of that energy into WP:BEFORE next time. SpinningSpark 16:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the result was a worthwhile page, so a good thing. Can we close the AFD? As for WP:BEFORE, the original unsourced article was one sentence that stated that Sanadil was a city in the UAE and it is neither a city or in the UAE so I still think it was a good call. I'd only add that the Ajman infobox doesn't belong on the page as - per your sources - Sanadil is in Oman. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Leather Pride[edit]

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

Thisn organization appears not to meet WP:GNG; provided sources are primary or passing mentions/listings, as are any I can find in googling. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also note that as an organization it should also satisfy WP:ORGCRITE, which is stricter than WP:GNG Rosguill^talk 17:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. only sources that are found are self published or Primary. fails WP:GNG. Also agree with above that WP:ORGCRITE is not met. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SecureAuth[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable online retailer; sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Mathonson with no other contributions outside this topic. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO from a run-of-the-mill company lacking the in-depth coverage required by WP:NCORP. Current article is thinly disguised PR, and omits even the passing press mentions relating to a public controversy involving the security clearance of one of its board members. No prejudice against recreation if the company ever becomes notable under WP:NCORP, but that seems unlikely in the near future. Bakazaka (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yup run-of-the-mill company, no significant coverage, promotional article Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plain advert, business sources. There's more to see when you look a the page history. It was created complete with references and everything in one edit by editor who ever made only that one edit. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mauro[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable producer. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:CREATIVE; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Sijualmant with no other contributions outside this topic. The article claims that Mauro is a Tony award recipient; in fact, the Tony award was for Dear Evan Hansen where Mauro must have been one of the producers; in any case, he's not mentioned in that article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. There doesn't appear to be WP:SIGCOV here, and wading through the WP:COI issues doesn't leave enough substance for an encyclopedic article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N Moles[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. References do not constitute in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Scholarly publications written by the subject do not appear to be highly cited, nothing above 50 on Google scholar. Rosguill^talk 07:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Law is a very low citation field. The average law professor has an h-index of 2, so Moles actually has a level of citation that is at least four times average for his field, with a h-index of at least 8: [35]. (It is difficult to determine the exact index because many of his papers are listed several times). James500 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that this is enough to satisfy the guideline at WP:ACADEMIC: either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.? Having a citation rate four times above the average is likely extremely high, but given your uncertainty of the actual index score I want to confirm. Rosguill^talk 17:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. James500 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Searching Google News for "Bob Moles" doesn't find a lot of secondary sources about Moles, but it does find a lot in which he is quoted as an expert, plausibly enough for WP:PROF#C7. I also added four published reviews of two of his (five) books to the article, enough for a weak case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. "Definition and Rule in Legal Theory" [36], for example, has reviews in the New Law Journal [37], British Book News [38], Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly [39], Choice [40] [41], Journal of Applied Psychology [42], Cambridge Law Journal [43], Current Publications in Legal and Related Fields [44], and Modern Law Review [45], in particular, amongst other commentary. I could go on, but I think I will stop there. There are more than eight hundred library holdings of his books: [46]. And I think the level of citations does actually satisfy PROF for his field. (When I said I was having difficulty determining his h-index, I meant that I thought it might possibly be higher than 8, but not lower). James500 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR with sources already present in the article and offered at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and at least two of his books are held by dozens of libraries. Aoziwe (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable legal scholar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Decay (American band)[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced since 2005, and I can find no evidence of coming close to satisyfing general notability guideline or WP:BAND. A homemade CDR and a 7" dutifully logged on Discogs does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything other than the band being mentioned in a few sources that mention Armin playing in other bands, and I don't see a useful redirect target. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is unsourced, and all I could find through a Google search was the Wikipedia article. Vorbee (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly unnotable and the article is ridiculous. Not a controversial deletion.Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Glass Box[edit]

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

WP:NFILM not met. A WP:BEFORE attempt showed that a wedding venue in North Carolina of the same name is more prominent than the film. The article's first revision includes no citations, but has two dead external links. This edit added more sources to the page, but all are dead and seemingly unarchived. Vycl1994 (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vycl1994 (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Vycl1994 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I ran into a very similar circumstance to this yesterday. It was another film based article that was unbelievably short and had little to no citation. It also becomes evident just from a simple google search that this topic isn't notable and that the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Grapefruit17 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 10 year old article that would get speedied if created today. No refs, never were any refs, no assertion of notability, nothing on google i can see. Szzuk (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kumul Rebellion#Battle of Aksu. Sandstein 11:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Aksu[edit]

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

Because this is not a big battle, if there are no more reference.I suggest deleting or merging into Kumul Rebellion#Battle of Aksu.And the content on Kumul Rebellion or Battle of Aksu is equally poor. Witotiwo (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short as it is, this page, has information that does not appear in either Kumul Rebellion or First East Turkestan Republic. That is, it is the only page that gives the date of the battle. Thus, per WP:RETAIN, there should at least be no question of deleting this page. However, there appear to be at least two other "Battles of Aksu" one of which, Battle of Aksu (717), has an article and seems rather more notable. Therefore, I propose that Battle of Aksu is moved to Battle of Aksu (1933) and Battle of Aksu (717) is moved to the primary page Battle of Aksu with a suitable disambiguation hatnote. I'm not exactly opposing a subsequent merge and redirect, but the incoming links should still point to the title page in case of subsequent recreation and expansion. I think it unlikely that any battle from the 1930s, however minor, does not have a lot more information out there that could be used, even if it is not immediately available online in English. SpinningSpark 15:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Article is much to short and lacking in sources to continue existing as it's own entry, but it does have information not found anywhere else on Wikipedia. I would strongly recommend the merge suggested by Witotiwo.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyw7 What does this have to do with Turkmenistan? Turkmenistan is in western Turkestan while Chinese Turkestan is in eastern Turkestan, please learn a little bit about Asian geography. This has nothing to do with Taiwan either. Timmyshin (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Timmyshin, well Republic of China IS Taiwan unless you mean People's Republic of China. I'll remove it from Turkmenistan sorting. Edit: I've edited the article to point Republic of China to Republic of China (1912–1949) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only argument for deletion here is that WP:CRYSTAL is violated, but there is clear consensus that it is not. Michig (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copperhead Strike[edit]

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

Another WP:CRYSTALBALL coaster article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD of WP:CRYSTALBALL roller coasters:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning, Computer40, Adog104, Bakazaka, JC7V7DC5768, Chrissymad, Power~enwiki, and Wolfson5: Courtesy ping because you had voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Coast Racers and this article is about a rollercoaster under construction and is created by the same editor. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Shadowowl because they voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamite (roller coaster), which is also created by the same editor. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CRYSTALBALL. » Shadowowl | talk 14:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:CRYSTALBALL. MBlaze Lightning 03:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)switching to weak keep[reply]

Weak keep: per the sources below, which essentially invalidates the crystal ball argument. MBlaze Lightning 10:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nomination, obvious WP:CRYSTALBALL.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per others - seems like WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply anymore since it's under active construction with plenty of references.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Too soon as this article is a WP:CRYSTALBALL. JC7V-constructive zone 07:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Weak Keep I'm changing my vote to Weak keep in light of the sources below which shows that WP:Crystal Ball no longer applies and a deletion or even a redirect are not needed. JC7V-constructive zone 01:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:CRYSTALBALL no longer applies once a new product moves beyond a simple announcement. Construction and marketing began earlier this year, and recent media coverage has revealed exact details/specifications surrounding the new coaster. Typically, we prefer to wait for the official press conference where the ride is revealed before creating the article, and that time has arrived. All of this is well documented in the following sources:

Carowinds (marketing, specifications, and construction)

Coaster101 (marketing and specifications)

Charlotte Business Journal (marketing and specifications)

ColaDaily.com (marketing, specifications, and construction)

NewsPlusNotes (construction before reveal)

WP:FILM is a good comparison to take into consideration here. That WikiProject waits until a film has entered production before creating the article. For roller coasters, it's reasonable to take the same approach by waiting for the official announcement on press day and for construction to begin. Both have occurred here, and there has been a considerable marketing effort on behalf of the park. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment – Another comparison in favor of "Keep": The iPhone X article was created at the time of the official reveal on September 12, 2017, despite its release to the public being more than two months away. Official specs and features were given, moving the topic beyond a simple product announcement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks of this discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur with Keep, as with what I had concerned over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Coast Racers addressing this article, albeit unsure at first. Following up, I would say the WP:CRYSTALBALL wouldn't apply, as the product is no longer speculative or a future presumption because its construction is verified by its recent announcement, and sources provide its verifiability. Although if the article was created well before such an announcement, it would be a speculative article about an unverifiable product. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply because there is an announcement is your non-argument? Things can still fail after an announcement. » Shadowowl | talk 09:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I argued: "the product is no longer speculative or a future presumption because its construction is verified by its recent announcement, and sources provide its verifiability". The prospect of the product will be constructed is likely to occur given that some development has been observed, and it has been recorded and covered through reliable means. Therefore, regardless of its future predictability (or outcome), it is an appropriate topic at this time given that there is sufficient information to verify that it is happening (we could also look at any of the sports stadiums being built or drafted in the United States for instance). WP:NOTBUILT rings a bell.
On another note: it would help in the future to point out what part of CRYSTAL any of this applies to since that's such a broad argument. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there has ever been a roller coaster in the United States that has ever "failed" or been cancelled after entering the construction phase, and certainly it has not happened within the last 40 years. Where you see these mammoth investments typically get stalled or cancelled is during the development phase, and even that is a pretty rare occurrence (I can only think of two in the last 20 years). We are well past the development phase, and there are multiple WikiProjects with examples like I listed above that have been taking the same approach as what has been taken with this article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the roller-coaster does at least partly exist and has been reported on, thus meets the basic notability guideline. If for some reason it was cancelled now, that would be reported on too. The subject of the cancelled roller-coaster project would still be notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. Has been merged per DGG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four Diamonds Fund[edit]

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

local charity connected with one university hospital. Local references only, which are indiscriminate and do not prove notability DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or consider merge into Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. The refs aren't good enough for a stand-alone article, but are probably good enough for a section of the larger article. Note that both articles are padded with trivia, so the merged article should end up being shorter. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything necessary is already merged. And I will start cutting down the Hershey article. DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil place names in Malaysia[edit]

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

No valid sources Pakbelang (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Tamil place names in Malaysia None of the references cited on this page actually support the claims being madePakbelang (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that this is a bit "narrow" topic, I think a merge to a suitable target (or multiple targets) might be better. How about Malaysian_Indians#Influence_toward_Malaysian_Culture?--DreamLinker (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes good idea. (talk) 3 September 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has sources and it's not clear why they are not considered valid. Here's another one: Malaya: What's in the name?. The page has been around since 2006 and the topic seems notable. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your source doesn't really support what's stated in the article - it says Malaya is Sanskrit, but may be related to a word in Tamil or Malayalam (referring to a place in Kerala which is Malayalam-speaking), while the article claims it's Tamil (an unsourced claim). A cursory look will tell us that the claims of origin of the names in the article are highly speculative, for example no one really knows what the origin of Selangor is (see the etymology section in the article). Same for Muar. It seems to be a problematic article, written with an ethnocentric slant and almost certainly a POV. There maybe a proper article on the subject to be written, but this is not it, perhaps a WP:TNT is necessary. Hzh (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced garbage, and especially per the source linked by Andrew above, the opening sentence of the article is a mess POV/OR, equating "Dravidian" and "Tamil/Malayalam" (and even Sanskrit!) with "Tamil", and just calling it "Tamil", perhaps (?) for some ethno-nationalist POV reason. If anything in this article is salvageable, it's only because a topic-proficient editor could put out a much better article that includes all the same information (more appropriately worded) with five minutes of work, so there's nothing that would be lost by deleting the page. I would not be against userfying the page, deleting and redirecting it, or even redirecting it without deleting. I'm not going to comment on whether the topic is notable since, like Andrew, I have very little to no training in this topic area. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After consideration, I don't think the article is salvageable. None of the entries can be firmly established to be of Tamil origin. That there are similar names in India is neither here or there, since they are not clear evidence that the name is Tamil in origin (e.g. Malaya may be Tamil or Malayalam or Sanskrit). All you have is a load of unsourced POV or OR speculations. Someone more knowledge might write another article on this, but the article as it is cannot stay. Hzh (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Sarin[edit]

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could find nothing to desmonstrate notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have been CSD'd as there's literally no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. MBlaze Lightning 13:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is basically promotional fluff, there is no claim to notability and no sources. --bonadea contributions talk 20:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-international theatre actor, dancer, model,polymath, philanthropist.The outcome is well-known.∯WBG^converse 15:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy East[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ [47][48] Lorstaking (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, both sources look like routine industry announcements, rather than "in-depth coverage". Edwardx (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete then. Lorstaking (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billion Dollar Boy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy. Entirely promotional. Beyond that, does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by a SPA Special:Contributions/Scheza. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable agency. Only one press release is available as evidence of coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH . Kpg jhp jm 12:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yūsen Kojima[edit]

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

Rationale borrowed from my previous similar AfD of Keizaburō Saeki, which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos (courtesy ping) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ichirō Kosaka is currently running; the others have ended).

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name, with the spelling Yusen and Yuzen. I have also checked the Japanese name. In this case I found no Google book results. The only web result was the Tokyo Photographic Museum website which confirms he has photos there.

There were no other results for any version of the English name, or the Japanese name. He is absent from the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing in any other article.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Qono (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have my copy of the much-cited book in front of me. Kojima's entry takes up page 129. Or perhaps I should say that the entry and unusually large margins take up the page. The author -- Kaneko (feeble Japanese-language stub) himself -- finds, or anyway found, very little to say about Kojima. I could summarize/paraphrase this as a single paragraph, but the result might well be taken to a third AFD. And very few contributors to English-language Wikipedia are ready to write up Japanese photographers, however worthwhile, who don't happen to be trendy; so chances that this would end up as a worthwhile article seem vanishingly small. Therefore delete, without prejudicing any later attempt to write something good. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, for the record I would have zero objections to restoring this immediately if any additional sources were located. Please feel free to ping me at any point if that's the case (this goes for any of the Japanese photographer bot-stubs I've AfD'd). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's very reasonable. Thank you, PMC. -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no need to thank me, it's only fair. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giannis Bezos[edit]

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

Sourcing doesn't seem improved compared to the previous AfD. wumbolo ^^^ 14:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 14:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 14:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 14:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 14:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose he is one of the best-known Greek actors. His IMDB page alone should be enough "sourcing" per WP:ENTERTAINER. Constantine ✍ 20:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If his theatre appearances were notable, they would be mentioned in the articles about the plays. wumbolo ^^^ 20:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? Theatre has nothing to do with IMDB, and his IMDB record is clearly indicative of a long career in TV and movies in Greece, which, again, per WP:ENTERTAINER constitutes evidence of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Furthermore, your argument on the plays is highly fallacious; there is no guarantee that a WP article on any one play already lists every notable performance by an actor, and vice versa that anyone not listed there is not notable, especially since due to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, non-anglosphere artists are usually ignored. Constantine ✍ 13:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Giannis Bezos (in Greek: Γιάννης Μπέζος) is "one of the best-known Greek actors" as Constantine wrote above. He is mentioned, or appears as a guest in many mainstream Greek media of all types: print, digital, broadcast, and even social. Examples: [49] @ Proto Thema, [50] @ Athens Voice, [51] @ Greek Marie Claire, [52] @ CNN-Greece, [53] @ To Vima, [54] @ ERT (Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation) with videos of TV shows with Bezos as guest of honor, and many many more … . ——Chalk19 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Interviews, the actual content of interviews usually can't count toward significant coverage of the subject. wumbolo ^^^ 12:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the evidence of notabilty furnished by Chalk19. However, it should be crystal clear that an IMDb page is not evidence of notability. Actor profiles on IMDb are user edited and are not reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Which of the articles provided by Chalk19 would you say is evidence of notability? wumbolo ^^^ 09:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entire group of them, taken as a whole. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chalk19. The article needs a Greek speaker to be able to evaluate the sources and cite them in the article, but that's not a reason to delete it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chalk19 and Cullen328. James500 (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the sources published above by Chalk19. Kpg jhp jm 12:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NONE of the sources provided by Chalk19 provide any coverage of the subject outside of interviews and press releases. Note to closer. All keep votes based on them can be discounted. wumbolo ^^^ 12:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but can we please add some of these new sources to the article? Brad v 21:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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