Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 November	2 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olavi Hangula[edit]

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

An autobiography that is not verifiable, of an aspirant politician who is not notable yet.I did not find any references reliable references other than local tabloids. Probably borderline A7, but as it is around already for a while, it is maybe better to discuss it. User:Elianamwiha (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi @Elianamwiha: I'm not sure why you would link your signature to my account name? --Pgallert (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm not sure but what that was about but I've removed. Elianamwiha, please don't do that again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing that would warrant the subject's current inclusion into the encyclopedia. "Junior tourism minister" is certainly not enough to establish notability, never mind "deputy head boy". Furthermore, the coverage in reliable sources is meager. This is pretty much all we've got; the rest of the sources are opinion pieces or irrelevant stuff. --Pgallert (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means, works and information are entirely trivial and unconvincing, and there's literally nothing beyond it, let alone chances of notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete He is a high school student who is on track to be successful, although much could happen. However successful is not always notable and he is not notable yet. He may at some point be, but there is no gaurantee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this article is WP:TOOSOON. He clearly fails WP:GNG. Either way delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:18, 4 December 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.

Carla R. Shavis[edit]

The result was Procedural Close. Article speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

A search for her comes up with nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Also a potential hoax, I couldn't find anything discussing her as a neuroscientist. Also, the infobox calls her a rapper, when the article calls her a neuroscientist.... no idea what's going on there. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:07, 1 December 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. Could have been WP:PROD instead, but this will do I guess. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A search shows there to be no coverage of him in reliable sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guy gets a passing mention in Book X of the Aeneid (lines 777-780), and I can find only a few passing mentions of this passing mention in secondary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

College of Medicine, Lagos State University[edit]

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

Reliable sources could not be found on this subject to merit a standalone article. A redirect or merge to Lagos State University should be an option. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Thanks for noticing that oluwa2chainz. Notable sources has been added now and non notable ones removed. This include some of Nigerians most circulating newspapers. The AfD you tagged was unnecessary just a ping to add more sources would have made it look the way it appears now. And as for notability I'm surprised you brought this up everyone in Lagos have heard LASUCOM.Mahveotm (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Per these additional sources : LASUCOM Students protest prolong programme, Recurrent Capital estimates on Lagos State Government and Lasu medical students protest non accreditation programmes. The article might need more information, reliable sources and editing to merit a stand alone article. If not found to be notable, then it should be merged to Lagos State University. Eruditescholar (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eruditescholar (talk) Those additional sources have been added except the Google book which I found inaccessible.Reliable sources they are and more information they provide.Thanks for commenting. Mahveotm (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 7 December 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Public Enemy Number Two characters[edit]

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

Public Enemy Number Two doesn't appear to be a notable enough book as to merit a separate list. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be entirely original research. Ajf773 (talk) 07:05, 4 December 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). Regards— ~ THE INFI NITE SPACE X 08:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carina OB1[edit]

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

No references. Regards— ~ THE INFI NITE SPACE X 22:07, 01 December 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 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - added two references now - reasonably complex structure about which enough has been written to warrant own article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regards— ~ THE INFI NITE SPACE X 08:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Planet X (Hercolubus) Talk 08:50, 1 Dec 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Beyers[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Has only been in B-list movies, and not as the main star. Could not find any sources on him. Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NACTOR. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far below the notability threshold for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only minor roles. Obviously fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.--Jersey92 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:N, WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - prolific, but many small roles. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 5 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Bender[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Has only played bit roles. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are totally lacking. His roles are also.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 3 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Beckwith[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Could not find reliable sources about him. Natg 19 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The guidelines says multiple significant roles in notable films or other productions. I actually am not convinced that Beckwith had any significant roles, but clearly he did not make significant roles in multiple productions. He was a one TV episode and bit part actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'm actually being lenient with Salting this time since it seems we're safe from the blatant attempts for now, and it's not surprising because it's clear all of this is from the time we actually accepted these trivial and unconvincing subjects. Everything here is trivial and unconvincing and it's clear there's nothing better to go from here, thus all in all, delete is clear. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A number of the roles that are mention are uncredited roles. Some are when he worked as a technician.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:34, 2 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Avildsen[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete playing minor roles does not make one a notable actor. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of everyone who ever graced the silver screen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rich kid who got work from daddy to act a few times as a redshirt and other totally run of the mill parts. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 5 December 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 Sikkim Gold Cup. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Sikkim Gold Cup[edit]

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

The notability of these articles has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football in this current discussion at which editors agreed these season articles are not notable for a minor regional tournament. Qed237 (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all season articles for this tournament and recently created by same editor:

Qed237 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable tournament season articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sikkim Gold Cup. It's a plausible search term and individual seasons are discussed there. And WP:NSEASONS says individual seasons should redirect to the main article when they're not notable, rather than be deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Smartyllama Spiderone 10:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per smartyllama --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - possible search term but does not merit separate articles. Giant Snowman 10:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as suggested by WP:NSEASONS. The seasons aren't notable enough, and so WP:NSEASONS says we should redirect rather than delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Please note that this tournament is for a country that literally no longer exists - it's a small state in India. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well Sikkim is now a state, so it's a state-level football tournament, not a fully professional league. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge all content into Sikkim Gold Cup. MFriedman (talk) 11:42, 8 December 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. A redirect to Bomb disposal can be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BombSquad[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Ratings and download totals from app stores aren't reliable indicators of notability. The app has good reviews from OneClickMac and Mac.AppStorm, but neither of those sites appears to be a reliable source. IagoQnsi (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. The sources are insufficient to establish notability as they do not appear reliable and are too few in number. I could not find other reliable sources to support notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility could be to redirect to Bomb disposal since Bombsquad already does but I am not sure if the uppercase S makes that plausible or not.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to Bomb disposal. It's a plausible search term, but we don't need this edit history coming in to the redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 13:46, 5 December 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. Three issues here:

Notability. First and foremost, the article meets WP:ORG per Forbes India, the Business Standard, and The Economic Times.

Paid editing. It's likely that the page creator is in violation of our paid editing policies. If the article is notable. though, we should still keep it.

Reliability of the sources. I respectfully disagree with User:SwisterTwister that "we cannot confide in India's publications, even if known and major, to not publish company advertising." It's not for us as Wikipedia editors to make that call. Our standard is verifiability, not truth, and so we should rely on the sources above even if we suspect they are advertising. Cerebellum (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Heal[edit]

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

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

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

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

Purely promotional work by paid editor. Sourced to blogs and procedural coverage. Editing patterns consistent with paid PR editing, especially awards[1][2][3] and acquisitions[4] infodumps.

WP:OWNer Snkay9 accidentally revealed himself to be a paid PR editor in this edit where he attempted to link a Word document called "Revised Quick Heal Wikipedia Page.doc" by linking it from his Outlook inbox. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 20:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Linking Word document is not direct clue about paid editing (eg. I did similar thing, when I prepared some bigger changes offline). However, sources in this article are too weak to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually pretty damning evidence - look at the directory it was linked from. He received these instructions via email. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (Modifying my comment). As excessive spam articles come from India, even notable articles from India are being seen as corporate spam. This company is covered in many reliable sources, which are third party and independent. The coverage is not for few days but for years, in not one source but in multiple sources. WP:GEOBIAS should be avoided. Editors should try to find some better AFD article as I did here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopma.in. Wasting time to delete a notable article as it is from India is pointless. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marvellous Spider-Man: Company may be notable, but sources used in the article aren´t convincing. Please, could you (or anybody other) provide better sources for review? Pavlor (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources in the article is not a reason to Delete. A basic Step D in WP:BEFORE can give better sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: Then it should be simple task to provide 3 references you think are best? Pavlor (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment- I am not supposed to research among thousands of sources. Articles created by paid editors can't be deleted if it has notability. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: My mini-review of your sources:

1: About issue of shares - seems to be based on informations provided directly by the company = weak source
2: Most of the text is by company representative; no author mentioned (only "Press Trust of India") = weak source
3: About their report about Cyber-Attack, not much about the company; no author mentioned (only "Press Trust of India") = useable source
4: Entirely based on informations provided by company representative; Written by Agencies... = weak source
5: About issue of shares (same issue as 1) - seems to be based on informations provided directly by the company = weak source
6: New COO - seems to be based on press-release, but at least something about the company (its representative) = weak/useable source
7: Company acquisition - seems to be based on press-release = weak source
8: About issue of shares (same issue as 1) and allegations against the company); behind pay-wall; no author mentioned ("BS Reporter") = useable source
9: Company responds to allegations (see 8); short news; no author mentioned ("our bureau") = useable source
10: About issue of shares (same issue as 1); behind pay-wall; no author mentioned (BS Reporter) = useable source

Conclusion: If these are best sources about this company, this article has no place on Wikipedia, I fear. 6 of these source cover plain issue of shares... the rest is not much better. (Note about my source ratings: weak = no notability estabilished (no RS); useable = some notability estabilished (somewhat RS), but only thin coverage; good = notability estabilished (RS), broad coverage). Pavlor (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:GEOBIAS. Wikipedia has no term called useable source, as you have branded them. These sources are third party independent sources. The amount of scrutiny you are doing here, if this level of scrutiny is done on other company/organization articles, then I believe 79% of all WP:COMPANY articles in Wikipedia will be deleted. This AFD discussion is about Notability, not about content dispute in the article. Editors can reduce the article into a stub. School articles with complete zero sources, zero result in Google news are kept in Wikipedia as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: My source rating is explained at the end of my first post... I should add RS = reliable source. Pavlor (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep : There are significant coverage about the Quick Heal in multiple independent sources which is sufficient to meet the notability criteria. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm seeing is TOI/ET used as PR blog hosts and procedural coverage by stock market sites. This is why I nominated, my own searches returned the same problem. Could you please cite an independent, reliable source discussing Quick Heal? -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jergling: A simple search is giving more than 7 million search results from the reliable sources -- I don't think that there could be more than that to establish notability as per WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRITE. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 million sources != 7 million reliable sources. ORGDEPTH is about seeking quality over quantity, not the other way around. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 17:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update : I've removed some promotional contents and added few reliable sources. — Sanskari ^Hangout 17:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted the unsourced list (thank you), and added yet another press release. These are not establishing GNG, they're just establishing the company's ability to publish press releases and PR blogs. Do you see my issue here? -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 17:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This PCMag article about Quick Heal AntiVirus Pro was mentioned in the original PROD: [5] I also found The Inquirer article about iOS security vulnerability discovered by Quick Heal and others: [6] Sure, still not ideal sources about this company, but far better than republished press-releases. Pavlor (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Inquirer article (which is an actual article by a staff editor!) makes a genuine case for notability by citing Quick Heal as a subject expert, thank you. It's still rather strange to me that he cited QH rather than the normal resources (Malwarebytes, Sophos) but it shows that they have a presence and reputation. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– A google search shows, Quick Heal was covered by forbes way back in 2012 ^[1]. This puts up a good case of showing its repute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.223.154.169 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that Forbes outlet has similar permissive publishing policy as other Forbes portals, then no, it is weak source. Pavlor (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AV-Comparatives lists Quick Heal among other anti-virus, internet security software. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.forbesindia.com/article/12-hidden-gems/quick-heal-viral-success/34063/1

Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or importance. The current copy contains:

In 2008, Quick Heal were selected as hosts for the AVAR 2008 International conference held at Delhi.[12] In 2010, Quick Heal received an investment of ₹ 60 Crores from Sequoia Capital[13] And new branch offices were opened in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. In 2012, offices were opened in Japan and US, and in 2013, offices were opened in Africa and UAE.

We have here inconsequential intricate detail; news of funding (routine); office directory (belongs on company web site). The rest of the article is pretty much same. No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Poor sources. The only potentially good source is Forbes, and a single source does not suffice WP:NCORP. Plus, I have lost a lot of respect for Forbes since I realized they are running a ton of blogs with little editor oversight. Verdict: likely WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one thing we've laid here at AfD is that we cannot immediately confide in these publications alone, and this is because of the sheer blatancy of advertising, and that's the case here, regardless of anything. The only solutions for such questionability is to remove them altogether since they are both not improvable or convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep : There is a lot of significant coverage for Quick Heal. Similar to PC Magzine, Quick Heal is also listed on SC Magazine, ZD Net Links : http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-look-at-quick-heal-mobile-security/ & http://www.scmagazineuk.com/quick-heal-technologies-endpoint-security-total-with-dlp/review/4613/.

Apart from the sources, Quick Heal is a well known provider of products and solutions in the Security software industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopdead (talk • contribs) 20:15, December 6, 2016 (UTC)

Comment- The sources I gave are better than yours, and they are WP:IRS sources. If they don't get convinced by The Economic Times, The Hindu Business Line, Business Standard, The Indian Express sources, they won't change their decision by checking your links. The administrator will take his/her decision. Creating new accounts will only give more confidence to delete voters. --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WP:SPA, please note that notability is not inherited, and so the cited product reviews don't help here. They are relavant to discussion of notability of the products, not for the company. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amazon too rates Quick Heal as a Notable Brand in today's coverage in a leading daily ' Economic Times' http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/mobile-antivirus-software-sold-most-in-2016-amazon/articleshow/55834459.cms.

Again, Quick Heal is definitely a notable company

@Droopdead: Unlike others, I see products as part of company life, their reviews in reliable sources may help to improve notability of the company article. Looking at sources you provided:

scmagazineuk.com - review of product by magazine staff writer (apparently); looks like good source
zdnet.com - looks good, but it is introduced as Mobile India blog post; blogs aren´t usually reliable source
economictimes.indiatimes.com - passing mention among many other products = useable source

From my experience, company articles need much better sources than other topics to survive AfD. Promotional language, suspected COI and SPAs are warning signs for many Wikipedia editors. Pavlor (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- User:Pavlor's review of sources are his own views. Most of his comments are wrong. He is finding unreliable sources as good source and third party WP:RS sources as bad source. His edit count is very low as compared to his 8 year old account. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvellous Spider-Man: Of course my mini-review of sources represents only my view (what else?)... What source(s) I found as good you think is(are) unreliable? Edit count as mark of quality? What to say, this conversation becomes really amusing. Pavlor (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep while the article maybe written poorly and need updating, saying a company listed on the India NSE isn't notable is kind of crazy. The NSE is their largest according to Wikipedia^[1]. The Times of India also isn't just a blog. ^[2] Ferrari250 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ferrari, and Spider-man are right. There are good sources. The nom didn't even really try to make a case. If there is a COI issue with this article or editor then make that case at COIN. COI is not a reason for deletion.--Adam in MO Talk 03:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles from The Economic Times [7] The Economic Times/Press Trust of India, [8] [9] Business Standard, [10] [11] The Indian Express, [12] The Hindu, [13] NDTV/Press Trust of India, [14], would seem to be enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The article needs work, but the subject is notable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: All sources you listed except one (University course) are about issue of shares in February 2016. Is this really only visible basis for notability of QuickHeal? Pavlor (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The very first source I listed is about a corporate acquisition by QuickHeal that isn't at all related to its IPO, so I'm not sure how in depth you looked at these sources. While several of the stories are about the IPO, many of them are in the context of a lawsuit regarding share ownership at that time, which is distinct enough from the IPO to be another fount of notability. One of the articles from Business Standard is also technically about the IPO buts gives a profile of the company as a whole. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and I meant to comment sooner, and something I'll note first is the fact we've established as it is we cannot confide in India's publications, even if known and major, to not publish company advertising and that's clearly the case in the suggested links above; it's noticeable because all of them have the same consistency in only actually focusing with the company's advertised information and businesses hence clear advertising. Another is that simply notice the sheer case of this article also clearly existing to only advertise the company itself. Therefore removal is entirely applicable with policy WP:NOT because it allows removal of anything that is otherwise business advertising-like or otherwise unsuitable for an actual encyclopedia. Delete, as it's clear this is advertising, "but there are sources!" be damned; another says "but these sources are good" hence not actually acknowledging policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All Indian sources are being branded as paid news and unreliable. These non-notable Indian company even paid money to Reuters? BRIEF-Quick Heal Technologies Sept-qtr profit rises. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3 short sentences. That is really broad coverage... Source text: Company document about financial results. Such sources can be used for verifitability, but are too thin to show notability of the subject. Pavlor (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That itself is clear PR as it is because Reuters is one of the worst blatant ones to republished such information. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion is absolutely outrageous. To say that news sources from Indian publications is not trustworthy is autocratic and baseless. India has the largest number of publications int he world and TOI is the read english newspaper in the world. Yes. I do believe that the onus is on the guys to proove that Quick Heal is not notable company after giving references from multiple 'Known' Indian publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopdead (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided above meet WP:RS criteria and therefore the topic is notable and meets WP:CORP. The objection is that this article is SPAM, not that the topic isn't notable enough to merit its own article. There's a worrying trend on AfD to nominate articles whose topics meet notability criteria but whose content is SPAMmy. Deletion is not an appropriate step for these articles - it is a simple matter to delete the SPAMmy content and tag the article for attention. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same thing when WP:NOT in fact applies especially considering all of these numerous accounts quickly coming to this AfD; we should'nt compromise with such blatancy and it's clear we can only solve such concerns by deletion entirely, not saving it for the company itself. WP:CORP and WP:RS are'nt applying since this is clearly company-motivated advertising and thus such guidelones are not applicable, but WP:NOT in fact is since it's policy. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with your application of WP:NOT and your interpretation is not supported by the relevant policies and guidelines. At the end of WP:NOT it lists the actions an editor should follow, which are:

When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider:

Changing the content of an article (normal editing)
Changing the page into a redirect, preserving the page history
Nominating the page for deletion if it meets grounds for such action under the Deletion policy page. To develop an understanding of what kinds of contributions are in danger of being deleted, you have to regularly follow discussions there.
Changing the rules on this page after a consensus has been reached following appropriate discussion with other Wikipedians via the Talk page. When adding new options, please be as clear as possible and provide counter-examples of similar, but permitted, subjects.

The first course of action is to edit the article. Further, when we then look at the grounds for such action under the Deletion policy page, we find at criteria 4

4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

It is clear that the first duty is to change the content of an article and to only delete if there is no relevent encyclopedic content. Some of the content is completely promotional but there is enough content remaining to merit an article.

Delete., the references are not substantial coverage--they amount to pres releases or notices, no matter where published. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Stock_Exchange_of_India
^ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/quickheal-technologies-to-list-shares-on-february-18/articleshow/51012525.cms

DGG These are not the only sources available. The heading and the content was about Quick Heal. What other susbstantial coverage should be given? Did you search google news typing "Quick Heal", "Quick Heal technologies", "Quick Heal antivirus". What are you expecting from the sources? --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To weigh in here, I'll note everything I'm finding is still only published and republished PR, regardless of publication and name, because it's the contents about this company that matters, and it's suggesting it's only PR-based. Regardless if there were 100 or 200 of such PR, it would still not help. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which Indian newspapers and Indian news channels are considered reliable? Times of India, NDTV, Indian Express, The Hindu ? Or all Indian sources are considered unreliable? As this is going on with the delete votes. If anyone is concerned about paid editors, then full protect the page indefinitely. --Marvellous Spider-Man 03:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every newspaper in the world publishes what amounts to press releases at times (another name for them is "human interest stories") . It's necessary to read the articles to determine their nature. There is no source that is absolutely always reliable. Its factors like these that make GNG a very complicated standard, instead of the simple number counting that it might seem to be. (Less controversially, it's against policy to protect a page indefinitely for fear that a paid editor will turn it into a frank advertisement. We have to first let the disruption happen, which means that for articles subject to such things, we need to watch them all carefully. In practice, nobody is going to watch routine company articles except the company.) DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided are noteworthy. If anything, article needs to be restructured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhpaul1986 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sourabhpaul1986: new editors like you will not help my case with Keep votes. The article won't get deleted with one million delete votes, if it has notability (which exists in this particlular case). And your votes are very suspicious. You guys will waste my time as meatpuppetry will only stiffen the resolve of Delete voters. This very notable article was written by paid editors and WP:COI editors. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept, it does indeed need to be restructured, and if nobody else does it, I might. But I would much rather devote my efforts to fixing the articles of volunteers, than of paid contributors. User:Marvellous Spider-Man, why should editors like us do work that others have been paid for when there is so much else that needs or attention? DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the copyedit hatchet to the article and cleaned it up. Personally I don't care if an editor is paid or not so long as the article itself is decent. But I'd expect a paid editor to know the policies and guidelines and how to format a citation properly....if I was paying for this article I'd demand a refund. ;-) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's really quite a poor article, and a lot of the sources (as they stand now) are passing mentions of the 'company' in discussions of their 'product', or likely reprinted press releases of their financial minutiae. However, the Forbes India is undoubtedly an article 'about' the company, the ETI article as well though less informative. Listing on NSE and Bombay Stock Exchange also tips balance slightly towards keep - we have historically biased towards keep for companies listed on major stock exchanges since they are, and will continue to be, subject to analyst and press coverage. Agree among others with HighKing, DGG, and others above - there is much here that is spammy, but ultimately there is (at least marginally) enough available to write and maintain an article about a company that is (at least marginally) notable. (Noting I came here without being invited by anyone, without any connection to the company -- just a long-time semi-active wikipedian who clicked on the oldest unclosed AFDs. In this case I see lots of parallels with AFDs and DRVs about Arch Coal, admittedly a much larger multinational, but where some of the same issues were hashed through years ago (7 years+-). Martinp (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A notable company producing antivirus software. Sources are there. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 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 13:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Robin[edit]

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

Have just tried to improve this article, renewed the ref needed banner, added ref needed tags, but have to wonder if this is an article that really meets WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP standards. Other than self-published sources and what appear to be totally unreliable sources per Wikipedia requirements for BLPs, I don't think this article is really appropriate on its own. Perhaps it could be merged into an article on the one co-authored best-seller itself? I don't necessarily want to see it nuked, but ... I just don't see how it can be redeemed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, too, but didn't want to act in haste. Mostly brought it here to see if others saw what I did. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:10, 9 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gentry Miller[edit]

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

Miller's only claim to fame is being Miss Kansas USA. This is not enough to establish notability. A search on google for additional sources only seems to bring up her Linkedin page, not a reliable indepdent source, that shows she has been working as an obtometry store manager. The previous discussion that resulted in keep was flawed on many levels. First off, someone claimed we have two international sources. One is literally a caption from a picture of her with 9 other teenagers who were finalists in Miss Teen USA. The other is not working, but appears to be another caption, probably with others. Neither is substantial coverage. The substantial coverage is either feel good stories from her college newspaper, not the stuff of reliable GNG passing, or local coverage related to her beauty pageant activities, not enough to establish permanent notability. Also, the first discussion had some attacking the deltion nomination because it tried to use the model guidelines. There was a discussion back in August on weather to make a formal set of notability guidelines for beauty pageant contestants. It closed with a statement that such should be attempted and then brought back to RfC. However the general majority opinion was that state beauty pageant winners are not default notable. There is nothing suggesting that Miller is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep based on the previous AfD - argueably just enough to get over the GNG line here. Ok, maybe there hasn't been much recent coverage - but this does not automatically mean that she isn't notable. Mdann52 (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked at each of the sources and read the prior AFD. Everything is routine coverage of a winner of a state level pageant, which is not sufficient for GNG per past AFD precedent. There would need to be something more substantial. She is a high school valedictorian and university graduate but there is nothing beyond that. I found a video clip where she said if the didn't win Miss USA, she would stay in pharmaceutical sales which is what she is probably still doing. MB 02:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I normally don't like to take a position to overturn a previous AFD, but in this case I think they got it wrong. There might be significant coverage that just hasn't been added to the article and if so that should be considered.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources per WP:N. The Witchita Eagle is the only secondary source that provides non-trivial coverage of the article subject, all other links are either a) dead, b) a list of pageants or pageant winners or c) an article about a Miss Kansas winner that has a line mentioning Gentry Miller winning Miss Teen that same day. If an additional secondary source can be found that is specifically focused on this article's subject, I am willing to accept it barely passing notability guidelines, but at the moment it very clearly does not. -Markeer 22:23, 1 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kis sinioras[edit]

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

Actor who has only appeared in a few short films. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NOTE. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not a notable actor, does not meet WP:NOTE. I saw that the page was recently blanked, so I undid that...but I do think the article should be (properly) deleted. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any update on this? I think this article is entirely non-notable, and meets criteria for deletion. I see absolutely no reason to keep this. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:12, 6 December 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 13:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albania international footballers born outside Albania[edit]

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

Please read WP:LISTN; I can't see any evidence that this topic meets the notability criteria required for a stand-alone list. I am aware that other similar lists exist, however, this doesn't mean that they are considered to be notable. A lot of Albanian footballers are born in modern-day Kosovo but, again, is this worthy of an article? Spiderone 17:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The specific issue of Kosovans playing for Albania is covered pretty extensively here and to a lesser extent here and gets a mention here and here. If there is a general objection to this type of list wouldn't it be better to start with England, Scotland or Wales where language problems won't get in the way of anglophone editors evaluating them? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this list doesn't exist to serve the issue of Kosovo-born players switching allegiances. This is just a list of players born outside Albania who happened to play for Albania with no real reason given as to why it is notable or useful. Spiderone 19:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true, but isn't the same also true about the articles about players for British countries that I linked? I just think that it's better to concentrate first on the topics where it easier for people like me who don't read Albanian to determine whether a general type of article should be included. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, no evidence the topic is notable. Giant Snowman 21:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Per the IP user. It passes WP:LISTCRUFT and is quite a big topic in Albanian sport at the moment. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In fact, I think it fails on LISTCRUFT specifically on points #1, #2 and #7 Spiderone 19:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided – Albanian participation in the 2016 EURO has created a national euphoria ammong Albanians since it was their first ever participation in a major continental tournament. It was easy to notice an increase of editing and creation of articles related to Albanian football. Exagerations, such as List of Albania national football team World Cup and European Championship squads (a list of one squad and with wording sugesting there will be more in future, thus contrary to WP:CRYSTAL) were found a little all over. However, the list of Albanian internationals born outside Albania is populated, and the issue itself has receved atention in Albanian media since the Albanian FA has made it a policy the issue of recruiting ethnic Albanians from all over the world to play for the national teams. This policy has been reflected in practice in man's senior national team which has had in recent years often more players in the starting 11 born outside Albania than Albanian-born ones. So the list, which includes the mention of birthplace and number of caps and goals for each player, could be expanded with sourced written content mentioning the policy of Albanian FA and the results it produced, an issue I think it was highly covered by Albanian media. FkpCascais (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like this kind of over-detailed lists, but this one seems to be notable enough by usual WP standards.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thoughtmonkey and others. Topic is even more relevant than the UK-related lists. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, but there isn't a chance that any such article about UK football would be seriously considered for deletion, as this one and List of Algerian international footballers born outside Algeria are being. It's pretty clear that when it comes to football different standards are applied here to the UK (and I speak as a Brit) than to the rest of the world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my various comments above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meghadootha (Short Movie)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. No indications of any coverage for this short film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any independent coverage. Fails WP:NFILM. Anup [Talk] 04:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 09:35, 4 December 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. Clear (near unanimous) consensus to delete due to insufficient sources to meet our various notability criteria. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure[edit]

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

This article has been around for ten years without anybody adding any real evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Most search results pull up press releases. I also searched for ABC² [15] and there still isn't much out there. Meatsgains (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, what's listed is simply what any general information would be listed about the company, I'll note there's not even actual claims of significance or substance, let alone convincing; next I'll also note there was a noticeable amount of SPA accounts, which is self-explanatory by itself. SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recommend to keep the listing but improve it in order to provide the benefit/notability information. Admittedly, the current page is merely a shell with stale information. The ABC2.org Projects page states the following: "Since 2001, ABC2 has awarded more than 100 grants totaling over $20 million to world-renowned researchers and physician-scientists from 54 institutions." When I search within Google News [16] I find a mixture of press releases as well as regular articles discussing either events, donations or their research investments. ABC2 is particularly known for cohosting the annual Washington, D.C. "Race for Hope DC" [17] which generates awareness for Brain Tumors and which saw over 11,000 participants in 2016. Here is a list of the current investments [18]. They are different from many nonprofit organizations in the sense that they are all about venture philanthropy [19]. Their current key research investment is in Tocagen [20] and ABC2 is mentioned as a nonprofit grantor at the bottom of this Tocagen press release [21] Sozocreative (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC) SozoCreative[reply]
— Sozocreative (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is my personal Wikipedia account, though I am not an active Wikipedia participant (just an active Wikipedia reader). I am not an employee of ABC2 but I do manage their Google Grant AdWords account (and have for many years) which, from my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, makes me unable to personally edit/enhance the ABC2 Wikipedia page (please correct me if I am wrong). I have not been asked by ABC2 to edit or "revive" their Wikipedia page. I discovered the page had been deleted yesterday. Sozocreative (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC) SozoCreative[reply]
The news coverage of this organization does seem dominated by Google-described "PR Web (press release)" hits. It does appear to fail WP:ORG. ~~Delete~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The passing mention in Time does help, and the paywalled article in Nature could be good. It does appear to be a leading national charitable group in the cerebral cancer area, even if it only meets one of the two criteria in WP:NGO. Change to neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure and its CEO, Max Wallace, were featured in an article of the May 2016 Nature (science journal), but apparently Nature requires a subscription to view the article online [22]. ABC2 is mentioned in a 2012 xconomy article [23] and a 2011 Time Magazine article [24]. David Cook of American Idol fame has (over the past several years) raised over $1 million for ABC2 and its brain cancer research funding efforts [25] and [26]. Sozocreative (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vice President Joe Biden was present at ABC2's Race for Hope DC in May 2016 and spoke after his son passed away from brain cancer [27] and a roughly filmed YouTube video [28]. The Race for Hope is an annual event in Washington, D.C. put on by both ABC2 and the National Brain Tumor Society [29] and is going into its 20th year. Sozocreative (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Case Foundation from which the org gets its funding as I understand it. Otherwise this is just "org spam". Anything useful can be picked up from the article history, although I'm not sure there would be much of it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ABC2.org is a completely different and separate organization from The Stephen Case Foundation. ABC2.org was started by Dan and Stacey Case (Dan is a brother of Steve) along with Steve & Jean Case (who have The Stephen Case Foundation); Dan was diagnosed with untreatable brain cancer which was the impetus behind starting ABC2; see this NY Times article about Dan Case and the founding of ABC2 [30]). While the Stephen Case Foundation provides some funding to ABC2.org each year, the bulk of ABC2.org funding comes through the events it holds (especially the annual Race for Hope in Washington, D.C.) and thousands of individual donors. Sozocreative (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concerns about the passing mentions and the over involvement of the involved accounts which comes across as attempts at promotion. Sagecandor (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no suitable target is available, then delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the specialized world of brain research, Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure is a well known and well established organization responsible for funding over a hundred different research projects. Here is a September 2016 video interview "Brain-machine interfaces could force us to reconsider the definition of disability" [31] by the Washington Post with several scientists including Max Wallace, CEO of Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure. Max Wallace shares some of the current research which ABC2 is funding to help scientists & physicians better understand the brain in order to address brain tumors/brain cancer. ABC2's Allele Project (a collaboration with The Broad Institute and cancer centers such as Dana Farber) was created to bring robust genomic profiling to brain cancer patients [32]. Sozocreative (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete obvious WP:PROMO to give more visibility to the foundation. There are insufficient independent, reliable sources that the discuss this foundation per se. See WP:Golden rule. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 10 December 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 Business Growth Fund. Cerebellum (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BGF Ventures[edit]

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

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

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

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

Apart from some brief churnalistic coverage when this investment fund was launched [33] [34] [35] I'm unable to find any substantial coverage. I've checked the full version of the Times article (which is also the only mainstream source) and it is only 200 words long. Coverage since then is extremely brief, only mentioning who they have invested in. Unless I'm missing sources, WP:CORP is not met as present. (As an aside, the parent company Business Growth Fund might well be notable e.g. [36].) SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disagree w/ Delete reasons. it's a legitimate government backed entity in a space I contribute to directly. There are many peers like it and it is noteworthy for its investments here: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bgf-ventures#/entity Misterpottery (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Standard advert/directory crap. They haven't even funded a notable startup as far as I can tell. Thank you for introducing me to the word "Churnalism". It perfectly encapsulates the problem I have with promo editors and their sneaky WP:REFBOMBs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jergling (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the PROD was contested for clear advertising gains and motivations, not for a genuine article, and I see nothing here but literal published-republished advertising from and for the company, nothing else since, again, this was clearly a motivated and clear advertisement, honestly nothing else to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it's one of the most active UK early stage investors and the wikipedia entry helps the startup community easily research who they are what they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:499:4200:A52B:158B:49FE:F35 (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 2A02:C7D:499:4200:A52B:158B:49FE:F35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Business Growth Fund~~Delete~~ I don't see enough coverage that would help pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the coverage is about the launch of the venture but nothing much after that. This could place it within the WP:NOTNEWS threshold. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am fine with a redirect. But I don't think a merge is appropriate as the content is promotional. Let someone write the content on their own using better sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as corporate spam. Typical of such articles, it does not show any signs of notability or significance and, characteristically, includes ext links in the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep valid company with significant UK media coverage as noted in the links. Misterpottery (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Business Growth Fund its parent company. An investment fund of £200M surely ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent company. There isn't enough information for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Business Growth Fund; I don't see a need for a merge, but, if desired, anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing for a delete and redirect or at least redirect at best, because while it's clear this is not independently notable, any other necessary information. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Business Growth Fund, not enough for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Business Growth Fund, which presently only has passing mentions. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Business Growth Fund just a part of it. no need for an article.Light2021 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 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. AfD heavily affected by socking and by low partecipation, no non-sock comments in over a month, WP:NPASR close. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobrisky[edit]

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

Article with multiple issues. This article looks like an unconstructive article which is not yet to be on main space by the way source listed may not be reliable. Music Boy50 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 04:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails on so many levels, scandal mongering, hearsay, on the level of fleeting news. Looks like gossip about some nobody to me. Or it could be a hoax. Libel is a concern too. Even if the refs are legit, who cares? Internet scandals and memes don't strike me as encyclopedia material, admittedly there could be exceptions Speedy delete The sources are pathetic and without distinction, not to be trusted. The lack of expansion possibilities is manifestly obvious in the content that is present, the articles existing informational parameters seem to preclude any hope of improvement, in my opinion. The subject matter isn't worth a spot on the bathroom wall. This article should be gone before I press "save."--J. M. Pearson (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to establish notability.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~: per nominator's rationale, Oluwa2Chainz and JM Pearson. Also, there are no newspaper references that discusses him in detail, only entertainment blogs like Bellanaija. On a personal note, for security reasons, Wikipedia can do without keeping a sensationalist article that is barely notable on someone with hormone deficiencies (I mean this not in terms of his sexual preference but rather his display of feminine characteristics) residing in a conservative country like Nigeria. It is not worth the risk, it isn't safe for him for Wikipedia to further publicize him, I know my last statements aren't clear policies and guidelines, but human live should count for something especially when the subject doesn't clearly pass WP:GNG. Darreg (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: I think you are right. --Music Boy50 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a way of encouraging new Nigerian editors to remain on Wikipedia and the recent cleanup done to the article, I am changing from "strong delete" to neutral. Would have voted "weak keep", but I don't want to be one of the editors that will make this article remain on Wikipedia. Darreg (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you all for your contributions towards my advancement as a Wikipedia author I'm grateful. NOW as regards this article I have provided more and more refrence that this subject is more than notable, I humbly ask the admin to do a fast Google search on the subject "Bobrisky" and view the thousands of results that would be generated in 0.5 seconds. Also I ask you all to view the article and you would agree the article is worth a space in Wikipedia. Celestina007 »» (talk to me) 01:24am 8th November 2016 (UTC)

~~@Celestina007: I can see you have improve the article with references but can you provide a clear image of Bobrisky. Before I conclude~~ --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft: @Darreg: I just made a Google Research about the subject and found out that the subject is Notable which also passes WP:GNG but on his wikipedia page it does not meets the criteria for WP:GNG neither Notable here. --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 04:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:31, 1 December 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ValueWalk[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Mentions and primary sources don't make notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the subject lacks in-depth coverage, it it referenced innumerably in reliable sources and is used as an RS throughout Wikipedia to verify content. Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the site is a reliable source or not isn't a notability criteria. My local tax collector's office is a reliable source for things like laws, classes of licenses or other things, but that doesn't make them notable. Similarly, I've reviewed some of those uses and they're questionable and some may need removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we've determined that "innumerably" is pretty much hyperbole. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meat, you don't seem to understand WP's policy on Reliable Sources and GNG. Please provide an example of WP content for which your tax collector has created a reliable source per WP:GNG. (In her official capacity, not like if she moonlights as an investigative reporter for the Wall St. Journal.) SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tax collector example was mine. As a government agency, they're usually a secondary source, but still a reliable one. Being a reliable source, however, doesn't make a source notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my misreading that. I think the tax collector as far as I can tell would be a primary source, but as long as this is not being used to support keeping this article, I don't think it matters here. Do you have a !vote for keep or delete? SPECIFICO talk 05:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is tough to find third-party sources through a Google search on ValueWalk avoiding articles published by them because it is itself a news outlet. Any ideas on how to narrow down a search to avoid results listing their published articles? Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strawman. The NY Times is a news outlet, yet I can find coverage of it. Besides, calling it a news outlet is a bit of a stretch. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, you can't compare ValueWalk to the New York Times. You know where I'm getting at. Meatsgains (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comparing the two, because they're not comparable. I'm disproving the notion that a news outlet won't have coverage. And again, I question even calling them a news outlet. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've not been able to find any sources that point to WP:CORPDEPTH, just a couple of passing mentions. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no indication of notability or editorial mention by independent RS. Looks like it was written solely to promote the company and republish content from its own website. Let's hope I'm proved wrong in the next 2 weeks and dozens of global mainstream media references start popping up. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few more Bloomberg articles referencing ValueWalk but nothing too detailed: [37]. Meatsgains (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg calls it a "snapshot" and it wasn't a "few more", it was a single Bloomberg source, unnecessarily cited twice. The "article" is literally a short paragraph. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains. I'm not clear as to why this article was created? Any color you care to give us? SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link I included above lists articles by Bloomberg, as I already stated, referencing ValueWalk: "...according to ValueWalk" [38][39]. It also describes it as "... a finance website"[40] and notes that it has been the first to report on many events [41][42][43]. Meatsgains (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep searching for mentions of the site and I'm not sure why. Notability requires "significant coverage". A mention of the site in an article about something totally different is not significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I specifically said, "A few more Bloomberg articles referencing ValueWalk but nothing too detailed". Meatsgains (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't help establish notability, "You're diluting the discussion and getting off topic". Niteshift36 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because I have used ValueWalk as a reliable source several times, thus being notable enough for a page. Care to give your reason for asking? Meatsgains (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's not a "reliable source" for anything. 2. Because your pattern of editing suggests you may have some personal or financial relationship with various companies on which you've created very flimsy articles laden with promotional content. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take your accusations elsewhere, this is not the place. You're diluting the discussion and getting off topic. Meatsgains (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, (I assume you're not a dudette) you are the one who raised the question on this page. And note that I made no accusation, I made an observation. One that I'm sure anyone would make if they examined your editing on various articles. Chill. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a barebones corporate blurb and A7 material. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the comments defending this article are not substantiating themselves with substance nor acknowledging WP:NOT which applies, this is simply advertising and it's clear. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 6 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China Gerui Advanced Materials Group Ltd.[edit]

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

- fails WP:CORP as there are no reliable secondary sources cited in the article. - Only refers to self published sources, own website, reeks of promotion has also been tagged but issues haven't ben addressed since 2013. ronaz ^Talk! 10:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (Happy Thanksgiving!) 15:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Thanksgiving!) 15:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Thanksgiving!) 15:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising and the fact there's nothing but an overfocus with exactly that, it shows that's literally the best that exists especially since it's clear this was company-motivated, so they would naturally only include anything that in fact existed about this. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this could be notable as a listed company, but the content is 100% spam and should be TNTed asap. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 5 December 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 Rocket Science Games#List of games made by Rocket Science. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Nuts: Battle in the Sky[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVG. This article was previously redirected to Rocket Science Games#List of games made by Rocket Science by Czar, but then the creator undid the redirection. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 15:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any contest here that the article lacks sources, citing only a single review. Unless there is proof that it was reviewed in more sources, we don't have the material with which to write an article and redirection remains the best option. czar 17:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The cited review, which is available on archive.org in their magazine archive, is very short. The only other mention I was able to find is this one from Wired.com, which is a trivial mention. I don't think there was much in the way of coverage for this title. It's entirely possible that there are some reviews from prominent gaming magazines that haven't been digitally archived yet, but it's rare to find a notable game that has such little coverage. I've expanded articles about Commodore 64 and Amiga games, and it was easier than locating sources for this game. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the review is not relevant, since all of Next Generation's reviews, at least from this period, are of the same length. In the same issue you'll find equally short reviews for such notable games as Stonekeep and Capitalism. That said, after this article was brought up for AfD I had a look around to see if I could dig up more sources, and had no luck. I even considered the possibility that the game was never actually released, though a quick search on Ebay disproved that notion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This shouldn't have been relisted. Comments without bolded words still count towards consensus. Also the length of the review does matter—if there isn't enough sourced commentary on the game, there is even less to write about it. czar 17:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All reviews, regardless of length, provide the same amount of sourced content: "[notable magazine] said [opinion] about [article subject]." Reviews in Maximum aren't three times as notable as reviews in Electronic Gaming Monthly just because they're three times as long.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Martin IIIa#Review length and notability czar 17:01, 9 December 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 and redirect to OpenBSD. MBisanz ^talk 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCVS[edit]

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

Non-notable initiative that never went anywhere and isn't even used by its parent project after ten years. Talk page discussion notes lack of good third-party sources, even at the time the project was launched. Even the project press page features mostly mentions on the OpenBSD news site and not anything third-party, let alone mainstream. The redirect was turned back into an article on the basis of existence, completely ignoring notability considerations (it has no independent notability). Suggest delete or redirect to OpenBSD (nailing the redirect in place). David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as there's particularly nothing here for a convincing notable article, let alone close to substance, and linking to the other article suffices afterwards. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 1 December 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. It may be that the article would have been deleted for lack of notability anyway, but as it is the article was an unambiguous copyright infringement, and also unambiguously promotional, so it has been deleted already. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gervais[edit]

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

Written like an autobiography, not truly notable subject. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, written like a press release. PK T(alk) 18:36, 1 December 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 as a copyright infringement. The article is a straight translation into Mongolian of the web page https://www.hackingloops.com/cowpatty/ (It is pretty well certain that the article would eventually have been deleted anyway, even without the copyright problem.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cowpatty[edit]

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

This is a how to article to hack WIFI networks contrary to WP:NOTHOWTO Domdeparis (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A great example of something that should not be on Wikimedia servers any longer than necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:A10 as it adds nothing to Cracking of wireless networks and we are not a how to guide. Valenciano (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails not How-To and also isn't even in English. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 18:50, 1 December 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 22:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solua[edit]

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

Appear to be a non notable band with just two single releases as anime tie-ins. As each member has a list of other credits, it seems safe to say they just worked together for a couple of songs. Even their web page only lists the two releases. [44] French and Japanese wiki pages are both identical in content to this one so no new information is apparent. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one single that kind of broke into the Oricon 200 at 194. Still not much to say. It can be covered by the Noein article and the existing two singers' articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 1 December 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 Closed as SNOW KEEP this disruptive, unwarranted and disrespectful AfD. This page gets thousands of pageviews these days, and all of them are greeted with the message that Wikipedia wants to delete this page now. The AfD goes against deletion policies in any case, as it is clearly a notable event; but to propose it now was very ill judged. Fram (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

2016 Copa Sudamericana Finals[edit]

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

Page is about two football matches that will never be contested. Why having a special page about the finals when there will no finals be contested? All notable content is also at 2016 Copa Sudamericana, the page of the competition. Other info (if there is any), could easily be merged. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the FInals of a major tournament, they satisfy WP:NFOOTY and WP:SPORTSEVENT even if they were cancelled. See also 1946 FIFA World Cup, which was cancelled as well, but there was enough in reliable sources and notable enough to write an article about it. So the fact that it was (maybe) ultimately cancelled is irrelevant. If it satisfied notability before it was cancelled, it still does. Smartyllama (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. This topic was already notable before the plane crash, so it still is now. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly the kind of event that becomes more notable in cancellation that in actually happening. Agathoclea (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SNOW here - agree with Agathoclea. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Agathoclea Rubyaxles (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Conmebol will award the Chapecos the final. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Smartyllama. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in agreement with Smartyllama. Carl (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Agathoclea. I see a consensus emerging here.. Sideshow Bob 07:18, 2 December 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.

COMMENT A merge request was opened up immediately after the closure of this discussion, it can be found at Talk:2016 Copa Sudamericana#Merge discussion (2016) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joyous! | Talk 01:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Born Country (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation, spent one week at the lowest position on the chart. Only one review, no other third party sources. Previous AFD garnered no attention whatsoever after two relists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect - Plausible search term, but appears to be a non-notable compilations with little coverage. (Looking over their discography suggests they have a lot of them.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revisted stance - Michig's approach with the hatnote is probably a more plausible scenario with a hypothetical search. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability found beyond a very brief Allmusic review and a very minor genre chart placing. Implausible search term. Anyone searching for this will end up at Born Country, where the hatnote should be changed to point to Alabama discography. --Michig (talk) 07:50, 4 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Tracy Keijser[edit]

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

It seems only one of her roles was prominent. I couldn't verify that she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 8 years now; hopefully we can get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to IMDb she has had a few more prominent roles but those films do not have wiki articles. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and unconvincing works amounting to a trivial and unconvincing career, let alone for any actual notability if there's no substance to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very unpleasant to brand someone's career as trivial and unconvincing and reflects very badly on the person doing so. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far below the multiple significant roles threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* The actress has had multiple significant roles but unfortunately not in feature films considered notable as having wikipedia articles except for one, so its down to GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough significant coverage to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:46, 3 December 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. asserting that one is a self published author is not a valid assertion of significance. There can be exceptions, but they have to be demonstrated. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Early (author)[edit]

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

Declined speedy since there is a source, but nevertheless I dfon't think this character passes WP:GNG. One swallow does not a summer make. Incidentally, judging by the name of the creating editor, this is an autobiography. Rarely a good sign. TheLongTone (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The CBC source is certainly a step up from the kind of crap that self-promoting WP:AUTOBIO editors usually try to pass off as sourcing, but it's still not enough as WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources and not just one. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's a stronger claim of notability than "he exists" and better sourcing than just one piece of local coverage in his own hometown media, but Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a writer or a musician is automatically entitled to an article just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact he is self-published mitiagates against getting to notability, and nothing in the sources moves us closer. Wikipedia is not a book promoting venue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable author. Thelmz (talk) 12:34, 6 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim So-hye[edit]

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

Would have changed this to a redirect, but article has been changed to a redirect twice, only to be reverted. No point in prodding it, so it falls here. While the group is notable, this individual member is not, at this time. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Currently, it's a blp with a lot of unsourced assertions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Straight up no Redirect. No indication that there will be any sort of notability in future.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has less solo work and zero notable activities/ events outside of her group. We do not predict the future fame of people on this site. It's currently WP:TOOSOON. Her information in this article is already sufficiently summarized in her section on the group's article. Bagas Chrisara (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and only Redirect later if needed as I also encountered this article several months ago and it's here again, yet with nothing actually convincing hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I.O.I#Kim_So-hye. Might as well leave it with undeleted history, maybe in few years she will be notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 5 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellene[edit]

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

I simply cannot find any coverage about this language; in fact, I have no idea if the language itself existed or is a matter of fiction and a plot point of a book. The book mentioned in the article does not have a Wikipedia article, and searches for either the book or its author (who also does not have a Wikipedia article) result only in one profile in a Brazilian website. I have a feeling that the book mentioned might be self-published as a search for the ISBN number mentioned in the article came up empty. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is either a hoax or so garbled as to make it impossible to verify anything. I also came up blank in the first five links for the ISBN from the book sources special page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a Ricardo Rangel (no s) – from Mozambique, not Brazil, on photography, not language – but no trace of the book cited. I can't find that ISBN. In fact, I can't find any book in Portuguese or English about Allane or Ellene language or mythology. Cnilep (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Casa Nova exists, but I did not find any village called Villandela. I found the book in a few websites, such as this, this and this, and Google translations of those webpages look like fiction. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC); edited 04:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It took me a while, but I think I figured out what's going on here. It looks like the name of this language was taken from the word "aliens", which makes sense once you look at the way this has been spelled in the article: Ellene, Ellena, Allane. According to this, there's a religion called "Allane", which is a UFO worshipping religion. The name Allane is also applied to the language and the people themselves. So in other words the people are called "Aliens", their language is "Alien language" and the religion is "Alien-ism". There's already an article on UFO religion, which covers the concept of alien worship. (It wouldn't be a bad idea to create a redirect for alien worship to that article, offhand.)

That aside, there's absolutely nothing to back up the idea that this particular brand of alien worship, its language, or anything else associated with it is particularly noteworthy. Considering that pretty much the only person who has talked about this is the author of the book, we could probably say that this is something that he came up with one day on his own since all we have is a random guy who put out a self-published book that claims that there's a language or dialect called "Allane", among other things. Even if he didn't make it up, there's just nothing out there to show notability in the slightest.

What does this mean? Ultimately this means that this is a pretty non-notable topic and not anything that would merit an article on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that bit of excellent detective work puts the case for deletion beyond doubt. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Macias[edit]

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

BLP article about lawyer that fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Little in way of notability to ensure it lasts. Article was deleted by Prod several days but undeleted last night by SPA account at IP: 49.151.149.153 . Simply no encyclopedic knowledge whatsoever. scope_creep (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, the IP simply gave some random links but none of them actually establish genuine convincing of notability, especially apart from simply work mentions and clients, hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere close to meeting WP:BIO. agtx 20:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 3 December 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 (G5) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two Descents[edit]

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

Smells of puffery. The only hits I could find are the references given in the article, neither of which are reliable; worse, one of the references appears to be a hoax given that this unremarkable band apparently received more votes than One Direction in a certain poll. The accolade received according to the article also appears to be false. I would have nominated this for A7, but the article is well-written enough, and there are claims to notability (claiming to be signed to a record label, which by the way does not have a Wikipedia article and does not appear to have any online presence whatsoever) that it probably escapes A7. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a useful article and should not be deleted[edit]

Two Descents is an article about a Pakistani band based in Karachi, it has useful information and useful sources and valid information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Designer86 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a band[edit]

Two Descents is an article about a boy band which is based in Karachi. The band was formed in 2015 by school friends Ahmed Mujtuba, Harris Memon and Usman Memon. It is a useful article and it should not be deleted.--The Designer86 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a sockpuppet investigation undergoing against the creator of this article. GSS (talk) 12:46, 5 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K-bap[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant. Largoplazo (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself notes that the restaurant opened 11/26/2016, hardly time to become notable. I found no mentions in various gSearches, other than a passing mention of an (apparently) unrelated restaurant of the same name in New York, USA. Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, this establishment fails WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geoff. And I thought this was a place to buy kebab, but no. Disappointing. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that its Indonesian counterpart was deleted per A7 (same A7 criteria as here). --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:47, 1 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donal Bisht[edit]

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

Actress is covered in two Times of India sources which are reliable. Overall doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Marvellous Spider-Man 11:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found some more news articles in this query, but agree that right now the content of the sources do not establish WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Perhaps her career will mature a little more over the coming years.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and unconvincing career, WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 6 December 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 deleted as Wikipedia:CSD#A7 by User:Espresso Addict. (non-admin closure of AfD) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vibekananda pathdan kendra[edit]

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

No apparent relevance, unsourced, orphan, there is no reason to believe that this article should stay in Wikipedia. ★ Iñaki ★ (Talk page) ★ 11:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Coaching centers do not count as schools, and there is no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable secondary sources at all Spiderone 10:57, 3 December 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hercolubus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. Only one of the references given is a reliable secondary source, and it mentions Hercolubus only in passing. Other than that it's original research, with a heavy dose of our editors' personal opinions. Even if this were a valid topic for an article, starting over from scratch would be more efficient than trying to salvage this page. Huon (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 21:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 21:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure that the deletion sorting above is helpful. If this subject is notable, which I doubt, it will be as folklore rather than science or astronomy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Huon that it might be best to start this article over from scratch. In its original form it lacked neutrality and an encyclopedic tone. I attempted to edit it myself last week, and found myself nearly re-writing the entire piece, only to be flagged for bold editing.

Given that the topic can be argued to be an early Latin American model for an erratic solar system member that is finding its way into modern discussion among English-speaking scientists under a variety of equivalent names (a body answering the description of Hercolubus is making its approach known mathematically but is not officially photographed yet - hence no uniform name), it would seem encyclopedic to avoid complete omission of non-English terms that could be useful to readers pursuing further independent research. The biggest challenge, from my desk, is overcoming the concern about conflation via appropriate multi-linguistic citations, which may become a moot point as the approach becomes visible and observers in different cultures continue to name it according to the synonym(s) of their own ancient cultural records. ~L.G.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per WP:COMMONNAME, articles on the English Wikipedia should have the most common English name for the topic. If this is about the same topic as, say, Nibiru or Planet X or maybe Planet Nine, we may want to note the non-English name in one of those articles, but we shouldn't have a separate article on the same topic under a non-English title. Huon (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 11:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any reliable sources for this; instead, a search reveals many fringe sites. Whether we call this non-notable, original research, or fringe, it needs to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think notability has been established and I can't find anything significant to change that. Maybe a brief mention at Planets_beyond_Neptune#Other_proposed_planets is warranted, but a standalone article doesn't seem to be. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. The only decent sourcein the article doesn't even mention the subject's name. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:47, 4 December 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 due to low/no discussion. The article can be re-created by visiting REFUND. Joyous! | Talk 01:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Escotet Foundation[edit]

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

This article appears not to be notable. It is an orphan, with no sources outside of the company page, and its creator (who has been notified of the pending deletion), is a SPA editor and has been notified at @Mishakohl: --FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this? I do not see a reason to keep this article. It doesn't meet notability criteria. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 11:07, 1 December 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 is a well establish active not-for-profit Foundation since 1999 that can be consulted at Florida http://www.sunbiz.org/ to verify its status.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Grey[edit]

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

The article lacks any reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source. I tried to find something with a google source. Just searching "Ray Gray" gave me nothing. My search for where I added film just gave me lots of hits on 50 shades of Gray. I found him going through Category:American Latter Day Saints, so I looked for Ray Gray and added Mormon. I came up with another Gray who spoke at the Mormon Transhumanist association meeting, who lacks the first name Ray, but nothing on Ray Grey. There may be sources, but I could not find any, definately nothing to show Grey is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 11:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It makes a difference if you search for Ray Grey or Ray Gray. I search using the man’s correct name (Grey, NOT Gray), (note the nominator stated "Just searching Ray Gray gave me nothing..."); and I found several hits that showed Ray Grey was indeed the director of the movies mentioned in the article; “Between Meals” (at http://www.lordheath.com/menu1_1740.html ). "Andy Takes a Flyer” and “Among Those Present” (in book, "Ford Sterling: The Life and Films" by Wendy Warwick White). In addition to the films listed in the Wikipedia article, the Wendy Warwick White book (https://books.google.com/books?id=BihxojE-3DYC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=ray+grey,+Among+Those+Present&source=bl&ots=3ZceRTLt-V&sig=heZmWy-ZDOnJGKmCr8wSa5J10mE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPo-jiu9TQAhUHy2MKHRkDBr0Q6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=ray%20grey%2C%20Among%20Those%20Present&f=false) also mentions Ray Grey in another Sennett’s movie, “A Lady’s Tailor.” All this from only about 5 minutes of searching on the internet. I'm thinking additional research would come up with additional supporting information for a "Keep" vote. . Zootsuit1941 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Johnpacklambert: I took a few more minutes this morning to search on "Ray Grey, director” and got two more book hits immediately. This article can be improved even more (I noticed you have already added one of the above references) by adding one or more of these latter two references, but I’m just a newbie and don’t want to try editing this article. Someone with more experience should tackle that. I feel confident more references can be found depending on what additional words are added to "Ray Grey" in the google search field. The additional 2 references I came up with this morning are as follows:

Resting Places:The Burial Sites of More Than 14,000 Famous Persons, 3d ed. by Scott Wilson, McFarland Publishing: https://books.google.com/books?id=7-DgDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=%22Ray+Grey%22,+director&source=bl&ots=6USCKExp1L&sig=Y2Sf9PFRljdGhetic53QYQ4Jdac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl6M6bvd3QAhUIe7wKHc91A8EQ6AEIQjAI#v=onepage&q=%22Ray%20Grey%22%2C%20director&f=false

The Silent Films of Harry Langdon (1923-1928), By James L. Neibaur, Scarecrow Press: https://books.google.com/books?id=Q5ZoznpiOZoC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=Ray+Grey,+director&source=bl&ots=LDVXhzAwbR&sig=NV0wStgLphRUtmSFSeR98SiXeDA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwji5J6Eqd3QAhXCrlQKHT-xAbAQ6AEISDAH#v=onepage&q=Ray%20Grey%2C%20director&f=false Zootsuit1941 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just tried my luck at adding the two above references to the Ray Grey page. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note #2: Also just added external link to Hal Roach presents "Between Meals" mentioned above in my original "Keep" vote. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note #3: Added Mack Sennett's Fun Factory: A History and Filmography of His Studio and His Keystone and Mack Sennett Comedies reference for Ray Grey as an assistant director. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note #4: Added "Catalog of Copyright Entries" by Library of Congress reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zootsuit1941 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur we have nothing here for genuinely convincing substance for an article and the article and career both show it; improvements are not conceivably helpful if not actually causing an improved article (which seems to be the case here). SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a general comment on this AfD by User:Johnpacklambert and the Delete vote above by User:SwisterTwister. But in the spirit of full disclosure I have to say I am a newbie author, have posted one article that is currently in another AfD nominated by SwisterTwister. With that out of the way, here are my comments.

(1) As a result of going through the AfD process on my first article, I’ve become interested in the whole subject of biographically AfDs. There seem to be hundreds, if not thousands, out there with a hundred or more being added each day. I’ve read through a lot of them and a high percentage seem to have been created without much thought put into them. This particular AfD is a classic example in my opinion. The nominators opening statement is “The article lacks any reliable sources.” The nominator went on to state that he tried to find something with a Google source but came up with nothing. That is only because the nominator spelled the subject’s name incorrectly (as I mentioned in my above Keep vote), as there are a lot of reliable sources referencing the subject, I have mentioned a few (5 so far) that I found in just a very short time.

(2) As far as the above SwisterTwister Delete vote, I see nothing in the explanation to support the Delete vote. Based on the article as it currently is, it seems obvious that Ray Grey accomplished a lot in his 35 years on this planet. I’m not in the movie business but I am a fan of the movies and love the history of the movie industry. Ray Grey is well known to fans and historians of the movie industry and I agree with SwisterTwister that there is room for improvement in this article. My only attempt so far has been to help keep this article from being deleted due to the AfD nominators' main objection of “The article lacks any reliable sources.” I’ve added 5 reliable sources so far as of this writing, and can no doubt add more if necessary (although I don’t think it is necessary). For example, Ray Grey was also a screenwriter (not mentioned in the article) and I know of several references that address this aspect of his career (and I may add them later, time permitting). Zootsuit1941 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sourves on Grey that are actually reliable shown here still seem to only amount to directory listings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: John, which sources do you feel are not "actually reliable" and why you feel they are not reliable; let me know and I will try and correct the problem.

By "directory listings" I assume you mean sources that refer to Grey as a director? If so, I agree with you that the sources I added are for Grey as a director, those were the ones that popped up first, since his main contributions were as a director. There are reliable sources available for his acting and his screen writing also. I just now added one for his acting. I'm sure there is a better way to add that reference, but I'm not skilled at this Wikipedia coding (since the page numbers are different for this one source). Feel free to fix that if there is a fix. If by "directory listing" you mean something that lists only basic facts (like a dictionary), then all I can say is that one of the Wikipedia Notability requirements for an Entertainer is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and that's what the sources I've added support. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I mean by "directory listings" is that in one of the sources the various films are written about in short directory style with placement of the name of the director (in some cases Grey was asitant director) and such. That is what I am talking about. In another we get a one sentance mention of Grey among 3 asitant directors temporarily advanced to director status by the producer. This is not substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Okay, I now understand your use of the term "directory listings." But your AfD was initially based on "The article lacks any reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source." I've now added 6 "reliable" sources, and in my humble opinion they all show Grey was notable. Are you now changing your logic for the AfD? My understanding is that "the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I think the 6 sources do meet this requirement, of course I may be wrong, I often am. Zootsuit1941 (talk)

~~Delete~~. Insufficient coverage by reliable independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Not that the article lacks reliable sources - his roles in various movies are cited, but the sources, even taken together, constitute only trivial mentions of the subject. There is not a single source that I could find that covers Ray Grey in depth, which is what is required to demonstrate notability. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above Delete: @No longer a penguin: The logic for your Delete vote ("a source that covers in depth is required for notability,") seems more opinion than factual; as (1) WP:GNG does not state that depth is required for notability (the only place in WP:GNG that I can find the word depth is "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."" and (2) WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" And the mentions in these sources are certainly not trivial. See WP:GNG for an example (i.e., Bill Clinton) of what trivial means. The sources in this article all refer to the subject's career body of work, not trivial stuff like someone being in a high school band. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zootsuit1941: You are absolutely right that the above is my opinion, it was not intended to sound like authority. However, I still maintain that, in my opinion, in depth coverage in a single source can not be replaced by barely trivial mentions in multiple sources. The should either be an in-depth source or a combination of sources that collectively constitute something "in-depth". And, absolutely, every single source in the article is a trivial mention, I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise: those are books about a different subject, where Ray Grey is mentioned in passing once or twice or as part of credits. The example of a trivial mention in GNG is just an extreme example, different mentions in passing can be trivial. Just like "book-length history" is not the only thing that constitutes significant coverage. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@No longer a penguin: Comment to above: Unfortunately much of the information on the people that made silent movies is forgotten today, documentation in those days was not what it is today. But the more I look for information on Ray Grey, the more I find.

For example, in the book (not referenced in the article) "American Silent Horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy Feature Films, 1913-1929” by John T. Soister (available online), Ray Grey was mentioned many times over two pages (705 & 706). For example in reviewing the movie “The Ghost in the Garett,” the author wrote “…Ray Grey…was the picture’s primo heavy…” and “Ray Grey …started in the industry with Mac Sennett-the San Diegan’s first screen credit was 1916’s A Movie Star for Keystone -and ended with Hal Roach (Hired and Fired, 1926); this last credit was posthumous, as Grey died in 1925, a victimof the Los Angeles pneumonia outbreak. He was 35 years old. Grey was father to Virginia Grey…and the popular character actress may well be regarded as her father’s genre legacy.” Admittedly this is pretty much the same info as in the Wikipedia article, maybe this is even the original source for the article, I don’t know. But it’s definitely more than trivial mention

In a newpaper article “The Sunday Oregonian. (Portland, Ore.) August 13, 1922,” (also not referenced in the article, but available online) silent era actress Constance Talmadge (one of the most popular comedic actresses in Hollywood) stated “Ray Grey, heretofore assistant director to Dick Jones, Mack Sennett’s production manager, has surprised everyone on the big comedy lot with his knowledge of the art of making up and his portrayals as one of the leading characters in the new Ben Turpin comedy special, “The Shriek of Araby.” I don’t know if you consider this trivial mention or not, I don’t. I'm guessing there were probably many other old newspaper articles on Ray Grey, but unfortunately most are probably not available online.

Whoops, I just now noticed you withdrew your Delete vote, so never mind on all the above stuff, & I see you found one of the additional references that I did this morning. Good work.Zootsuit1941 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. meets the standards for actors: named roles in multiple important films -- the sources are sufficient to show it. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, the sources show that he had named roles in multiple (2, if we only include full-length) films, but I did not consider them as "important" by default. However, they both have Wikipedia articles and seem to have some sources behind them to establish notability. Including this, which claims that Grey and Dorothy Gish were the only "names" in the movie. WP:NACTOR seems to be marginally satisfied, I'll withdraw the delete vote. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:RS to establish important player in the leading silent film studio of its day. Non-ephemeral notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
Keep - Although I think this is a borderline case, I think he meets our GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:59, 17 December 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 13:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Howell[edit]

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

Howell is an assistant college football coach. This is not enough to grant notabilioty. My search for coverage did not show up anything more substantial than the employer bios we have here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 11:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is just a participating in college football and even there just as an assistant coach. He misses WP:NGRIDIRON very clearly. There are some passing mentions of him in a number of college football orientated news pages when they talk about his team(s) and its matches but nothing which resembles significant in-depth coverage of him as person. He is pretty much a run-of-the-mill college coach. While he works a for a notable team, he himself is not notable and fails WP:GNG. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Defensive coordinator of a Division I FBS program and a Broyles Award finalist with significant coverage in multiple mainstream media sources passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage includes the following: (1) Howell the quiet 'master' of Virginia's defense, The Daily Progress, 9/30/16, (2) Howell still making big difference for Cougars away from the spotlight, Daily Herald, 8/27/15, (3) BYU football's Nick Howell not backing down from defensive challenge, Daily Herald, 12/22/14, (4) Secondary coach Nick Howell has come a long way in a short time, The Salt Lake Tribune, 9/8/12, (5) BYU's Howell endures growing pains in first year as defensive play-caller, Deseret News, 12/15/04, (6) Fightin' words: Howell's comments ring true for BYU's defense, Standard-Examiner, 12/19/14, (7) "BYU's defense a 'work in progress,' Howell says", 10/14/14, The Salt Lake Tribune, (8) Defense struggling, but Bronco happy with Howell, The Salt Lake Tribune, 10/7/14, and (9) BYU's Howell a nominee for Broyles Award, The Salt Lake Tribune, 11/27/13. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that one can find mentions of this person in local media, but I don't think those satisfy WP GNG, which asks for significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable established outlets as whole. Almost all of those articles are in the sports sections in small local media outlets with circulations of about 20-30k pieces. None of those actually do significant in-depth coverage of Howell as person. It is trivial sports reporting about routine actions of the team he works for and his activities with them. Just look at the very first article, it is basically a soapbox which quotes a bunch of person with opinions about him, no actual reporting or coverage. The other articles are pretty similar. Having been nominated for an award is nice, but does not automatically mean notability. His nomination gave him some mentions in higher-league newspapers, but nothing goes beyond "Nick Howell has been nominated for a Broyles Award". Again, nothing which can be called "in-depth coverage".

It is undoubtedly true that this person has some local prominence, but all of that comes with association with the sports teams. All the coverage is just trivial sports reporting in small local media outlets and none of those article does some actual signficiant in-depth coverage coverage about him which goes beyond trivial reporting. Dead Mary (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree to disagree. The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News are major metropolitan dailies, two of the most prominent regional newspapers in the Rocky Mountain states. And the coverage I've cited is not routine (e.g., passing mentions in game coverage) but rather consists of articles focusing on Howell. BTW, the Broyles Award is the highest honor an assistant coach can receive; there are literally thousands of college assistant coaches and Howell was a finalist for his profession's highest award. This one is an easy and clear keep IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats definitely true for those two newspapers, but those 2 articles are not what I would understand of in-depth coverage. It is just a mere collection of quotes from various people and Howell himself. 70% of both articles start or end all their their sentences with "Howell said", "Mendenhall said", "said Austin Heder", "PoVey said", "Heder said", "Howell said" and so on. For me thats really just fluff and not substantial. Sure, the number of articles is impressive and some of them are long, but the actual content in them lacking. I understand your points but I am still unconvinced per my reasoning above. But you don't have to convince me anyway, only the closing admin. :P Dead Mary (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the sources listed by Cbl62. Also, the fact that he is "just participating in college football" does not have any bearing on the discussion, in my opinion. College football is not exactly insignificant. Lepricavark (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found by Cbl62 show a clear pass on WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 11 December 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 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Binod Bhagat[edit]

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

Non-notable software engineer and consultant. References given are mentions; can't find coverage in reliable sources. G11 and a7 tags removed by subject (who interestingly created the article about the author). —teb728 t c 10:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for software engineers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 3 December 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. per previous discussion and the creator of this split Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes —SpacemanSpiff 10:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1-1085)[edit]

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

Strong delete-Wikipedia is not a repository of details of numerous episodes of any show.Also several instances of copyvio. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Suspected copyvio and/or original research. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes. Ajf773 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 19:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The split I did was for convenience, not because I liked the contents. Low quality article with suspected copyvio. The Banner talk 09:15, 2 December 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 Procedural close. Deleted by CambridgeBayWeather. —SpacemanSpiff 03:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes (Episode 1086-1300)[edit]

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

Strong delete-Wikipedia is not a repository of details of numerous episodes of any show. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Suspected copyvio and/or original research. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jai Jai Jai Bajrang Bali episodes. Ajf773 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and copyvio Spiderone 19:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The split I did was for convenience, not because I liked the contents. Low quality article with suspected copyvio. The Banner talk 09:15, 2 December 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. Alexf^(talk) 14:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neha malayalam movie[edit]

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

Film to be released in 2021. Wikipedia:Too soon & non-notable. PROD contested. —teb728 t c 09:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. This user is also creating unref'd BLPs and should be nuked ASAP too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:20, 1 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hanna (Consumer Advocate)[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR the sources are almost exclusively self-published articles and press releases. Vanity page and soapbox! Domdeparis (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria NealeFamily (talk) 23:14, 4 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 Years from Drop of Ink[edit]

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

Non notable box set of albums that do not have their own pages. Does not meet criteria WP:NALBUMS Domdeparis (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As pointed out, the albums included do not have their own article...not a sure sign of lack of notability but hardly promising. This is not a recording in any case; it is unremarkable commercial exploitation.TheLongTone (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with reasons above.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:36, 3 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Senchoudhary[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list of his contribution indicates him to be of notable importance but surprisingly the subjectfails to get even any passing coverage inWP:RS per my searches.Willing to change my view if the subject can be properly sourced. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I spent some time looking and I couldn't find reliable sources for this article. It does not pass WP:GNG at this time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:25, 3 December 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda–Fremantle AFL controversies[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:synth article. There is no parent article (i.e. St Kilda–Fremantle AFL rivalries) so it is not a split and must meet the WP:GNG. So far there is only one article that discusses the topic of the article in depth[45]. This is a St Kilda website which I am not sure even meets our definition of a WP:RS. Everything else is just standard news that you would expect to find between any two clubs of any two sports.

The lead itself is pure original research which just underlines the dubious nature of this article. This is just a laundry list for non-notable incidents. There are better articles for ones that are semi-notable (season articles and the like) and notable ones can always get there own one (e.g. AFL siren controversy). AIRcorn (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this is obvious WP:SYNTH. The only source which says that there is in fact a notable history of "controversies" involving the two teams is a blog. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH; agree with nom regarding the intro being purely original research, being an avid supporter, Fremantle and St Kilda matches having a "particularly high frequency of controversial and unusual events" doesn't spring to mind for me and no reliable sources back this statement to be true. Flickerd (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with multiple redirects for article items, and merge content:
- 1999: Peter Carey mark into Peter Carey (umpire) if not already there, and redirect from Peter Carey mark
- 2005: Whispers in the Sky into Matthew Head if not already there, and redirect from Whispers in the Sky
- 2006: Sirengate redirect to existing main article AFL siren controversy
- 2007: Steven Baker suspended into Steven Baker (Australian footballer) if not already there
- 2011: Ross Lyon switches clubs into Ross Lyon if not already there

Article is an arbitrary synthesised list. If really interesting to some readers, then create a see also controversies list in each of the club articles with links to the relevant sections in the above main articles. The storm damage item is not a controversy at all? Aoziwe (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally a good idea to avoid merging then deleting due to attribution issues. If any information is to be merged it would be easier to redirect this article to AFL siren controversy as that is the major incident and keep the contribution history intact. I don't think this is needed though as all the incidents are mentioned in the corresponding articles already with either the correct weight or with too much weight (Peter Carey (umpire) and Steven Baker (Australian footballer) could actually do with some trimming to bring them in line with WP:Due). Whispers in the Sky could easily be changed to redirect to Matthew Head if it is thought to be a common enough search term though. AIRcorn (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For background, this page did start its life as "St Kilda–Fremantle AFL rivalry", and like many of the sports rivalry articles in Wikipedia, it was just a list of events with no tangible rivalry to back it up; I changed the name to 'StK-Freo AFL controversies' a few years back to make it a more apt name to fit the article. Like all of the other rivalry articles that come and go, from Wikipedia, this should be deleted as a SYNTH. Aspirex (talk) 06:40, 9 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaptan Laadi[edit]

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

Delete and Salt please as this has been restarted twice now as clear advertising and none of this suggests better at all, as not only are the sources listed trivial and unconvincing, they are literally either interviewed quotes and "tips and event listings, none of which suggest why we should not apply WP:NOT, which is in fact applicable because it is policy against such blatancy here. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 3 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 12:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sandy[edit]

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

Only sources are a passing mention in an article about a product and a feature in a local newspaper. Appears to be an autobiography. Doesn't seem notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC) New information now added for notability, review again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsandyny (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- NN - autobio -- Alexf^(talk) 14:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not AutoBio. I'm biographer, same handle as page. Should not be marked for deletion. Notable/ references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsandyny (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly Not Notable as a "rockstar" based on one album uploaded to iTunes. As for notability as an "inventor", I would say that coverage cited indicates the need for a 24-hour news cycle to have something to talk about. WP:NRV:"No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity..." The fact that some limited coverage of him talking about his inventions exists doesn't make him or the inventions notable. That would require more extensive coverage in secondary sources describing their significance, not just their existence. nerdgoonrant (talk) 16:26, 8 December 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 22:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Indian Chief Ministers Committee for Digital Payment Systems[edit]

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

This article is verging on cruft. There is absolutely no need to have a separate article on every government body, when the content herein can easily be covered under the article on the relevant policy, or even in the main Narendra Modi article. Vanamonde (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Support per nom.We can't create WIKIPEDIA articles on every committee/body that the parliament decides to form.It is not even that the commitee is very notable or it is working in a field of utmost national importance or it has been studied in WP:RS with great interest or passed some revolutionary decision etc.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 05:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here is an official release of Committee formation by Government of India, by Press Information Bureau, on 30 November 2016, [46] Junosoon (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junosoon: So what? Nobody is disputing the existence of the committee, just the need to have an article about it. Vanamonde (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this committee. Every government/parliament has a huge number of committees and commissions, some permanent, some ad hoc, and it's just part of the deal. We would need some evidence of specifically notability for this commission. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : It is an Indian , National interest Committee as formed by Government of India,to tackle digital payment systems in India.

Adding News papers, links as evidence [47]- The Hindu [48]- Business Standard [49]-The Economic Times [50]-The Times of India. [51]-Financial Express. [52]-Business Standard. Junosoon (talk) 04:33, 2 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 12:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomson Club[edit]

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

While it exists, this topic about an unofficial list of Scottish goalkeepers, which is named after a Scottish footballer, has received no significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scottish goalkeepers and the "clean sheet" statistic exist, but the term "John Thomson Club" is made up. Complete fantasy. WP:V. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page was added, similar to the 'Lev Yashin Club' which is for Russian goalkeepers. It is intended for the 'John Thomson Club', which is an unofficial list, to be discussed on the BBC "Off the Ball" radio programme. (Comment added by Donnie Maroot, who created the page and is brand new to Wikipedia, so apologies for any technical issues with the page. Any help/suggestions would be welcome.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnie Maroot (talk • contribs) 08:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - comment above basically says that the user in question made up this concept, confirming that it is 100% non-notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, thanks for your comments. There would appear to be other non-official lists (for example the Serhiy Rebrov club) relating to sporting achievements which are permitted. The concept of the John Thomson Club has been discussed with the BBC, STV and other outlets to promote this further. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnie Maroot (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have List of Premier League goalkeepers with 100 or more clean sheets, so if it can be properly sourced, I assume we could have something like List of Scottish League goalkeepers with the most clean sheets. (See e.g. [53]) But the "John Thomson Club" itself seems to be just WP:MADEUP and lacks any independent reliable sourcing.

As for the similar lists relating to various Russian football records--see Lev Yashin Club and others listed in the "see also" section of that article--someone with access to and facility with Russian football sources should take a look to see if those "club" names are actually in common use or if the articles should be renamed. But as explained at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, the existence of those Russian lists is not an argument to use an unsourced, made-up name for a similar Scottish list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:MADEUP Spiderone 10:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:55, 4 December 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. Non notable and blatant advertising. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vintacy[edit]

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

Unremarkable fashion brand lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources at this time; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan New (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ New, Dylan. "Shop Fashion Vintage & Retro Clothing & Dress Vintacy Story Online - Tbdress.com". www.tbdress.com. Tidebuy. Retrieved 1 December 2016.

Speedy delete as an A7, no reasonable claim of import. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:04, 1 December 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- the article has been speedy deleted under G7. This discussion is moot (NAC). Reyk _YO! 08:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ReTech[edit]

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

I dig cyberpunk, I really do, but I cannot find any indication this art project has attracted attention from more than social media, blogs, and minor online zines that are little better than blogs. The article makes an unreferenced claim about one piece (?) being a part of an exhibition at a museum (Grand Rapids Art Museum) and possibly winning (?) something called Artprize, but the best I can find for the former is [https://www.neondystopia.com/cyberpunk-art-photography/retech-cyberpunk-reclamation-art/, and for latter, well, nothing. I think it fails WP:GNG. If anyone can point out to a more reliable source covering this, please do. (On a related note, all the images are likely copyvios and I have started a Commons deletion discussion for them at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Diffman). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. I couldn't find any broad coverage either. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:04, 1 December 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 that the company is notable, and overall, participants herein have not agreed with the nominator's view of the article being spam, the sources being public relations content, the article being a business listing, or the article violating WP:NOT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherpa Capital[edit]

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

Advertising for an article whose sources are literally only published and republished advertising, regardless of publication name or attention, because literally everything here actually goes into such specifics, only the company would ever say, such as the Fortune article itself now only goes to begin with its named investors and business partners then to its interviewed CEO quotes and finally with its named clients. My own searches have then found only PR, regardless of publication, so that alone seals the fate of this article, which is advertising to begin with. Note how literally every article listed always has the same consistency of supplying the same financials, and this isn't a coincidence when it's formatted so eloquently.

No genuine journalism would ever put that, unless it was company-supplied and with advertising motivations, and this article has everything to suggest this. Now, Shervin Pishevar may be notable, but the other, Scott Stanford, certainly seems to not be, and nor is this company since there's still such advertising blatancy. Even some of this, such as the listed NYT never actually mentions the company, but instead the founder, therefore not only is "Sherpa Capital has been known to seek out ideas" advertising, but it's simply shoehorning any attempts of ingenuity. Sure, we could consider merging this, but it would violate WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, because not only is Wikipedia not a business listing or company webhost, the contents here are exactly that, thus not mergeable. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. How is this different from other articles in Wikipedia about Venture capital firms of the United States? There are announcements that trigger newspaper articles when funds are opened, etc. Why would the information be expected to be different across media sources?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm confused, too =( I've been trying my best to improve at writing these and use other entires as models. I do not work for the company, nor do I have any vested interest. It is my goal to find notable start-ups, especially those that are founded by a woman, and the venture capitalists that support them. In particular, I thought Sherpa was cool because of their connection Hyperloop, and a notable female entrepreneur (Tina Sharkey) is connected to them. Please let me know what I can do better to improve. Thanks!(Estee Hand (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The more that I scan articles about venture capital organizations, the more that they are driven by activities that could be considered PR-driven - opening of funds, etc. I am not finding a difference in content in a lot of the articles to what is in Sherpa Capital.

It seems to make sense first to identify what would be a "good article", or at least a class A or B article, for a venture capital org as a model. I'm looking - and have posted a request for comments and input on model articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Private Equity#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherpa Capital.

There are some great links at the top to find other sources to add to the article. (As an aside, it's funny that "Sherpa capital" also refers to Namche Bazaar). Then, it would make sense to look for content with the models in mind.

Are there any comments on this as an approach? Any examples of good or fairly good articles as examples?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are "start" level articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Private Equity in a worklist - a model is mentioned on that page - and I found this good article Apollo Global Management.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is modified to fit within the "model" section framework - and similar in nature to the "start" articles, is that sufficient? And, looking at the type of sources used in the good article? What that would seem to mean is: looking for sources for controversies or competitors. And, round out history, portfolio, scope areas, and key people, where possible.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to "How is this different from other..." comment by User:CaroleHenson - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:CORPSPAM. This means we have more spam-like entries to purge, simply. That some survived for years is just a sad state of affairs that we are not cleaning up spam quickly enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 1 December 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 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More content has been added to the article that is clearly not PR generated content, such as the controversies over Hyperloop, which could adversely impact the organization's portfolio. There is also added content about their investments from sources that don't mention Pishevar. And, the article was reorganized based upon the WikiProject Private Equity's model format, in keeping with "start" articles created by the project, and a few sources were traded out for better sources, like those used in a good article - based upon the comments above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - An article that is overspecific with such PR materials such as its "portfolio", "key people" and "services" is advertising and is nothing else but that; simply because Other Articles Exist is not an explanation why we should accept this one, especially since the sources themselves are still in fact PR. There's no use in redirecting its founder to this article since he's not best known as anything else and both were clearly started as an advertising campaign, regardless of "potential notability". SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that 1) it made sense to base changes upon the model, start articles, and a GA article from the WikiProject for Private Equity. IMO - The portfolio section makes sense for an article about a venture capital firm and is a section in this good article Apollo Global Management - so for the moment I have made no changes there, the key people section is gone, there is no services section. 2) the changes addressed the concerns you mentioned when you posted the article. I don't notice any recognition for changes to address your concerns, like using sources that don't speak about Pishenor, and providing more balance.
- There are a lot more sources out there, though, so more can be done. Can you help me understand what you think is needed to make this a viable article?
- I have yet to hear anyone else say that this article should be deleted - but I also have not heard of anyone that hasn't worked on the article say that it should stay. It would be good for others to weigh in, whatever their vote may be.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment'. Ignoring TechCrunch, which seems to publish entries about anytime someone sneezes in a startup, and less notable sites as well as mentions-in-passing, we are left with few entries from reputable, household-name journals like Fortune ([54], [55]) and WSJ ([56]). The nominator raises concerns about the quality of those. The first one is indeed not much better than a press release, but second one at least has the following sentences "Fortune has obtained certain documents related to the fundraise... Sherpa declined to comment on the documents." which does suggest at least a bit of critical thinking instead of parroting PR stuff. WSJ article is not open, so I cannot comment on it. The question is - is this company failing WP:NCORP? It is a tough call. The company is new, and most of the coverage is the usual spammy PR crap, but it does get something in Forbes and presumably WSJ. The entry is also not written by your usual paid COI SPAs, and therefore seems neutral, or even more negative than not due to a big controversy section. Ín the end, I will stay on the fence. SW, you know I share your views about those kind of entries, but I think it is better to go after many, many entries that are even more clearly failing NCORP. This one... so very borderline. We could leave it for a year or two, the odds are not bad it will get one or two more decent mentions that will make it less borderline as time goes on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding TechCrunch, I just removed it. The Fortune article that was also there covered the cited content.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks good to have a NYT article in the reference lists--but reading it, is is only very peripherally about the company. This sort of distortion is to some extent the consequence of our own rules, which lay weight on the existence of sourcing, rather than on what the sourcing says. I think the string of these articles and the inconclusive nature of the debates over them has shown the impossibility of making a rational decision for articles on firms on the GNG -- the requirements for substantial and independent can be interpreted in either direction according to the desired result. The only rational basis for deciding is the importance of the company--in the financial world, that translates into money. The level I use for this sort of firm is $1 billion assets. (There wold need to be the usual exception where a firm is the object ofmajor news coverage about something significant--which does not include minor regulatory matters). We need a compromise such as we have afor schools, to provide a rough division between what we do and do not want to include. The rules we use for "notability" have so little relationship to ordinary language that it's time we stopped using the term at all. I propose we say what we mean, which is 'appropriateness for a WP article". Then we can proceed in a rational way to decide what is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous references from reliable and independent sources have significant coverage. GNG and WP:ORG are clearly satisfied, No policy or guideline backs up DGG's subjective "ONE BILLION DOLLARS!" criterion. Edison (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established via significant mentions in reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established. I see 18 sources, a lot of them significant. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That means nothing when WP:NOT is still violated for being nothing else but a business listing. We cannot compromise with keeping an article as advertising with the exchange of simple sources, which clearly contain and consist of PR. WP:NOT explicitly states we are not a YellowPages or business webhost. What policy is there for "PR sources are enough"? SwisterTwister talk 14:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand this, because it seems like a charge that could be asserted pretty broadly.

How is this different than other articles about venture capital organizations? What does an acceptable article for a venture capital firm look like?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see sustained, significant coverage from WP:RS. That should be enough. SST flyer 02:03, 9 December 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. Article has been improved/sourced since nomination and as none o that's been refuted I'm assuming the nominator is fine with it all, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra L. Anderson[edit]

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

Pilot's notability, if any, comes from the Northwest Airlines Humanitarian Award she received and being a board member of Women in Aviation International. Borderline qualification. Meatsgains (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the article is out of date. Northwest Airlines hasn't existed in six years. --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Oakshade! I fixed the tense of the article to match. Margalob (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing convincing from this career, and everything (both information and sources) simply amounts to triviality and unconvincing information. Nearly no actual claims of significance as it is. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She became a pilot at a major airline when that was very rare for a woman, and had a long career. She received significant coverage in a book called The American Aviation Experience: A History, which is a current reference in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a third reliable source on her. My personal rule of thumb for "multiple" is three. She's clearly a pioneer, but I think she may just fall short, based on my Gsearches. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some more sources, including one large article in a journal. She's a pioneer, but also passes GNG. Pinging Shawn in Montreal so they can see the new sources which I added to the article itself. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEYMANN sourcing by User:Megalibrarygirl.E.M.Gregory (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan J. Folkman[edit]

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

Folkman is a low level businessman with no actions or positions that rise to the level of notability. The sourcing is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally so trivial, there's both nothing for substance or notability, and there's no hope for meaningful improvements here. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a little coverage here, and a few book, mostly directories, but not much that can be used to build an article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:41, 2 December 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 Love You Baba. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saugat Bista[edit]

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

Current world record holder as the youngest film director. See WP:BLP1E; all articles only point to this as reason for his notability. Notability is of course permanent, and his notability will vanish when someone seven years, 339 days old makes a movie someday. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspected this might end up at AfD. I removed the speedy tag and could have simply redirected the article to the film article. In fact, that might have been a better plan than AfD. Anyhow, I threw in a few sources to support it and left it at that.

As for notability, I wouldn't mind seeing this as a section within the film article. On the other hand, a case for keep could be made using WP:BLP1E: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" It seems, though, both 2 and 3 are not met. #2: His website shows he has a few irons in the fire. Directors usually go on to direct more. #3: The event was significant and the individual's role was substantial and well documented.

I'm fine either way, but lean toward adding a section to the film article about this subject. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one event notability at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Love You Baba, per Anna Frodesiak. If and when this individual amasses a greater body of notable film work, then a separate article will be appropriate. --Drm310 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 1 December 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 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hanley[edit]

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

Hanley founded a social media marketing firm that grew to about 50 employees and then was purchased by a bigger company. This is not the stuff of notability. Beyond this, the first 2 sources not only are not about Hanley, they do not even seem to mention him. The 3rd source is about Hanley, but it was created by Hanley as part of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign. In this campaign individuals create profiles of themselves. Even when things are a step up and there is filming of the person, the creation is not in any way indepdent of the subject. We have no sources that are indepdent, 3rd party and about the subject, so we have no choice but to delete. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally nothing but a personal business job listing here, there's nothing close to substance, let alone a notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 1 December 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. Transparent attempt at vote-stacking noted and disregarded. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Rampton[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable businessman. He lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Quotes from him are not coverage about him. Sources from first afd are trivial mentions. Sources from the article are mostly primary. Other provide only quotes from him. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a contributor to various websites is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aside from being an authority author, a Google search on John Rampton turned up a lot tier1 news coverage on him, which I'll add to the article. --Prowp (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any eta on when you will add this coverage to the article? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, already added a handful of solid references, and just added more now. --Prowp (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You'se bombarded it with primary sources, quotes from him and short mentions from silly lists turning it into more of an advert. But I guess that's par for course for shills on Wikipedia these days. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's plenty of reliable coverage on John Rampton to meet notability. Speedy Keep. Progalaxy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's your going rate for vote stacking? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why this would even be an issue. Asdfsadfsadfsadfsad (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is definitely a notable author. A quick search on Google provides significant coverage that should warrant this being kept. Thelmz (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all the shills trying to vote stack here. AfDs are not head counts. You actually have to give real reasons. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in. Not sure what gives you the right to make the accusation that I'm a shill, but anyway this page meets WP:CREATIVE, which states "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Rampton has been cited in the Wall Street Journal, The Seattle Times , Inc. Magazine, among a dozen other business publications. In addition, he also meets WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Rampton has been recognized as a leading entrepreneur and marketer in his field on numerous reliable publications such Forbes, Entrepreneur Magazine Mashable, among a handful of others. So this page easily meets the criteria for notability. Prowp (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted, yes. Cited, No. Inclusion on those silly lists is not a well-known and significant award or honor. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew articles on Mashable and Forbes are silly, not until now. You might want to ask yourself a few questions: 1. Has Rampton received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has he been nominated for one several times? 2. Has he made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field? If yes, then your nomination based on notability is null and void as he meets WP:ANYBIO. And you might want to read [this] please. Thelmz (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering policy WP:NOT as this is a blatant advertisement and the Keep are also not substantiating themselces to policy. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are either non-RS / primary sources / written by the subject. None of these help to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. We require reliable secondary sources and I don't see enough here. I am also concerned at the vote stacking happening here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 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 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Imreh[edit]

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

The article is conspicuously lacking in independent sources. We have a bunch of PR-type biographies, typically provided by entities with which the subject is associated. We have a concert announcement, a radio interview, and a couple of sale pages for her products. Rounding out this vanity page are a puff piece and book review, but nothing truly indicative of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician". - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pianist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that Imreh would be on the watch list for deletion. She certainly has a bevy of successful students and years of touring and solo work. She's been on a major label or two for years. Why does she not rate and other pianists who haven't even published works of their own persevere? Jamesmarcus (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Imreh is a successful recording (touring) artist, teacher, soloist, and author. I believe she has earned her place in the lexicon. There must be some measure to differentiate similar artists who are not being considered for deletion from this one. What is the dividing line?

Jsteeber (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be pointed out that both Strideman and Jsteeber have very few contributions to the project, and that this is their first AfD edit in both cases; the two edits just happened to take place seven minutes apart. (In Strideman's case, it's the first edit in four years.) Let it also be pointed out that both accounts edited Victoria Theatre (Dayton, Ohio) in the same three-day period in November 2011, and that both have other edits related to Dayton, Ohio. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh my, is all I have to say to the links provided in the original posting - it can be really tantalizing when someone is new to use PR bios, because they are chock-full of information - but, nope - not the kind of sources that are needed. I haven't found a lot, but there is some information about her, someone could work on this article and find enough to make a stub or start level article. But, it looks to be a case of WP:TOSOON for the subject of this article at this time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:01, 10 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 12:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bimles Adhikari[edit]

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

Delete and Alt given the history at Bimlesh Adhikari and this article is literally not any better. Note that this one current article has in fact been deleted once before in 2013. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "his first ever performance was in movie Tulasi which is not yet released due to some difficulties" says it all. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 7 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glen S. Hopkinson[edit]

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

Hopkinson is not a notable painter. The only source in the article is his personal website. A search on google came up with no reliable sources, and nothing coming even close to indicate meeting the notability requirements for artists. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artist exists and he is marketing his paintings as verified by primary sources he controls. However, he fails our notability guideline for artists. He doesn't even come close. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one source, the Herald-Whig http://www.whig.com/story/27993267/wyoming-artist-to-be-featured-speaker-at-untold-nauvoo-stories that has some biographical info. I don't think that suffices to meet WP:GNG, and I see nothing that satifies WP:GNG. Mduvekot (talk) 03:02, 7 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 12:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ascend (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, appears to not be notable. Evking22 (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 1 December 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. Joyous! | Talk 12:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cooke (politician)[edit]

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

Cook is only really notable as a defeated candidate for governor of Utah. Candidates for governor are not default notable, and the coverage of him does not rise above routine coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 24 November 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 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 2300 google hits for "Peter Cooke" Utah Governor.Naraht (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, achieved the rank of Major General, so WP:MILPEOPLE also applies.Naraht (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even pre-nomination there was a fair amount of routine coverage of him as a General in the Army Reserve (example: Fort Douglas' largest unit deactivated LaPlante, Matthew D. The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 06 June 2009., "Standing in the shadow of the Salt Lake City military facility's rustling cottonwood trees, 96th commander Maj. Gen. Peter Cooke said ..." yada, yada.[57]). There was also coverage of his activities as a real estate developer (example: Centerville, Consultants Rethinking Town's Center Loomis, Brandon. The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 24 Dec 1999: C3. " Developer Peter Cooke proposed 260 apartments on that property until more than 100 neighbors persuaded the Planning Commission to reject a zoning change..." yada, yada [58]) More like those came up on a Proquest archives search. point is, coverage of Cooke is not limited to 2012 nomination for governor. then there is the fact that this was a gubernatorial race. Statewide races not only producing coverage like that from which the page is sourced, they do confer a degree of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 1 December 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) SST flyer 02:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House of the Congress of magistrates[edit]

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

This article really has no claim to significance. The single cited source also has no claim of significance and has very very little information. It would appear that most of it not all of the encyclopedic information is original, uncited research. bojo1498 talk 17:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GEOFEAT, heritage-listed buildings are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Necrothesp. This is most definitely a listed building of cultural/historic significance with the Russian Ministry of Culture. I don't think the name is correct - it used to belong to the Emir of Bukhara but it must have been a court at some time. Title can be fixed. I corrected the ref and added coordinates. I'll try to find more refs later. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:52, 1 December 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] ttp://www.forbesindia.com/article/12-hidden-gems/quick-heal-viral-success/34063/1

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Stock_Exchange_of_India

[3] ttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/quickheal-technologies-to-list-shares-on-february-18/articleshow/51012525.cms

[4] New, Dylan. "Shop Fashion Vintage & Retro Clothing & Dress Vintacy Story Online - Tbdress.com". www.tbdress.com. Tidebuy. Retrieved 1 December 2016.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]