Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 August	7 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Matter of Time (Mixtape)[edit]

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

Unfortunately, this is not A9 eligible as the artist is still at AFD. Fails a whole laundry list of checks, but primarily Notability. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject fails to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. This would be eligible for A9 as soon as Kanya Graeme (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is deleted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, lacks any coverage in any sources. No assertion of notability, either. FourViolas (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd've A9ed this after A7ing the creator. This could have been A11, because it was clearly made by the creator and doesn't assert significance. MSJapan (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete - complete lack of notability. Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need a speedy category for music, if we limited it to self-released music that would keep most of the junk out tbh... Blythwood (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable album from a non-notable musician. Joseph2302 19:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per several comments herein stating that the article is promotional, would benefit from copy editing (poorly written, needs work), etc., I have added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suhas Gopinath[edit]

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

Delete No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Gopinath's article looks like an advertisement & promotion article of the person and his brands, who has done lots of PR online but has not received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a good business person from India but not notable. Vinay089 (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's poorly written but this meets WP:SIGCOV as there are numerous sources available.Passes WP:GNG WP:BIO. He's one of the youngest recipents of the Karnataka State Rajyothsa award. Seems notable enough. Uncletomwood (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- among the "self-promotional business person" articles this one is a standout. Being the "youngest among the 175 recipients of Karnataka's Rajyotsava Award" seems to offer some notability, along with being the youngest CEO. Sourcing is reasonable. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG WP:BIO. ---Metaphorical analysis (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs work but subject seems to be notable, had coverage in 2003, 2009 and 2015 in multiple sources, all of them significant and reliable, and he was the subject of those articles. meets WP:BIO CrispyGlover (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional bio, very little actual accomplish,ents. The nature of the bio is shown by having a sentence at the ending giving his university, but not bothering to mention what degree or when. This is typical of corporate bio writing. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Alavi (game developer)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The developer is best known for a part of a game known as "No Russian" and is covered by name in the article recently created on the subject. (It would be a suitable redirect, if this needs one.) The rest of this article is strung together from mentions and lots of primary sources. The individual is not independently notable from No Russian based on the depth of the sourcing (WP:BLP1E). czar 22:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 23:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 23:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a biography article and the subject meets two criterias cited in WP:CREATIVE:

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4. The person's work (or works)... has won significant critical attention.

References cited in the article are reliable and independent. Alongside "No Russian", creations like "All Ghillied Up" and "Crew Expendable" have recieved significant coverage and critical attention. He has been described as:

PC Gamer: "the designer behind two of the most acclaimed missions in Call of Duty history". (Criteria 3)
Edge: "responsible for some of the most intense and memorable campaign levels in Call Of Duty history". (Criteria 3)
PC Gamer: "As Call of Duty continues its attempts at reinvention. adding exosuits and singleplayer upgrades, it’s worth reflecting on how much Alavi’s grandest efforts achieve with comparatively little". (Criteria 3)
PC Gamer: "bears much responsibility for the fact that Titanfall has a narrative component at all". (Criteria 3)

One of his works is notable enough to have a separate article. (Criteria 4)

Some review on his other works:

See Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered's 'Crew Expendable' in action (Criteria 4)
Why Modern Warfare's 'All Ghillied Up' Is One Of Gaming's Best Levels? (Criteria 4)
Why All Ghillied Up Is The Best Call Of Duty Mission Ever? (Criteria 4)
All Ghillied Up made it all the way to number 13 on IGN's Top 100 Video Game Moments (Criteria 4)
Top 50 Gaming Moments: 20. The 'All Ghillied Up' Mission In Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Criteria 4)
Titanfall Review: Hate The Story, Not The Game (Criteria 4)
Opinion: Titanfall's campaign failed to draw me into its universe (Criteria 4)

Pahlevun (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are about games on which Alavi worked, along with other devs. He is best known for No Russian, which has its own page. The question is whether Alavi is independently notable from that creation so as to warrant his own page, and based on the sourcing, he is not covered in significant depth apart from No Russian. The whole "creative" criteria is secondary to the general notability guideline and the depth of coverage on the developer himself. Everything else you've cited is a passing mention and the interviews are not from reliable sources. If anything, those snippets show that he should be mentioned in the Call of Duty series article, not that there is enough reliable, independent coverage for a separate article. czar 17:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they are reviews about his works, other than No Russian, that you claim is his only covered work. An architect can be notable simply because his works are important, just like a game developer with several important works. Pahlevun (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is whether the developer gets coverage independent of the reviews. Interviews from unreliable sources don't count towards that. If he passed the "creative" guidelines, he'd have no problem getting that coverage. As it stands, he is covered as an entity within the scope of existing articles. czar 20:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone over the references yet, but do note @Pahlevun:, that per WP:INHERIT, notability for articles can't be inherited. Alavi has to be notable by himself, not for his work. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that creative professionals can be deemed as notable per their works. Check out WP:CREATIVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep strictly there are numerous independent and important citations like Kotaku . he is well-known in his field in Iran and world of specialist developers, i read references and those are enough referable for the article . Amir Muhammad 15:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Benson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played for a fully professional league JMHamo (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benson currently plays for a fully professional team, Dundalk FC, and thus has fulfilled the second criteria on the list here as a result of playing in both fixtures against BATE Borisov recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability. --IrishTennis (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Editor above does not understand that the requirement is to play in a fully-professional league, not for a fully-professional team (nominator may want to reword their statement too). Number 5 7 11:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Corrected my typo. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. While there may be only two !votes and that the discussion was only opened about 2 hours ago, I don't see any reason why this discussion should continue, unless you want more SNOW/speedy keep !votes piling in. The fact that "not one celebrity even mentioned it" is completely irrelevant to the notability of this crash, and shouldn't be used to justify deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. Furthermore, as the deadliest hot-air balloon crash in U.S. history, it clearly meets our notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Lockhart hot air balloon crash[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Wikipedia should not report every news story. This story isn't notable. Nobody even knew it happened. Seriously, not one celebrity even mentioned it. Stop putting every tragedy into an article. Enough Flyinglikeaneggle (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - Notable as the deadliest balloon accident in the United States - 'nuff said. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - As stated above, deadliest balloon accident in the United States. It also meets notability. Celebrities do not need to mention items for them to be on Wikipedia. Dane2007 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to userspace by User:Steelpillow. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 01:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.I.R Engineer[edit]

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

Completely incomprehensible article and seems to be a POV fork of Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada). It also seems to be part of the creator's ongoing Wikipedia campaign to raise the profile of and promote the profession he belongs to. The refs are all inaccessible and so subject cannot be verified and the article cannot be turned into an encyclopedia article by normal editing. The article was WP:PROD, but the creator removed the prod tag; the article was then redirected, but the article creator reverted the redirect, so a full AFD discussion is required. Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really encyclopedic just a clumpsy way of defining a term by dumping text from the sources, it may be worth a one-liner in Aircraft Maintenance Engineer but as that article is a bit of a disaster it might be hard to add anything that makes sense. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an article, more like a list of facts from various obscure sources. Properly referenced some information could be added to Air Board (Canada). Samf4u (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a sequence of phrases that do not come close to comprising an article. The topic itself may be notable but appears to be covered already at Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada). Rebb ing 21:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . WP:Original research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete read talk page - pls. CanadianAME (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is neither an encyclopedia article nor an essay, but rather a dump of quotes from various obscure sources over the past century. Other articles mentioned above already cover this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Graham (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Old comment: ~~Move to Draft or User space with a view to merging with Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada)~~. To take the proposer's points in order. AME and AIR are different qualifications, so a different article is not unreasonable. The two articles were initiated by the same editor, so I don't see this as a "PoV fork". A merge might be in order eventually, but this article is not yet in a fit state. If a profession is under-represented on Wikipedia then a campaign to raise its profile can hardly be faulted. In this context there has been a long-running international standards battle over the status of some of these professional qualifications and any non-US position may well deserve its profile raising here to match. Personally I do not prejudge this issue either way, rather, I am hoping that these articles will one day enlighten me. The refs appear to be genuine and cannot be argued down on grounds of inaccessibility, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. So, while the present state is unpublishable I do not think it should be summarily deleted. An earlier article in a similar position was moved to Draft:Aircraft maintenance personnel in Britain, where work is slowly progressing. There is no harm in having several such drafts in progress, though I am now wondering whether user space might be better, for example User:CanadianAME/AIR Engineer. CanadianAME may be alone on Wikipedia but he is not alone in the world and, however difficult his raw material might be to digest, his referencing technique is already beginning to improve under (I like to think) my guidance. I believe we should be helping and encouraging rather than blanking. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Following conversation with the originator, I have moved the article to User:CanadianAME/AIR Engineer where it can be attended to at leisure. We are left here with an incorrectly punctuated redirect, but restarting over with a Redirect for Deletion process would be bureaucracy gone mad. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The now-redirect is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion R2 as a cross-namespace redirect; no further discussion, here or at RFD, should be necessary to remove it. Rebb ing 17:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: the article has been moved to user space and all redirects cleaned up, so this AfD is really moot at this point. The debate can now be closed, although I don't think it should be me that formally closes it. Thank you to everyone for participating and coming to a consensus that the article needed to be moved out of mainspace. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It has indeed been speedily deleted. I also am too involved to be the closer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coreo[edit]

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

non notable and promotional. The references are PR, an the article is written as PR DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely PR and I would've explored PROD if not for the other one. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sodexo. Sandstein 06:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort Keepers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I still confirm my statements for deletion as this is still essentially PR. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent company Sodexo (I've edited the article for promo language etc). Sources brought up at the previous AfD do not demonstrate sufficient individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sodexo, the parent company. Upon consideration after the first AfD discussion, this would be a functional outcome and WP:ATD. The merge target article presently only contains a one-sentence mention, so merging will improve that article. Below are some sources that cover the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Levingston, Chelsey (July 11, 2016). "Comfort Keepers franchise extends reach to Cincinnati market". Dayton Daily News. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
Historic Shawnee County. p. 90.
The Spokesman-Review
Englehart, Laura (February 10, 2012). "New services boost Comfort Keepers". Dayton Business Journal. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
The Sun. (subscription required)
Northeast Pennsylvania Business Journal. (subscription required)
Press of Atlantic City. (subscription required)
The Virginian-Pilot. (subscription required)
Journal of Business. (subscription required)
The Washington Times. (subscription required)
Daily Herald. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
The Beacon News. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
Knight Ridder/Tribune. (subscription required)
Press of Atlantic City. (subscription required)
"Comfort Keepers franchise here sees rebound in demand". Journal of Business. (subscription required)
Wiesentha, Nicole (February 1, 2016). "Comfort Keepers staff step up to help co-worker whose house burned down". The Gainesville Sun. Retrieved July 12, 2016.
"A Closer Look at Franchised Home Care". Aspen Publishers. ISSN: 1084-8223. (subscription required). Quote: "... Australia, and Ireland providing caregivers to help seniors stay in their homes. Comfort Keepers In 1997, Kristina Clum was employed by Mercy Medical Home Health Care. ... Comfort Keepers fulfills those needs. Comfort Keepers was founded in March 1998. ..."
"Comfort Keepers to open 10 Irish offices". RTÉ News. (short article)

Merge to the parent company from this version, which has been trimmed to remove the promotional content. Previous revisions of the article were promotional, and Comfort Keepers does not meet our notability guidelines based on the available sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.F. Reynolds[edit]

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

Local architect with no wide notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an extremely rapid nomination of an article just created (by me). While the nominator could have added a skeptical tag to the article, I doubt that this AFD is a good use of many editors' time. --do ncr am 19:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's was a mistake. My sincere apologies for that. I withdraw my nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Designing buildings that are now catalogued by the National Register of Historic Places would seem to meet the final criterion of WP:CREATIVE: "(a) has become a significant monument," a guideline that expressly includes architects. Keep on that basis, at the very least. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I kept developing the article and, among other findings, found that there's a Nebraska Encyclopedia article about him. I will grant there is not a huge amount of info about him readily available. So like many other articles about architects, the article is largely a list of the notable works of the architect (for which they are known). In previous AFDs it has been held that essentially as a "List of works by Architect" it would be valid, and the title doesn't matter. We don't want to split architect vs. list of their works.

By the way, at the article's talk page are search results about J.F. Reynolds persons who are perhaps the same person: one who was a district engineer handling gravel road construction in Iowa, one who founded an architectural partnership in Florida in 1941 to engage in the World War II effort. The latter I consider fairly likely to be the same person, but I don't yet have enough to link him surely. --do ncr am 21:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all three articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Alwin Harris[edit]

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

Article was recently deleted by PROD for notability issues and then quickly recreated. Subject does not meet notability in any of the claimed areas - either as a film maker or academic (self awarded title in an obscure school he founded). There is a bit of walled garden occurring with articles linking to this one written by the same author - possibly a coi. Considering adding both Central Florida Institute of Technology and to this nomination Haima (film) since neither demonstrate any notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found for any of the three. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of a non-notable walled garden (see above):Peter Rehse (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you want to bundle several articles into an AfD you need to do them all at the same time. These were AfD tagged 2 days after this AfD started and therefore cannot be deleted 7 days from the start of this AfD. You should also use an edit summary so that interested editors know that these have been nominated for deletion. --Michig (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is clear this is only for PR. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't comply with BIO. Millbug ^talk 03:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Harris's for-profit university is not significant enough for WP:PROF#C6 and there is no other sign of notability. The film does not seem to pass WP:NFILM. And the school needs independent sources to pass WP:GNG, which are not evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promo content on a non notable individual. Also delete the articles in the walled garden. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Michig's comment on the late additions. MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Harris's article contains no claim meeting WP:PROF or WP:DIRECTOR. The film makes not claim meeting WP:NFO (an Honorable Mention Award from the Indie Gathering International Film Festival is not a "major award"). The school fails WP:ORGDEPTH: the only independent source merely verifies existence and legality. Google finds no sources meeting WP:GNG for any of the three.

One more article exists in the walled garden: Prince of Prestige Academy. I'm prodding it with a link to this discussion. FourViolas (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all -- clearly a promo-only article and none of the related entities meet GNG; Harris in particular does not meet WP:PROF. Delete other related entities. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. season[edit]

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

Article on a club season that fails WP:NSEASONS. This recent AfD on a club season article in the same league in the same season was deleted unanimously. Number 5 7 17:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability Giant Snowman 10:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSEASONS as club is now playing in the fifth tier of English football, a non-fully professional league. Can in no way be considered a "top professional league" per the guideline. Perhaps during the course of the season sufficient significant, independent coverage will emerge to satisfy GNG but at the moment, given that the season has not officially started, there can, bu definition, not be enough. Fenix down (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following the precedent at Woking and the need to draw a boundary on season articles. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the precedent given was for a "too soon" deletion - hmm, though looks someone snuck in an earlier season after the AFD was started - and some reviewers such as myself had decided not to contest. The past consensus wasn't that the line was at the 5th tier - it was that the tier was fully national. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011-12 Colwyn Bay F.C. season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season. Also note that WP:NSEASONS is met; the requirement is "professional" not "fully-professional". Many (if not most!) of the teams in this nation-wide league are fully-professional. It's clearly a top professional league. Nfitz (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Three things to say on this keep vote:

There is and never has been any consensus that the fifth tier was the cut off point because it was fully national, I have no idea where you are getting this from bar some form of selective reading of a large number of AfDs. Even the most cursory review of the Deletion Archive would show clear consensus that fifth-tier clubs are not notable per NSEASONS and require GNG to be met.
I would note that both AfDs you cite above have had the articles subsequently deleted, so not sure what you are trying to indicate there, you have merely provided weight to the view that such articles at this level are not notable.
As noted above, consensus indicates that NSEASONS is not met. However, this is not really relevant as GNG is most important. Given that the season has not yet started, it is impossible to see how GNG could be met at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three responses

Consensus does appear to have shifted away - but at the same time, there are those that would spin it so that there is clear consensus that 5th tier teams are deleted, when this is not always the case.
They were deleted because they were 6th tier (or lower) articles. The AFD discussed that because they weren't 5th tier or higher, they were below the cut-off. No one contested this.
Consensus doesn't indicate that NSEASONS is not met. The teams are professional, and are top teams, that have plentiful national coverage - many, if not most are fully-professional. WP:NSEASONS is met. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment These (mostly more recent) AfDs have all resulted in these articles being deleted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, so if there ever was a consensus that these seasons were notable (and I can't find any examples of an AfD on one being closed as "Keep") it clearly changed several years ago. You are fully aware of the existence and outcome of these AfDs given your participation in this simultaneous discussion, so it's extremely poor form to ignore the context when presenting the argument you have. Number 5 7 07:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen 3 completed delete AFDs this year (ignoring a third Too Soon one). That's 3 out of hundreds if not thousands of 5th tier (and far, far lower) season article. I think claiming that there is a consensus is extremely poor form! I also think it's poor form to ignore that at least 10 articles are going to be clearly closed as no consensus in the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season debate. Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I've linked to 11 AfDs with the same result above, which clearly shows there is consensus (and now there is a another to add to the list) – a handful of debates ending in no consensus does not take away from this – you are now clearly into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Secondly, the "hundreds if not thousands" claim is a blatant lie and you know it's a lie (for the benefit of the closing admin, the number of remaining fifth tier articles can be seen in this category). Number 5 7 22:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked beyond this year. But it seems the trend was to assume 5th tier was notable, then some pushed to move line to 4th tier, but failed, and then started AFDing some really, really bad 5th tier articles that were hard to defend, and are now trying to push the line further.
There are no lies, and it's yet another WP:AGF violation to make such groundless accusations. My comment is in good faith.
I reckoned there were at least 200, probably 300-400 - and perhaps more than I thought. Looking at your link there Category:Football Conference seasons by team is merely a subset of articles of the 5th tier and lower articles. It looks like there are over 90 there alone, and many are missing - (not tagged?). Simply looking at one of the 2 non-league teams I've supported Category:Newport County A.F.C. seasons there are over 20 tier 5 and lower seasons alone there that are not in the category you provided. That pushes to over 110 with one team alone. I'd think that the total then would easily be over 200 - but perhaps my past support and awareness of these pages has biased my view. Either way though, it's certainly not a blatant lie, and I think you need to aplogize. At worst it's an error. No one would suggest an honest mistake is a lie! Nfitz (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS - (after digging around for half-an-hour, just starting to realise how unique Newport AFC articles are - and Wimbledon, who I've had an interest in - only one that was new to me that I was seeing below 5th was Gateshead!) Nfitz (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first statement about not having looked beyond this year is either patently untrue as we have been discussing this all week on other AfDs (and you even took part in this one last year) or you are again suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT syndrome. And given your previous conduct over several years, I'm afraid I cannot buy the excuse that it was an "honest mistake". Number 5 7 07:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first statement is 100% true. I have not (in the last few months) looked beyond a year. I don't think I've looked at the Hyde AFD since we had it - lord knows how many years ago. I'm not sure why you continue to accuse me of lying; your behaviour remains horridly shameful; stop disgracing yourself with such unnecessary WP:AFD attacks. Yes you referenced it in other AFDs; that doesn't mean I looked at it. ~~

Delete – It has all been said above, it does not pass any notability guidline and it is not notable enough for an article. Qed237 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nfitz's points. Fully-professional club in a national league, barring a handful of teams. Coverage is just as much, if not wider in the National League than League Two. --Jimbo^[online] 08:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How can the coverage be wider when the season hasn't even started? The fifth tier of English football is an obvious NSEASONS failure: "top" and "fifth" are clearly not reconcilable. Therefore GNG is required. GNG cannot be satisfied by definition when the season hasn't started. Once it has finished it might do, just [[WP:TOOSOON|not yet]. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage on television, there's a lot more live National League games shown than League Two. --Jimbo^[online] 20:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allity[edit]

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

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of what third-party sources say. This article uses no citations and is a summary of self-published promotional information about this organization.

For this article to be kept, general notability guidelines must be met by identifying 2 or more reliable sources which discuss this organization. Two sources featuring this organization as the subject have not yet been identified. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there are enough reliable secondary sources listed on this page as references already. Maybe the page needs to be expanded further. The Australian Financial Review reports that they are about to become the largest private owner of aged care homes in Australia. http://www.afr.com/street-talk/aged-care-operator-allity-ahead-of-estia-bupa-in-race-for-croft-portfolio-20160522-gp18kr Seems like a notable Australian entity. MarekJG (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Hi. Aged care is a major challenge and a significant policy area in Australia. The growing of importance of aged care and specifically residential aged care is widely acknowledged and is indicated by CEPAR, which is funded by the Australian Government through Australian Research Council in their fact sheet: http://www.cepar.edu.au/media/101879/cepar_aged_care_fact_sheet_low.pdf

These articles discuss the organisation, Allity and are from independent and reliable sources, specifically the Financial Review, The Australian, Australian Ageing Agenda and the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.afr.com/street-talk/aged-care-operator-allity-ahead-of-estia-bupa-in-race-for-croft-portfolio-20160522-gp18kr http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/eyes-on-allity-after-japara-puts-spring-in-step-of-agecare-sector/story-fnko7zi0-1226889462044 http://www.australianageingagenda.com.au/2016/03/23/growth-profit-aged-care-continues-2015-acar/ http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/age-of-change-as-big-players-expand-in-aged-care-sector-20150623-ghvf36.html

As indicated in the above articles the organisation is a major and growing residential aged care provider in Australia. This can also be seen by looking at the service list put together by the Federal Department of Health: https://agedcare.health.gov.au/ageing-and-aged-care-overview/about-aged-care/aged-care-service-list-australia

There are other Wiki articles about providers of residential aged care such as Baptcare, Bupa and Catholic Health Care.

Therefore I think the article should stay.

PinkAechFas (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources from PinkAechFas can make an article that technically meets inclusion criteria, and which is notable enough, even if not radically exciting intellectually. Multiple sources attest to this segment of the Australian elderly care sector being in disruptive evolution, with the subject of this article being one of 6 to 10 larger entities which are displacing smaller organizations. The AfD pivot is that WP:RS do exist. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blatant violation of WP:PLAGIARISM. I'm also going to blank most of User:Trilliant, which is a copy of this, and thus equally a violation of WP:PLAGIARISM. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar metamorphosis[edit]

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

The entire article is copied word for word from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stellar_metamorphosis. This source has a Creative Commons license, but it is still egregious plagiarism. The article concerns a fringe theory of dubious notability which has previously been deleted from Wikipedia. I can't see a way to save it. Lithopsian (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I moved this from the previous discussion page. ansh 666 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfD and as a copyvio. ansh 666 21:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - the previous discussion established in great detail that this topic fails WP:FRINGE. Fringe theories have to be notable to be discussed on Wikipedia, and this one isn't notable, since all major sources are self-published on the vanity publishing website viXra, presumably by the poster or an associate, failing WP:OR. (The article text has a lot of derisive comments on the theory because the poster copied the text over from RationalWiki, but it's clear from the comments below that the poster believes in it word for word.) The claim expressed below that this idea has a long history is groundless - it's based solely on Oparin, a writer on biochemistry, who was loosely summarising knowledge of the history of the universe at a time before stellar fusion was understood, when it was thought that the sun might be made of radioactive materials like uranium, a super-hot ball of lava, or even literally on fire. This is not a theory taken seriously by anyone anywhere except the author, and the article should be deleted at once. Blythwood (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The beginning of the theory is expounded upon by Alexander Oparin in the translation of his work, "The Origin of Life". For those who do not know, Alexander Oparin's hypothesis of the formation of life was shown to be plausible by the Miller-Urey experiment. This same hypothesis clearly regards the formation of life to happen simultaneously as the formation of the Earth itself, which leads the author to the conclusion that the main origin of life hypothesis clearly includes the understanding of Earth being an ancient star at the very end of its evolution. To refute the statement by Blythwood that all major sources are self-published it should be noted that in Oparin's work it is made 100% clear that Earth is an ancient star. These are from the last source reference, “Spectroscopic studies of the red stars lead us to the conclusion that this must first have taken place when the Earth passed from the stage of being a yellow star to that of a being a red one.” and “There was a time when the Earth, too, was passing through the same stage of development as the Sun, namely that of being a yellow star. Later, as it gradually radiated its heat outwards into the cold interplanetary space, it became cooler and cooler. It turned from a yellow star into a red one, its light became dimmer and dimmer and finally went out altogether. The Earth became a dark planet.” As well, it is referenced in one of the self-published papers that Nicolas of Cusa himself, even before Copernicus began his work, claimed that Earth is a star like all the others. "The earth is a star like other stars, is not the centre of the universe, is not at rest, nor are its poles fixed... Had Copernicus been aware of these assertions he would probably have been encouraged by them to publish his own monumental work. The latter statements are on the page Nicolas of Cusa. It is made clear that not only is this theory notable, but that the reason why it appears not to be is because it did not have a name. Now that it has a name, it can be further developed accordingly, to account for the correct version of natural events in astrophysics, namely planet formation being stellar evolution itself, as well as allowing for the International Astronomical Union to properly define exoplanet being that no scientific definition currently exists for them. This is a notable theory that needs to be placed in an encyclopedia as it spans 5 centuries. Trilliant (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dangerous Woman (album). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side To Side[edit]

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

Not a single. Not a notable song. Bilegrub (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found some sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dangerous Woman (album). Fails WP:NSONG, and all the brief information in this article is included in the album article anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dangerous Woman (album). The article is too short and the song is not confirmed as the next single. --Thef12 (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; article is not up to Wikipedia standards, despite being notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleccat (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleccat: With a bit of work, standards can be brought forth. Unless the article is irreparably bad, we keep the article and tag it for cleanup. And AfD is not cleanup. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 18:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, this article IS irreparably bad and would be better of getting a ground-up rework, or being deleted. Aleccat (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Dangerous Woman (album). Sources listed above by GeoffreyT2000 basically just assert that the song exists. A Train^talk 13:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least redirect; if it becomes the biggest song ever, we can revist the idea of having a page. But as of right now, there is no reason to have anything more than what is on the album page. Kellymoat (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is also another Side to Side page that I redirected to this one. Kellymoat (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, move it to Side to Side :: case of letters rule. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I am allowed to comment on your comment, but I am sure someone will tell me about if I am not. >> I've already voted for it to be deleted, but If kept I would rather have it contain in parenthesis that it is a song. Like side to side (ariana grand song) Kellymoat (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, of course, you are allowed to comment.) It's not necessary, because there is no other article by the title "Side to Side". If someone creates another notable article, then this page can be moved (though even then "Side to Side (song)" would be sufficient unless the new article is also about a song). nyuszika7h (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13th Child[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. Result of previous AfD was "Procedural keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" as per the sources provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep first of all the result of the previous AfD was not "procedural keep", it was just a normal "keep" (the result of the AfD before that was "procedural keep"). This conclusion was reached because the film has been the subject of articles in The New York Times and Publishers Weekly. Admittedly that debate was a while ago but even under today's standards that is clear evidence of notability and both are currently cited in the article. Hut 8.5 21:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have enough significant coverage in reliable sources. I found this tv guide review. Gab4gab (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs some improvement, sure, but notability has been established. Notability would've been established via the RT reviews alone, as reviews have always been usable for notability giving purposes for movies. The thing about RT is that they don't take reviews from just anyone - the reviewers have to meet very specific guidelines that are actually pretty difficult for the average movie reviewer to meet, especially for websites:

"Online publications must achieve and maintain a minimum 500,000 unique monthly visitors according to comScore, Inc or Nielsen Net Ratings and reviews must have an average length of at least 300 words. Publications must also show a consistent standard of professionalism, writing quality, and editorial integrity across all reviews and articles. Lastly, site design and layout should also reflect a reasonable level of quality and must have a domain name specific to the property."

So basically, it's not like just anyone can join up or that site popularity alone would be the sole criteria. Also like the others have said, the film has been covered in various outlets. This movie will never be Citizen Kane or The Exorcist, but it's gotten enough coverage to justify passing NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trout the nominator, basically every word in his deletion rationale is completely inaccurate. Also, there is an obvious lack of WP:BEFORE if not more (apparently he did not even checked the RT link and the other sources currently in the article), the article was nominated just two minutes after starting another AfD. I would also note in a few hours the nominator voted for deletion in about 200 AfD, boldly redirected dozens of articles with the rationale "non notable on its own since 2008" and prodded dozens of others, generally spending one minute per article. I have not looked into them except for a couple, but if his carefulness is the same he showed here, a topic ban could be necessary. Cavarrone 12:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination -- duly trouted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Vašut[edit]

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found. Article tagged "Notabiity" since 2008. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was prodded with a rationale that he "Appears to be an actor of minor notability in native language, but not in English." There's plenty of Czech coverage available from a Google search, and as I stated when I deprodded it, "if he's notable in any language, he's notable full stop". --Michig (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article via CAT:NN. The sources, if available, have not demonstrated themselves in eight years; that's why I nominated the article for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes there's a lot of significant coverage on Gnews. And Google Translate makes reading it a snap. He appears to be more notable now as a game show moderator. But he is notable nonetheless. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig above and per obvous lack of competence by the nominator (being notable in native language sources is enough to pass WP:N). Among other things, the Czech version of the article shows Vašut having entries on several printed encyclopedias [5]. As noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13th Child (3rd nomination), in a few hours the nominator started/voted for deletion in about 200 AfD, boldly redirected dozens of articles with the rationale "non notable on its own since 2008" and prodded dozens of others, generally spending one minute per article. If his carefulness is the same he showed here and elsewhere, a topic ban could be necessary. Cavarrone 13:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is clearly important. Also, I agree with Cavarrone that this user should be topic banned. Infact, I thing that an investigation should be launched to see if these editor's edits are automated, because they seem to be. Ethanlu121 (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Careful With That Axe (John 5 album)[edit]

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

The title redirects to the article on John 5, the guitarist, and so this page should be merged into that article. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is about an individual album from John 5 (guitarist). Article needs expansion but is definitely noteworthy. Dane2007 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John 5 (guitarist). I do not see coverage sufficient for individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note It was also created at Careful with That Axe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I redirected that to Careful With That Axe (John 5 album). — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article, as the dab was unnecessary and it's pretty uncontroversial. Just an FYI for whoever closes this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of RS coverage, from rather mainstream website's too. Failure of WP:BEFORE. Doubtful that anyone bothered to look.

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/rob-zombie-guitarist-john-5-careful-with-that-axe-album-details-revealed/
http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/john-5-talks-new-album-careful-with-that-axe-track-by-track-604326
https://www.guitar.com/articles/john-5-interview-shreddin-surprises
http://www.guitarworld.com/magazine-features-news-interviews/john-5-shows-his-telecaster-collection-and-discusses-new-album
http://www.revolvermag.com/news/interview-john-5-talks-new-solo-album-careful-with-that-axe-and-rob-zombie-projects.html Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As interviews, those lack independence from the artist. WP:NALBUM#C1 — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the content. Did you actually check them? Some vary, but look at the Blabbermouth one, for example. Most of the content is written by Blabbermouth staff, it's not interview format. Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had checked them. The Blabbermouth one is okay. The other four are in interviews consisting mostly of quotes from the artist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both the MusicRadar and Guitar.com sources have 4-5 paragraphs of prose before they even get into the interview part of it. That's third party written. They're not just conversation transcripts. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth dedicated some more sources to the album too - http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/rob-zombie-metal-obsession/ and http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/rob-zombie-guitarist-john-5-to-release-this-is-my-rifle-single-next-month/ for example. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect "Careful With That Axe" - Careful With That Axe is a valid search term, which should be either kept or redirected. I am, however, indifferent on whether "Careful With That Axe (John 5 album)" should be kept, because the former is not ambiguous. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if kept, it should be moved to the title without disambiguation, as there's nothing to disambiguate from. The "(John 5 album)" part of the title, per policy, isn't needed. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've completely rewritten the article with reliable, third party sources usable per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. It's entirely different than it was at the time of nomination, and I've still got more to add too, so please look it over first before adding a stance. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - It looks like the album charted as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- change vote to keep because of the significant work that's been done on the article with new sources added. Songs for Sanity looks rather barren however. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering. Yeah, it looks like a number of his articles could use work, but I do believe they're likely to be notable - he's played for so many big bands (Rob Zombie, Marilyn Manson) and done sessions work in the studio for so many other artists (that's what I'm familiar with him from - Anthems for the Damned) that he almost surely gets enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG for his releases. (I don't mean it in an "inherited way - I know WP:NOTINHERITED - I just mean, he's popular enough through other means that websites also cover his solo albums.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawing it. will someone pls add the refs listed here DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W3Schools[edit]

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

No indication of notability -- earlier versions should be examined also , such as [6]. They contained material removed as advertising, but it might conceivably have some bearing on notability DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: according to Alexa it is ranked the 51st most popular site in India, and world wide it is number 210. Alexa info is in the infobox and in a reference. Googling "w3schools" yields 2,820,000 results. --Cornellier (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A veery popular website. One of the most popular programming / web development websites. There aren't that many articles about it as there's not that much to write about: it's simply a tutorial website. But many news articles etc. reference it. Cornellier already noted the Alexa rank and Google results. --Fixuture (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I gave above. --Cornellier (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to make a definite argument yet, but I will say that this website is routinely used in various classrooms as a teaching tool. I've had it used in web based classes in two different universities. It also seems to be used as a reference in various different academic books and textbooks, as well as general "how to" books (minus of course the books published directly by W3Schools). ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11] ) I'm actually pretty surprised that there isn't coverage out there, since it's always seemed to be such a mainstay in web design classes. It's even a reference in this book about criminal justice information systems. I think that there could be a definite argument to be made for its impact on education, given that it's a frequently used and referenced website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important site that became noted for being actively disliked by many professional devs back in 2011 (examples [12] [13] -- that controversy generated a lot of citations and the article should be expanded to reflect that, if nothing else. I find it hard to believe there hasn't been more stuff written about a site that's been a popular destination for 20 years. A Train^talk 13:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Weber State Wildcats men's basketball team[edit]

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

I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss this team in any detail. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 01:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSEASONS as an individual men's basketball season in the top amateur league in the United States (NCAA Division I) which garners hundreds of millions of dollars annually for this sport alone. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the season hasn't yet begun, so there's that. If you'll notice, 2016–17 NCAA Division I men's basketball season#Conference standings there's dozens of teams that have had articles created for the upcoming season. Lizard (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SEASONS as mentioned above. The NCAA Division I is the top amateur league in the United States, and seasons in it are notable. The season hasn't started yet, but there is enough information available from Reliable sources to merit an article. Smartyllama (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above, and prior AfD precedent. For some reason, it seems like we have to keep having this same discussion over and over again, every single year. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, this fails WP:NSEASONS (see below) and is probably WP:TOOSOON.
(A) "For college sports teams weigh both the season itself and the sport" - it is impossible to weigh the season because the season is not yet underway, and no commensurate significant coverage has occurred.

(1) "A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable" - except the championship season or any other kind of season hasn't begun - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL.

(3) "A season including a post-season appearance or a high final ranking in the top collegiate level is often notable" except again there can't be a post season without a regular season first, and we don't know how things will turn out this year. Maybe Montana and Idaho each have a couple of top guns.

(4) This program might be considered elite being in the top tier - but the season still has to be covered in reliable sources, which it isn't.

(5) Lastly, "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article".

{Note) The other AfD mentioned above, should have resulted in delete according to these standards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That guideline really doesn't take into account how current seasons should be handled, it seems to focus exclusively on historical seasons. Seems like it needs some major re-work. There are many sport seasons that meet WP:GNG months before they start. I am still evaluating if this particular season does right now, but I have been surprised at how little coverage it has gotten compared to other programs. More to follow. Rikster2 (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been significant coverage of Weber State basketball in reliable sources, including [14], [15]. and [16]. Division I college basketball generally gets huge coverage in the US no matter who the team is, and thus even if it didn't satisfy WP:NSEASONS, it would satisfy WP:GNG. I already voted, but just wanted to address the GNG concerns. Smartyllama (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw those but I would consider those WP:ROUTINE. Usually with many college programs you get pretty in-depth coverage of the upcoming season by this point. I'm thinking stories like this and this and this. Not saying Weber State doesn't meet that, I just haven't looked very hard yet. Rikster2 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every men's division I team has had a season article for at least 3 years now.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Rikster2: mentions that wp:seasons "doesn't take into account how current seasons should be handled". It may seem that way, but it actually does account for a season in progress. Once the season is underway, it is likely reliable sources will cover the season and its games. So, it is not actually about waiting for the season to be over. Also, I have had a second look at the sources User:Smartyllama presented. I think the first source suffices [17] - this seems to be what I am looking for. And I think the second source is marginally in there [18]. Both of these sources appear to be providing independent coverage that could be construed as significant. This is because the season is the subject of both articles. Furthermore, if I read wp:seasons correctly it is essentially saying that Division I team seasons only need to pass WP:V, because they are already in an elite program (or something like that). I'll have to read it again. What do the other editors think of this? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Lizard (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it serves no purpose to delete this now, only to recreate it a few months down the road. Lepricavark (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Y. Du[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable pageant winner. Many of the sources in the article are unreliable. There was a former AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selena Du, for a differently titled article about the same subject. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable subject and coverage is insufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Fails GNG. This has been deleted twice before although under a different name. Looks like the author used the middle initial to create it again? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winner of a non-notable beauty pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and keep an eye on the article creator, who hasn't edited anything outside this topic. Lepricavark (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG, sources are unreliable. Note that this article creator also created the Chinese wikipedia article, and the Japanese and French ones were created by another SPA.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fall short of requirements for GNG, and as the subject's main claim to fame appears to be that of a model, that would fall under WP:NMODEL, and none of the requirements appear to be met there. Im also having source checking problems, can't tell if these sources are reliable or not. Irondome (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ros Donne[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of non-notable athlete. Competition only at university level generally falls far short of the standard of WP:ATHLETE and WP:NTRACK. Incredibly distant relationship to notable poet totally fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a micro-stub article on a non notable athlete. Should have been PRODed perhaps? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy to an editor who requested it. You may view the discussion in the page history.

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD#G7 Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sriviswesh babu[edit]

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

Reason Sriviswesh Babu (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW, possibly bad faith WP:SK#2. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-democracy[edit]

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

Notability not established, this is not a theory or unique concept, sources are one person, article is extensively quoting one person, self-promotion UScentric (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep the concept may have originated with one person, but it has received massive attention. The original paper has received 1400 citations; the translations have received many hundred; and there are a number of reviews and other examinations of the topic. See this. Vanamonde (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Colin Crouch. This article is entirely about his thoughts on the topic. It should be under his name. No need to give the same material in two articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. That article is up for deletion too. Secondary sources are needed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His article will probably be kept by the academic standards, so merging will take care of the issues, except for secondary sources still needed and would be helpful.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nom is an SPA who started by doing some blanking at Cultural assimilation and then started nominating for deletion several articles that seem vaguely related to P2P research, without any apparent knowledge of what WP:N is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If a merge is a good idea, that can be discussed on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crouch's analysis seems quite notable. It's old wine in new bottles though – see the iron law of oligarchy, for example. For this reason it's best to to keep the theorising separate from the biographical pages. Andrew D. (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination implies no WP:BEFORE check has been conducted; doing one finds dozens of RS on the topic. WP:GNG. FourViolas (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- non trivial topic with sufficient RS coverage to establish notability. Merge may be an option to be decided on later. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Fagan[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No independent reliable sourcing. No sourced biographical content. Thoroughly unencyclopedic text. Claimed award is borderline notable at best and falls well-below the well-known/significant standard; even if it were somehow seen as a technical pass, that couldn't outweigh the complete failure to meet sourcing requirements for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing suggests notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Lepricavark (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single source except for the award. Should have been speedily deleted under WP:G10 as an unsourced attack page. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keira Nicole[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No non-trivial biographical content. "Best Actress—Couples-Themed Release" is a recently created, little-noted award category with no discernible selection criteria; in fact. "Couples-Themed Release" is an arbitrary/meaningless category -- the term gets no GBooks hits, and virtually all, if not all, the Ghits relate to this or related award categories, not do any topic with independent meaning. Even if this were to get a technical, tenuous PORNBIO pass, that is outweighed by the utter failure to even remotely approach meeting the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She does not pass even the low notability criteria we have set for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- coverage does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she won individual award, she meets the notability criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 01:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: an award confers some nature of possible notability, but actual notability still needs to be demonstrated via "significant coverage in reliable sources" as per WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The PORNBIO standard requires a "well-known" and "significant" award, which is a higher standard than an "individual" award. This !vote misrepresents the applicable guideline and should therefore be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO with her XBIZ Award for Best Actress (Couples-Themed Release), which is a well-known/significant industry award that is not a scene-related/ensemble category. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Angelina resulted in keep due to several award wins, among them XBIZ and Best Actress. Winning a subcategory of Best Actress is just as valid under PORNBIO as winning a generic Best Actress award. It's not unusual for porn awards to have Best Actress subcategories instead of a generic Best Actress award. XBIZ having Best Actress (Feature Release), Best Actress (Parody Release), Best Actress (Couples-Themed Release), and Best Actress (All-Girl Release) subcategories is no different from AVN having Best Actress (Film) and Best Actress (Video) subcategories, NightMoves having Best Actress (Fan's Choice) and Best Actress (Editor's Choice) subcategories, or Venus having Best Actress (USA), Best Actress (Hungary), Best Actress (Scandinavia), Best Actress (France), Best Actress (Germany), and Best Actress (Europe) subcategories. The Eva Angelina AfD I cited above had participants who voted keep with her AVN Best Actress (Video) award, a subcategory/not generic, being one of the reasons why. Even if, in addition to a Best Actress subcategory, an award show had a generic Best Actress award, the recipient of the subcategory would also pass PORNBIO. Christy Mack received a Best Actress (International) Venus Award in a ceremony where a generic Best Actress award was also given, and participants in her AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy Mack) voted keep with her Venus Best Actress (International) award being one of the reasons why. XBIZ's Best Actress (Couples-Themed Release) is just as valid under PORNBIO as AVN's Best Actress (Video) and Venus's Best Actress (International). Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the coverage that demonstrates the subject's notability? An awards confers some measure of presumed notability, but the actual notability still needs to be demonstrated via significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as per WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all close for the substance of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All delete votes above are either claiming that Nicole fails WP:PORNBIO, even though she undeniably passes it ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"), or asking that the article be deleted because she fails GNG, which doesn't matter. Consensus has repeatedly supported keeping articles that fail GNG if they pass PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change may apply. As part of AfD, each article is evaluated on its own merits, I believe. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keep-ers seem to have neglected to read the introduction to PORNBIO, which says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (bolding in original, underlining added) The article says absolutely nothing about Keira Nicole except that she's won and been nominated for awards. That's just not enough to be notable. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While the XBIZ Awards are certainly a "well-known" adult film "industry award" ceremony, the "Best Actress—Couples-Themed Release" award appears to be a niche award category instead of a "significant" award category. The AVN Award award categories for "Best Actress, Video" & "Best Actress, Film" are apparently a relic of the days when certain adult films were release in certain theaters or just straight-to-video. In general, well-developed Wikipedia articles need to have significantly more information in them than is displayed here at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am also curious why this (and related) articles prominently display Nominated entries. Are these awards like the Oscars, with a nomination being a rare honour, or are dozens of people get nominated in each category? It also seems there is an awful lot of awards and all of them are claimed to be significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SoftXpand[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been at AfD twice previously but there is nothing at all in the article to denote notability in that the product does not have extensive coverage from reliable third parties. There is one reference from ZDNet which is no "arms length" as it seems the company requested the product review. Both of the other AfDs closed with "No Consensus", in part because of the number of "Keep" requests but in looking at the content of the Keep requests, most quoted references such as blogs or PR releases which would not assist in denoting notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software product, as I have said in the 2nd AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no reputable coverage whatsoever. Yvarta (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorial on an unremarkable product; fails GNG and good taste :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project Mimesis[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 11:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 11:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Since its creation in 2006 (!), the article has stayed unsourced. This seems to be because it simply hasn't been covered in any independent, reliable sources. This was all I could find, and that is neither significant coverage nor a reliable source. Kolbasz (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a few trivial mentions of the topic in books, but I could find no significant coverage. Yvarta (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google finds no sources which are simultaneously reliable, independent, and in-depth. Google Books finds nothing with "project mimesis" along with "xbox" or any of the creators' handles. Google Scholar finds this paper, which is discussing a defunct project about storytelling in video games, called Mimesis, run by some people at the North Carolina University Dept. of Computer Science. That project had a bunch of papers written about it and so has a decent chance of passing GNG, but if it's the same as the one described in the article (I think it isn't), the article does such a bad job of describing it that WP:TNT applies. FourViolas (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That NCSU project is a completely different thing. Kolbasz (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing suggests notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Hits: Adjustable Ratings Setting[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 11:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 11:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find any source that prove its existence. Even if it exists, it should be merged to the parent article Platinum Hits. AdrianGamer (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly, sounds dubious, and that's putting it lightly. Fails WP:GNG either way. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many various opinions have been presented here. Early in the discussion, some users, and one user later on, stated that this is a WP:BIO1E situation, while others countered this, stating that the subject has received significant coverage over a sustained period of time. The latter notion was backed up with the provision of sources by a user in the discussion. Of note is that none of the users opining for deletion or merging per WP:BIO1E stated an actual, specific single event the subject is supposedly only known for, although it can be assumed that this notion is regarding the subject's employment or resignation from Planned Parenthood. Of importance is that the basis of WP:BIO1E is specifically about people notable for only one event, literally, a single event, but the subject has received ongoing coverage regarding several matters and events, rather than only one single event. The sources provided in the discussion report about several aspects of the subject, including Johnson's activities at speaking engagements, activism, some content about a book the subject authored, and the subject challenging Planned Parenthood's President, among others. As such, per the sources provided, the WP:BIO1E arguments are not congruent with the actual wording and intent of WP:BIO1E. These sources also served to counter the notion of WP:NOTNEWS advanced in the nomination, which is based upon Wikipedia avoiding original reporting and "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities," among other matters. A couple of users based deletion upon the notion that the article is promotional, but this notion did not gain traction in the form of a sufficient consensus herein to warrant deletion upon this view alone. Several users stated that the subject is notable as per meeting WP:GNG and as per the sources. The overall consensus herein, per the overall strengths of the arguments relative to guidelines and policies, is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Johnson (activist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

With a few years' distance, we can see that this was a flash in the pan without the lasting persistence notability guidelines call for; doesn't seem to have been covered in reliable sources for more than a few weeks after the initial news story. Even her book a few years later seems to have failed to get her back into the public eye, attracting no notice I'm aware of. I considered recommending a merge to Planned Parenthood, but compare the encyclopedic content there to this trivial little story; it would be inappropriate. Johnson isn't notable, it turns out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First AFD was withdrawn in response to overwhelming keepsentiment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Planned Parenthood per WP:BIO1E. Deletion and a redlink is just an invitation to re-create the article. The incident could be noted briefly in the main article or perhaps there is a spinoff article that lists similar events. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BIO1E is pretty clear, but I don't think she is notable enough to include in PP's article. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has gotten significant coverage all over the country over the years: 2016 (Ohio), 2016, 2013 (Texas), 2015 (Washington), 2012 (national), 2015 (Texas), 2016 (Chicago), 2011, 2011 (national), 2016 (national). --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has gotten significant coverage in sources from many locations. This is over a sustained area and a sustained amount of time. The only justification for removing this article would be to give pro-life people who have sympathetic stories less attention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Big coverage, not clear if limited to one event. Millbug ^talk 03:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The story's trivial, yes, but the subject worked for almost a decade on Planned Parenthood so she's more or less a big deal on both sides. Jebbiex : Talk 04:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see this as promotional for her current views. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-encyclopedic and promotional. Sources do not suggest lasting notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, GRuban has sucessfully demonstrated that she clearly meets the GNG. The article should be edited for neutrality, but it currently is not beyond saving.Tazerdadog (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are there. Keep as per User:Jebbiex and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with kudos to User:GRuban for bringing sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (unsure -- leaning weak delete) - There was the WP:BIO1E coverage, but I dispute that GRuban's sources are evidence of continued coverage (and that they're even reliable sources). They're all self-published (e.g. a reader blog hosted by the Houston Chronicle is not the Houston Chronicle), opinion columns, small local papers, biased publications which engage in pro-life activism, or some combination thereof. Whether it's enough to demonstrate that the subject has had lasting significance is a tough question. I would feel a lot more comfortable if we had a couple examples of mainstream coverage outside of opinion columns. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wow. your comment made me go back to double check GRuman's sources, first one I clicked: 2016 (Chicago)[19] is not "self-published"; it appears to be an an op-ed from the Chicago Sun-Times. Although not news content, an op-ed can certainly be used to establish ongoing notability. At that point, I decided to check for myself by running her through news google. The search: [20], like the Sun times op ed, validates her as having a continuing public profile: there's a Daily Camera article covering a speech she gave: [21]; one in The Tidings (newspaper) here:[22] that mentions her; a major story in the Christian Post, [23]. In short, it is just as User:GRuban asserted, ongoing coverage that validates notability.WP:SNOWBALL. Small town papers do count towards notability, albeit not the way a Washington Post article does. But what is troubling here is your apparant dismissal of journalism in Christian press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting some words in my mouth here. Obviously the Chicago Sun-Times is not self-published; it's an opinion column written by Kathryn Jean Lopez. I said the sources fit into one or more of the categories I list -- self-published, local, biased, and/or opinion columns. I specifically pointed out the one that looked, on the surface, to be the Houston Chronicle but was in fact a reader blog (as far as self-published goes). Regardless, small town papers can count, but if we're talking about establishing ongoing coverage, then there needs to be more. Someone notable for one event can give a talk at a local venue, and their celebrity status from that one event will get them coverage in local papers. The bar is lower, which is why they count for less. Meh. "Apparent dismissal of journalism in Christian press" is quite an accusation based on a single !vote, especially since I've used/cited Christian/religious sources in other AfDs. I'll assume there's an "[on this issue]" in there, which would be more or less accurate. What I do dismiss (not quite dismiss, but I don't think they add very much) in looking for notability, are biased sources that overplay the importance of a subject when it fits in with a political aim. There are a whole lot of subjects that only get picked up by Breitbart, Daily Caller, National Review, Washington Times, Red State, Rush Limbaugh, etc. (or, on the other hand, Daily Kos, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Salon, etc.). The journalistic value of each varies significantly, of course, with e.g. Washington Times and Salon used frequently throughout Wikipedia. But for establishing the notability of, say, some flash in the pan critic of Donald Trump on one side, or of a pro-life activist, on the other, then the publications/agencies that routinely advocate for that particular position are not the kind of sources that show broad significance. I will say that I was wrong about the Daily Camera, which I mistook to be a college newspaper. I'll unbold my weak delete since I remain unsure, but I'd still want to see more good coverage before supporting (not that this thread appears to need another keep). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I wrote "wow" because when I saw your name attacked to that post I thought I must have really blown it in evaluating this article. But your are correct, I did misread your comment to say that they were "all self-published;" but then clicked only 1 of the stories liked by Ruben that made your comment appear so inaccurate that I took it for ill-intention. For that I do apologize. And further state that I recognized your name as an active editor without actual memory of your politics. I next decided to run my own search, a simple news google, just to see if she is indeed still in fact being talked about. It showed a lot of articles by some apparent abortion activist group that I skipped as I began to bring valid sources to the page. I stopped part way down the first page (google organizes it roughly by date) when I found a detailed, reported story ( April 2016) in the Christian Post. It is such a major paper, with highly professional editing and real journalists, that I stopped right there, since it completely disproves Nom's assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Chronicle 2015 is not a blog; neither is Washington Times 2015; Mother Jones 2016 (less in depth, but mentions she's an important part of Rubio's campaign, and MJ is the opposite of a pro-life publication); National Catholic Register 2013, Catholic News Agency 2016, and National Review 2011 clearly have a point of view but bias doesn't make them not Wikipedia:Reliable sources. More importantly, look at the sheer number of them, and the years they span. She's clearly notable if so many have noted her for so many years. New York Times (2012) says she "has achieved rock-star status within the anti-abortion movement", and that's pretty clearly true.--GRuban (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle 2015 link got paywalled in the last week, but it's very real. Here is the Google cache which should be good for a few days, this is real coverage, not a one-line mention of her. --GRuban (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs some work, but subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Instaurare (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of the Philippines. czar 16:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Diliman Extension Program in Pampanga[edit]

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

This appears to be a promotional piece about the program. The program does not appear to be independently notable outside of the university, however. KDS4444 (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination in favor of the redirect, to save everyone time and effort. All other subunits have either been deleted or redirected, no reason not to do the same with this one post haste. KDS4444 (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of the Philippines -- not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike vote in view of the nomination having been withdrawn. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of the Philippines. czar 16:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Diliman Extension Program in Olongapo[edit]

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

The university is notable, yes. Not the extension program. KDS4444 (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of the Philippines -- not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination in favor of the redirect, to save everyone time and effort. All other subunits have either been deleted or redirected, no reason not to do the same with this one post haste. KDS4444 (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Strike vote in view of the nomination having been withdrawn. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Criterion 1). I went ahead and made the suggested redirect, but, as the nomination was withdrawn, that's an ordinary blank and redirect, not one mandated by this discussion. (non-admin closure) Rebb ing 13:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UP Diliman Department of Geodetic Engineering[edit]

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

The university with which it is affiliated is likely notable. This particular department, however, does not appear to be. KDS4444 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC) *Redirect to University of the Philippines -- not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination in favor of the redirect, to save everyone time and effort. All other subunits have either been deleted or redirected, no reason not to do the same with this one post haste. KDS4444 (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marton Kovacs[edit]

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

Apparently non notable author and advisor. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable author and coverage is insufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. Author and book are relevant in Europe. Kovacs's book (How to run the European Parliament by Marilyn Political) has been a bestseller in several European countries (see Amazon rankings). The author's book "How to run the European Parliament" is mandatory reading in European studies in several European universities. Kovacs advises several Members of the European Parliament and avoids publicity. This Wikipedia entry is the best and one of the few sources where information about Kovacs can be obtained. Instead of deleting, wikipedia authors (maybe from Europe?) should provide more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.208.50.49 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not applicable to how Wikipedia actually works, however. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the subject's books appear to be self-published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. He's a consultant and I don't think yet notable. Sample article by the subject: " 7 Dumb Things First Time MEPs do". So a typical business person engaging in self-promotion, it appears: "Marton Kovacs is the author of “How to Run the European Parliament” (CreateSpace, 2015) and founder of Marilyn Political, a consulting company advising political leaders.". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read the sample article and read no self-promotion. The article is entirely about political strategy. The quotes are not by the author but by Politico, explaining who the author is and why he is relevant to be published.

Comment: this was a typical author's blurb that often runs with the article by the author. They are often author submitted, i.e. self-sourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all convincing, nothing satisfying better. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete the entry. All Members of the European Parliament (equivalent to Members of Congress in the US) have their Wikipedia pages. Marton Kovacs advises many of them, but only very few things are known about him. Currently, the European Parliament's website shows that he advises Members from at least three Member States of the EU, from three different political parties. His book 'How to Run the European Parliament' is read and followed by many in the European Parliament. According to the books's Amazon page, the book is recommended by politicians from Germany, Spain, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Slovakia, and Bulgaria. The book is published under the pseudonym 'Marilyn Political'. This Wikipedia entry is the only source where the identity of 'Marilyn Political' is highighted and where the few public sources about Kovacs are collected: Kovacs publishes articles on political strategy in newspapers such as Politico and comments on political strategy issues in Belgian, Austrian, and Hungarian media outlets. The sources ORF.at and Index.hu are the most read news portals in Austria and Hungary. In the source ORF.at Kovacs is commenting on EU politics together with Hannes Swoboda, the leader of the European Socialists. Will his Wikipedia entry get deleted next? I believe 'this article is a stub' would be the right solution instead of deletion. EU politics, its key players, and relevance are not well known in the world. People who do not follow the matter should not push for deleting the few existing sources such as this.

Comment: an "advisor" to MPs (i.e. a political consultant) is not an occupation that confers inherent notability. "All Members of the European Parliament (equivalent to Members of Congress in the US) have their Wikipedia pages. Marton Kovacs advises many of them" is not a valid argument, since notability is not WP:inherited. All articles need to stand on their own. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: the IP editor commenting here has only made two contributions thus far: Special:Contributions/81.192.170.158. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW, possibly bad-faith WP:SK#2. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Bauwens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability non-existent, self-promotion UScentric (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - why is this getting nominated again? Notability is clearly sufficient: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] (note: more can be found in the previous nomination discussions - I won't list them all). Furthermore he has over 12k followers on twitter, is the founder of the P2P Foundation and is a a recognized spokesperson who has been called the single most active thinker about questions of peer-production/commons.

--Fixuture (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nom is an SPA who started by doing some blanking at Cultural assimilation and then started nominating for deletion several articles that seem vaguely related to P2P research, without any apparent knowledge of what WP:N is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the nomination appears to be capricious, as previous AfDs confirmed notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he seems to definitely pass notability. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahana Deol[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; micro-stub article on a non-notable dancer. The result of two prior AfDs (in 2006 & 2007) was "delete". A new article was created in 2011 under the same name. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the nominator. After having a look the previous AfD discussion, and some few searches, the subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 15:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DemExit[edit]

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

A hashtaggy thing that was picked up by a few news media for a little while (including Breitbart). A7 was denied though no valid claim of importance was made. Does not pass GNG, we're NOTNEWS, etc. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is mostly just a hashtag, couched in loaded, frequently ungrammatical language, and sourced entirely to right-wing websites like Breitbart and the Unification Church-owned Washington Times. There's nothing encyclopedic about this article. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an un-encyclopedic article about a hashtag. Sourcing does not suggest notability at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a reactionary, hyper-recent neologism that has no demonstration of any lasting notability or impact on anything. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NEO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above, fails NEO. Lepricavark (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meter Theory[edit]

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

In no way notable. Sourced entirely to a blog and discussion posts. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Neologism. COI article by author of non-notable blog post. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Invented by the author. No independent sources. Sourced only to a blog by the article's author and to a discussion post (also by the author) pointing to the same blog. Falls under the WP:NOT#OR section of WP:NOT. Meters (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined speedy deletion, enough claim of significance to overcome CSD A11. However, this clearly fails WP:GNG. Invented by the article's author and sourced to the author's blog. Safiel (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable and appears to be original research by the article's creator. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - straight failure of WP:MADEUP. Blythwood (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and all of the above arguments, this has no notability. It is simply a reformulation of the Spoon theory which is the actual widely used metaphor for this phenomenon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth leaving a redirect to Spoon theory? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Lepricavark (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaad Megahed[edit]

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

Prof. Megahed seems to be a relatively senior professor, but not notable to the extent required by WP:PROF. Slashme (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 24. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Megahed has identified and cloned a human gene named LAD1. There was no link set to LAD1, where he was already cited. Megaheds h-index is even 28. Kipepea (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: LAD1 is a gene for a protein with unclear function. At the moment, there are more than 92 thousand known human proteins. If we consider anyone who has identified and cloned a human protein to be notable, that's a lot of people. Also, WP:PROF cautions against using a person's h-index to determine notability. --Slashme (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many highly-cited publications demonstrate a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David Downie. czar 16:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paris, Paris[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK — JFG ^talk 20:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David D. Downie. The book itself does not appear to be notable, but the author probably is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. First AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a tough one, as we don't have specific notability criteria for computer science conferences. I agree that the conference fails WP:GNG, as I was unable to find in depth secondary reliable sources. The best subject-specific criterion I can find is at the List of computer science conferences, which has inclusion based on having a ranking by MAR or other institutions. In this CASC seems to fail, as it is unranked at Top conferences in scientific computing or other ranking sites I gleaned from the article. So at this point, I don't see independent evidence of impact or notability, and am forced to conclude that this should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient sourcing to meet GNG and sustain an encyclopedia article. This content is already probably housed on the conference's web site, and does not need to be repeated here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Jujutacular (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Care[edit]

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

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of what third-party sources say. This article uses no citations and is a summary of self-published promotional information about this organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - self promotion --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A combination of a detailed directory listing with a little advertising. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promo copy on a non-notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --The coverage is all either local and / or trivial. If the article is pruned of promotional / self-cited / uncited material, there will be nothing left. The article was created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Andrew_bertran, so there's most likely an issue of COI here. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per above. Promotional and not enough coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions are broadly based on "there must be sources out there". However, this is Wikipedia, not the X-Files: per WP:BURDEN, the sources need to be named and identified by those wanting to keep an article, or the article is deleted. Sandstein 06:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Space Systems[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No independent third-party sources in the article and the only relevant search hits I could find were press releases. Prod contested by author. shoy (reactions) 14:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article might be possible, but this is a pure press release. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is a genuine company with at least one real product and some talked-about follow-ons. Googling "Millennium Space Systems" gives over 8,000 hits - there must be plenty of RS out there. But I agree it does need a severe pruning. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some pruning now done, also added refimprove template. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has encyclopedic value as Millennium Space Systems is an established company and has proved relevant to the defense industry. The Google search and substantial amount of hits that come up (mentioned above) combined with its appearance on at least one government website supports this. Improvements are being made in terms of content & page setup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaw22 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the coverage I see is mostly PR material, which does not amount to "significant coverage" to satisfy GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Name me one US company whose Internet coverage is not "mostly PR material" or other press woo. Name me another company anywhere that has put spacecraft into orbit but still does not satisfy GNG - isn't that a contradiction in terms? By Jan 2015 MSS had won over 7.7 million dollar's worth of Gov't contracts.[32] This comes from a an academic University web site. MSS has a name for Reaction wheels,[33][34][35]. OK MSS is not a pretty-pretty headliner like Virgin Galactic or XCOR, but it is a solid and steady supplier to US space programs both civil and military. How can you possibly maintain it fails GNG? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources offered above are NASA press release and trade news coverage. This does not meet CORPDEPTH, as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EHS Insight[edit]

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

non notable software from non notable company. Every reference here is a press release or a disguised press release or a mere listing.. DGG ( talk ) 12:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a product. As the nomination says, the given references are not substantial independent coverage, and my searches are not locating anything beyond trademark and product listings. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I wish I had commented before the relist so we could close this; there's essentially nothing basically convincing for the needed notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable software product from a non-notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pomplamoose (album)[edit]

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

Unremarkable tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist article Pomplamoose, where a track-list already is present, for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for recordings is met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable debut by notable artist. I added some contemporary references just now; more are out there. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet the general notability guideline with the additional sources added. Steven Walling • talk 07:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler–Yang equations[edit]

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

This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):

These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:

Most citations include Yang as one of the authors (i.e. are primary).
Citations numbers of the article look superficially impressive, but include many self-citations and even reek of a citation circle.
Articles have been created by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun, why likely is Yang himself.
I could not find any respectable overview books and articles describing this work as considered relevant in the field. —Ruud 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found on Google scholar. The primary sources has ~50 citations, a respectable number, but without other people using the same name for these equations it is difficult to tell whether those citations are even related to this article's subject, or whether they cite it for something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find sources independent of Fowler or Yang that looked at these equations in depth, and found no secondary sources using the term "Fowler-Yang equations". Without independent in depth sources, this topic fails notability thresholds per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert (film)[edit]

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

non-notable film which fails WP:NFO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As WP:NFO's are not notability criteria and are simply attributes to consider which usually apply to older films, perhaps the nominator instead wished to refer to WP:NF. That said, the thing has coverage but not in suitable sources. Time for looking beyond the article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can't find good sources on this one. Willing to change my mind if someone can do a better job. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Food Processor[edit]

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

Fails Primary Criteria in WP:ORG for product notability and WP:GNG. All available coverage on Google Newspapers are newspaper advertisements. Links for refs not working and searches at those websites fail to mention of this product. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See this AFD for the article on the the manufacturer, American Electric Corporation. The sources, such as they are, seem to be used in common. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No possible reason to keep. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product once manufactured by a non-notable company. Two of the three references are recall notices of different products. The other returns a 404 page not found error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article supporting notability. My searches found no significant independent coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable subject and insufficient sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zadara VPSA[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, and the article is written in a very promotional manner. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Only ref provided is low quality and does not mention Zadara in any case. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an enlarged product section on Zadara Storage. Not enough coverage to warrant a standalone page, but still relevant as what seems to be the company's big product. Yvarta (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (change from Redirect to Zadara Storage). Not notable on its own and Zadara Storage is also being considered for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother, as I've sent it to AfD. The COI users refuse to disclose, and the article fails too many policies to be kept. MSJapan (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was forked out in the first place, probably because I deleted it out of the article. I did that because it is closer to a discussion of the underlying technology than it is a product description, which is outside the scope of the article. A discussion of the technology was also the only thing that led to a third-party hit, so it was designed to be a "reliable source." MSJapan (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The technology isn't notable enough at this time. Stuff like this usually needs some good scholarly sources to show that it has started being adopted. In cases of technology invented by one particular company, the sources have to significantly describe the technology itself - independent of the company. That is not happening here. Clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as there's no actual substance here at all, and this should've been deleted as PROD. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ClanBase EuroCup[edit]

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

doesn't seem pass WP:NORG or appear in many reliable sources Prisencolin (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Chief State School Officers[edit]

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

Non-notable education organization tagged as unreferenced since January 2010. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- ~~advertorial content on an unremarkable association; insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG.~~. The below comment is convincing. They also appear to give out a notable award. Sort of borderline, but worth keeping. Copy should be adjusted to sound less advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is referenced by 6 independent sources, including encyclopedias of education issued by Routledge and Sage academic publishers. The organization is of national significance in determining US teaching standards, such as the controversial Common Core, which affects lives of many students and educators. -- 1630ab (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Threads[edit]

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

Non-notable store. DMacks (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abandoned article on run-of-the-mill, single-location store. I can't find any indication that this place is even open anymore. Zagalejo^^^ 16:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non notable + advertising. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ministry of Labour and Employment (India). MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Career Service, India[edit]

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

Inadequate evidence of notability. Ref. 4, financialexpress.com, contains a brief mention, the other three are unacceptable as evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable minor government agency. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ministry of Labour and Employment (India), the government ministry that sponsors this agency. I would also have recommended merging relevant information, but there's hardly anything here that would be useful in the parent's article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lace International Ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Notability is not inherited, publishing notable video games does not make the publisher itself notable. Article is WP:REFBOMB'ed to look like something, but they're mostly listings of companies and video games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Clarification: I have some questions about notability, just for better understanding. Please see the Talk page for this Article for Deletion entry for my questions. Even posting clarification on my own Talk page would be fine; I would just like to be better educated for future contributions.

Oneilius (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went through the current sourcing, which consists of business listings, repackaged press releases, and posts by community members (not journalists). I don't see significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), or at least enough to write a detailed, sourced article on the subject. Please {{ping}} me if you find better sourcing offline or in academic databases. czar 05:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Advertorial content on an otherwise unremarkable company. Souring not sufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 plus recreation of deletedarticle without improvement DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Manian[edit]

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

Non Notable businessman Uncletomwood (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Moroz[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete this one is closer in terms of available sources, but I still lean towards deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Nelson[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks requisite coverage to establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:REDIRECT] to Northern Ireland Association of Aeromodellers considered, but

North West Model Aircraft Club does not appear to be associated with the Northern Ireland Association of Aeromodellers
Northern Ireland Association of Aeromodellers appears to be of rather questionable notability itself Shirt58 (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North West Model Aircraft Club[edit]

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

This is a rather unnotable, local model aircraft club. It only has one reference and is entirely written by a member of the club who is seeking to promote it. Whilst the article is informative, I don't believe it to be of note. It doesn't pass GNG at all with no secondary sources. st170e^talk 01:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability per GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northern Ireland Association of Aeromodellers, the larger organization with which this club is affiliated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think it should be deleted, as above, I'd be willing to see a Redirect in preference to doing nothing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack or notability. Less preferred option is "Redirect" to Northern Ireland Association of Aeromodellers; not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that this is a matter of content organization and naming that can be resolved with mergers and/or redirects if needed, but does not require deletion. Sandstein 06:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally accepted accounting principles[edit]

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

This article tries to impose an Anglophone concept on all global economies, describing as an universal concept, which in fact is much more diverse.
Some jurisdictions don't have codified GAAP at all, multiple standard accounting practices for different types of business, use one or multiple foreign and/or international standards. Apart from US GAAP, UK GAAP, Canadian GAAP and possibly nl:Belgian GAAP, these mostly aren't called "GAAP" at all.
The frameworks are also very different in scope. The Plan Comptable Générale basically is a balance sheet, while a "German GAAP" is completely unknown – there's the HGB-Standard though.
At the same time, the article is almost identical to Standard accounting practice which is much better positioned as a main article to give an overview about US GAAP, UK GAAP, German HGB, the IFRS and many others standards. The "Global standardization" section may be merged to Standard accounting practice, otherwise Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (capitalized) should merely be a disambiguation page for the few standard accounting practices that are actually named "GAAP".
PanchoS (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that some jurisdictions don't have something called GAAP isn't a reason for deletion, see WP:OTHERSTUFF, it works both ways.--Savonneux (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, that's why we already have Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (United States), Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (Canada) and Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (UK). If you think we should have an overview article for GAAPs in these three and possibly a few more jurisdictions – such an article might be legitimate if GAAPs in these jurisdictions have something in common that sets them apart from standard accounting practices in other countries. That may be the case, but in the article there's currently not even an indication about that. Cleaning the article from overgeneralizations, WP:SYNTH and unsourced statements, only the #Global standardization section would remain, and might be merged to Standard accounting practice anyway. UMO, GAAP is the just the WP:SHAREDNAME of a few of these standards, and otherwise used a synonym of standard accounting practice as primarily used in the US. --PanchoS (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a set index article, not a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This isn't a good candidate for deletion. It needs editing or cleanup, not deletion.--Savonneux (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There's a clear need for an umbrella page. The page in question seems to currently duplicate standard accounting practice and they should perhaps be merged but that's not done by deletion. For a good source on the general topic see A Global History of Accounting, Financial Reporting and Public Policy. Andrew D. (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.Since this is the US term, it should redirect to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (United States). DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: This term is also used in Canada.

Keep/merge I'd say merged anything useful into Standard accounting practice and change this into a disambiguation page for the UK, US and Canadian standards which are all called GAAP ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 11:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the article has issues then fix them. Don't take the easy way by simply deleting the information. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Qian (poet)[edit]

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

Notability not established. Member of deleted "Poetic Encyclopaedist School"; claims of translation into English and Japanese cannot be verified. Looks like (group) self-promotion Imaginatorium (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing comes up in Google books, which is strange for an author. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing of notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the creator of the article was blocked as a sock puppet: Special:Contributions/Baikespwiki. So Speedy Delete perhaps? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was one of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN article I stumbled upon. None of them were notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Screamfest Horror Film Festival[edit]

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

Non-notable film festival. Despite claims as the largest and longest running horror film festival, evidence of independent coverage is lacking. Many outlets carry ScreamFest LA's press releases, but few, it appears, actually cover the event. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Film festivals are kind of tricky, since most of the time the festivals really only gain coverage for the awards they hand out. I will say that I've heard of this festival and it's considered to be pretty big in the horror world since it's kind of the US equivalent of the London FrightFest Film Festival, itself a fairly prestigious horror film festival. In any case, Screamfest is well known for being the place where a lot of American films have their world or US premieres. I'll see what I can add. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those cases where you have to look more at whether or not there are people reporting from the event itself and where this coverage is being posted. So far I'm seeing a lot of coverage from major horror outlets like Dread Central ([36], [37], [38]), Bloody Disgusting ([39], [40]), and Fangoria ([41], [42], [43]). There's also coverage in places like MoviePilot and Backstage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was also covered by Shock Till You Drop, whose website now redirects to the website ComingSoon.net. ([44]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there was also an episode of Cupcake Wars where they made cupcakes for the festival. ([45]) There's also some coverage from Horror.com. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this hasn't been showered with a ton of articles specifically about the festival in-depth, there are some out there. Something to also note is that there is a lot of coverage for RS that was written during Screamfest itself, most notably coverage of films screening and/or premiering at the event itself. I've found a lot of articles like this one from places like The Hollywood Reporter that talk about various horror films premiering or screening at the festival - many of which are notable and some of which are some pretty major mainstream films. What makes this something of note is that film companies don't want their movies to screen at a film festival that isn't seem as important within the business or genre - they want their films to be seen in places that would gain them coverage, especially from the major, mainstream horror websites/outlets, most of whom don't really go to the smaller, lesser known festivals because those aren't usually worth the time of outlets like Crave to go and review their offerings or for Dread Central or Variety to repost the awards results or otherwise comment on material in the festival. It's admittedly not as strong as the coverage for the bigger, less niche festivals, but I believe that this is enough to establish notability here. If not, then it'd be a shame since this is one of the most major horror film festivals in the US. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79's research, it is somewhat borderline but it received enough coverage for a claim of notability. Cavarrone 05:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protein-coated disc[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD with original rationale "Not notable, 10 year old hypothetical storage format which did not lead to any further research or commercial product. Article is based solely on 10 year old news reports about this potential technology." —Ruud 14:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't exist yet. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The product was never created, not to mention decade old references. Callsignpink (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- outdated WP:Crystal. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Cowboy[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Received plenty of coverage and is clearly notable: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], plus several other magazine articles that Gbooks finds but have insufficient preview to see the content. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage for notability.Airproofing (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now referenced,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] and meets the notability guideline for recordings. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jazz Times. 6-10. Vol. 31. Jazztimes. 2001. pp. 95–. For one decade - from 1985 to 1995 - JMT produced 81 recordings including the landmark debut albums by ...
^ Robert Christgau (1990). Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s. Pantheon Books. pp. 68–. ISBN 978-0-679-73015-6.
^ Option. Vol. 20. Sonic Options Network. 1988. pp. 47–. Bourelly's debut album Jungle Cowboy (on the German JMT label, distributed by Polygram) features appearances by guitarist Kelvyn Bell, alto saxophonist Julius Hemphill, percussionist Andrew Cyrille and others, along with Bourelly's ...
^ Music Hound (1998). Jazz: The Essential Album Guide. Music Sales Corporation. ISBN 978-0-8256-7253-8. ... worth searching for: Bourelly's debut as a leader, jungle Cowboy MMf (JMT, 1987, prod. Stefan Winter, Jean-Paul Bourelly), is his best album, but JMT's U.S. distributor, Verve, doesn't carry it. It predates ...
^ Musician. 111-116. Amordian Press. 1988. pp. 94–.
^ Ben Watson; W. C. Bamberger (April 2010). Honesty Is Explosive!: Selected Music Journalism. Wildside Press LLC. pp. 33–. ISBN 978-1-4344-5783-7.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teachr[edit]

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

Appears to be NN artist lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person fails WP:ARTIST and there is no other plausible claim of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources like the Huffington Post blog by an associated author that say things like "L.A. street artist Teachr brought his “A” game to his first solo art show, appropriately set at Fairfax High School on Melrose, with a percentage of sales going toward helping the school." ought to make it clear that this is not a notable artist. A first solo show should already be an indication of non-notability, but his first solo show is at a high school? Perhaps he is somehow a public figure or activist, but I can't find anything that would make him notable under WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djibouti–South Korea relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. trade is minuscule. And there is no evidence of things that typically make a notable bilateral relationship like state visits, embassies, agreements or significant migration. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable relationship. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep volumne of trade between the two might be small but it's perfectly encyclopedic information.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you have failed to address how this meets WP:GNG. "Perfectly encyclopaedic " is not the same as notable. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The South Korean government published some documents on the relations.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

which is a primary source. where is the third party significant coverage? LibStar (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article currently states, "Bilateral trade in 2011 amounted to $47,390,000 in exports, and $9,000 in imports." That's poorly phrased; I presume that South Korea exported $47.4 million of goods to Djibouti and imported $9,000 from Djibouti, but if so then Djibouti exported $9,000 and imported $47.4 million. But regardless, the only source cited in this article says nothing about those amounts, so this statement is unsourced no matter what it was supposed to say. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no third party sources = no article. Sandstein 06:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only is the Keep votes unconvincing, there has been consensus showing there is not automatic acceptance for each separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly could be sourced (search on The Economist here: [51]) Although expanding an article on the Economy of Djibouti or creating one on the aspirational Djibouti free trade zone would be more useful, imho.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article speedy deleted per G11. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demelza Hospice Care for Children[edit]

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

I spent a while trying to find independent sources for this article, and other than routine news stories about fundraisers in local newspapers, I found very little that contained more than a single sentence about the organization. This probably does not meet the criteria for WP:ORG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is currently unreferenced, which can be corrected easily if significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. Like the nominator, I found passing mentions in a fundraising context, but no significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 16:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is sopromotional it might be a G11. (and no evidence of notability either) DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW, possibly bad faith WP:SK#2. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-democracy[edit]

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

Notability not established, this is not a theory or unique concept, sources are one person, article is extensively quoting one person, self-promotion UScentric (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep the concept may have originated with one person, but it has received massive attention. The original paper has received 1400 citations; the translations have received many hundred; and there are a number of reviews and other examinations of the topic. See this. Vanamonde (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Colin Crouch. This article is entirely about his thoughts on the topic. It should be under his name. No need to give the same material in two articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. That article is up for deletion too. Secondary sources are needed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His article will probably be kept by the academic standards, so merging will take care of the issues, except for secondary sources still needed and would be helpful.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nom is an SPA who started by doing some blanking at Cultural assimilation and then started nominating for deletion several articles that seem vaguely related to P2P research, without any apparent knowledge of what WP:N is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If a merge is a good idea, that can be discussed on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crouch's analysis seems quite notable. It's old wine in new bottles though – see the iron law of oligarchy, for example. For this reason it's best to to keep the theorising separate from the biographical pages. Andrew D. (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination implies no WP:BEFORE check has been conducted; doing one finds dozens of RS on the topic. WP:GNG. FourViolas (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- non trivial topic with sufficient RS coverage to establish notability. Merge may be an option to be decided on later. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barasch McGarry Salzman & Penson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still nothing suggestive of convincing independent notability as this is only a 1-office NY law firm with only 8 employees, there's by far nothing at all convincing. Frankly I consider this G11 material and I would've commented at the 1st AfD bottom if it wasn't for this. Notifying Tigraan. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as first nominator, per the rationale at the first AfD page. I do not think WP:G11 applies, but the sources, though numerous, are quite thin and fail under routine coverage / passing mention. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no reasonto think notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A firm going about its business; notability is not inherited from events which have given rise to their workload. Nothing indicates encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable law firm. Sourcing insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Benzine[edit]

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

Self promotion and notability: It took 10 years for this YouTuber to get half a million subscribers. No relevant achievements nor press mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiquaglia (talk • contribs) — Jiquaglia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Added "unsigned" and "SPA" templates. No opinion on article at this time. Jbh ^Talk 19:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable YouTuber. He has substantial articles in the AV club and CBS news. Although the article is pretty dependent on self published sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the AV club article, which indicates some notability. WP:SPS need to be pared down.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources on Google, Not all are perfect but notability's certainly there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel it meets WP:BIO and WP:WEB pretty well. I agree that if he had not been featured in AV Club this would have been a speedy delete. Hemi9 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an article with accurate information and that cites sources which are, while mostly authored by Craig himself, pretty reliable. The page shouldn't be entirely removed just because it could use some better sources. wilkesreid 2:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yew Tee Residences[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT. This is simply a condominium built in 2009 - it doesn't have any cultural or historical significance. It wouldn't pass GNG either. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Partners Group[edit]

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

Nothing outstanding about this particular organization to have a Wikipedia article about it. All the references are usual announcements about product launches, funding rounds etc. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 08:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some new references after the article was nominated for deletion, so I would appreciate it if the deletion proposal were to be reassessed. In addition, here a various reasons as to why I believe the article should stay where it is.

As the article has been put forward for deletion due to an alleged lack of notability, the following is my argument that aims to demonstrate the notability of this company.

The Golden Rule in en.wiki says “Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.” Allow me to address each point individually.

Significant coverage: the article holds 41 references - ultimately, enough to support the entire text. It’s true, that some of those references are “usual announcements about product launches, funding rounds, etc”, however they confirm the facts, and also contain much more in-depth content within the articles, which is the company’s principal intention of these publications.

Reliable sources: All of the sources I have provided are reliable sources, and I urge you to check for yourself. The article contains references to important and reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Bloomberg, La Vanguardia, Ecommerce News, Expansión, and Telecom Paper to name just few. With such powerful media publications like these, I see no reason as to why this point would be an issue for the article.

Independent of the topic – the same argument that I have made in the previous point: the 41 references I have provided to back up the information belong to completely independent publications and have nothing to do with the company, therefore I don’t see an issue as to why this point would be a cause for concern.

As the article is complying with Wikipedia’s Golden Rule, there should be no reason whatsoever for the article to be removed from the site. However, I will continue by providing you with more arguments to back up Delta Partners’ notability.

Following the notability criteria, I have shown that the article meets all of the “General Notability Guideline” by providing with “Significant coverage, Reliable, sources, independent of the subject, Presumed.” If any of the referenced material doesn’t adhere to the guidelines, could you please indicate as to which ones they are specifically.

In addition, regarding the Notability article for Organizations and Companies, I understand that the “Depth of Coverage” point could be a big issue, however the majority of the references ARE NOT the types indicated:

sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
inclusion in lists of similar organizations,
the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
routine restaurant reviews,
quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

Although the simple fact of being a publicly traded corporation is not an inherent characteristic of notability, the article itself indicates that “Editors coming across an article without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion”. In this case, the references are widely listed, and the company actually belongs to the Dubai international Financial Center (DIFC) - the public body of the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) that manages the capital markets and stock exchange.

For all reasons mentioned above, I strongly believe that the content of this article is notable enough and backed up by the sufficient reliable and prominent sources required, that there is no reason for it to be removed from the site.

Personally – and without this being a part of the argument – I think if this article does get deleted, then half (?) of the articles on the site should also receive the same treatment :)

Thank you for reading up until this point.

Regards, --Nawiarra44 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I analyze the sources, I see only mentions of investments, and similar mere notices. And the article is considerably prootional as well. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- searches only bring up trivial mentions; there's also possibility of COI editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely PR and the article basically summarizes it to exactly that. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amagi Media Labs[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MSJapan (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not personally familiar with the awards listed, but I do assume at least one of them may help assert notability. There is also some significant independent coverage referenced on the page, although it isn't very easy to see that [52], [53], [54]. I may clean that aspect up a bit. Yvarta (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yvarta: I don't understand this reply. Are you saying that some citations "may" make it notable, or it is notable? Also may I ask if you have edited here before, as participating in several AfDs on the second or third day of editorhood is rather unusual.

Regarding the Times and Bangalore Mirror pieces, they are not independent RSes based on this statement in the article itself: "Amagi has also partnered with Times Network for their geo-targeted advertising business". Which is in addition to the fact that Bangalore Mirror is merely reporting on architecture, not the business itself. - Brianhe (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being more clear. Yes, I am voting keep based on the sources currently linked on the page (I see more than 3 reputable sources with significant coverage - I cleaned some up yesterday so you can see the newspapers easier). And yes, I have edited here before. For many years in fact. Yvarta (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial. Insufficient coverage to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. If you look at the sources cited, [55] and [56] are part of the same publication. We count these as a single source. [57] is almost a press release and seems to be a local source as well. Clearly doesn't pass WP:CORP at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Kids 'R' Our Kids (YKROK)[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No assertion of notability, Most sources that refer to the company fail RS. MSJapan (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a daycare center organization. Noting notable about it about centre.Fails WP:CORP ,WP:NOTPROMO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the sources in the article are not reliable, and those that are do not offer any substantive coverage: just passing mentions. Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable day care center. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH by a wide margin. Nothing else indicates why this is "notable either". This is a pretty good example if Wikipedia being used a business listing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are currently some good sources linked on the page, with significant coverage in reputable Indian publications: [58], [59], [60]. The others on the page are mostly press releases, but even if the press releases were removed and the content scrubbed, there would still be enough to pass WP:GNG. Cleanup wouldn't be hard, the page is still small. Yvarta (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Did some wikifying. Also think I'll remove the COI tag, as there isn't much on the page left that could be polluted. Worth re-adding the tag if that editor becomes active on the page again. Yvarta (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A small comment about the COI tag as I see that you have just started editing a week back. We usually remove the tag when 2 things have been done: 1. A disclosure by the editor has been completed and 2. The promotional content has been removed. If both these steps have not been done, the tag is supposed to be removed only by consensus. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually edited here for many years (don't judge an editor by their account/IP/age ;b ). You are of course more than welcome ot re-add the tag if you still feel it is necessary, though please note: 1) there is no point waiting for editor admission, as most COI editors are short-term and often never reply, nor are they obligated to, and 2) what promotional material is left? I cleaned it carefully, and I thought I had left it simple facts. Yvarta (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for your sources, these don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. [61] This is a local news article "cities section" and we discount these. [62] The coverage here is limited to 1 word. [63] This is a 3 sentence routine news coverage. None of these help to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. On this one [64], I didn't notice it was a local section, my apologies. If you have it on hand, would you mind directing me to the guideline that clarifies the use of local sections on national papers? I haven't read that one in a while. However, these articles still look very significant to me, so I am confused by the second half of your argument:

[65] (coverage significant in Economic Times, a national newspaper - I suppose you could argue this is a routine announcement of some sort, though to me it seems a proper article.
[66], you're right, this one is trivial and not helpful
[67], again right, I missed that this one is trivial.

I'll look around for another source or two. The Economic Times article hints to me there's a good chance of other significant coverage in sources not in English, so I'm still hesitant to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. Yvarta (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Economic Times article had one word about the subject - or one sentence if I am a bit liberal. This is not significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the only sources are mention or advertorials, sucha s the one in New Indian Express. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Comment’’’ - Did another search, without much luck. I did find two mentions in ‘’Daily News and Analysis’’, I’d say in the middle zone between trivial and semi-significant coverage: [68], and [69]. I’ll leave my keep vote for now since I think from a certain perspective the topic barely scrapes by in reaching “3 good sources or large-scale trivial coverage,” but I can understand why editors would vote delete as well. I suspect it might be notable in the relative near future, since newspapers seem mildly interested by the company’s partnerships with big corporations. Yvarta (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the company does not appear to be notable, at least for now.Tazerdadog (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Jazz Times. 6-10. Vol. 31. Jazztimes. 2001. pp. 95–. For one decade - from 1985 to 1995 - JMT produced 81 recordings including the landmark debut albums by ...

[Christgau1990-2] Robert Christgau (1990). Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s. Pantheon Books. pp. 68–. ISBN 978-0-679-73015-6.

[3] Option. Vol. 20. Sonic Options Network. 1988. pp. 47–. Bourelly's debut album Jungle Cowboy (on the German JMT label, distributed by Polygram) features appearances by guitarist Kelvyn Bell, alto saxophonist Julius Hemphill, percussionist Andrew Cyrille and others, along with Bourelly's ...

[Hound1998-4] Music Hound (1998). Jazz: The Essential Album Guide. Music Sales Corporation. ISBN 978-0-8256-7253-8. ... worth searching for: Bourelly's debut as a leader, jungle Cowboy MMf (JMT, 1987, prod. Stefan Winter, Jean-Paul Bourelly), is his best album, but JMT's U.S. distributor, Verve, doesn't carry it. It predates ...

[5] Musician. 111-116. Amordian Press. 1988. pp. 94–.

[WatsonBamberger2010-6] Ben Watson; W. C. Bamberger (April 2010). Honesty Is Explosive!: Selected Music Journalism. Wildside Press LLC. pp. 33–. ISBN 978-1-4344-5783-7.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]