Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 December	31 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Anthony[edit]

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

Basically known for one stunt for which he received routine non-lasting coverage. There currently is no reference online that covers this stunt though the article claims it was covered at least in the Miami Daily News. His career as an actor consists of secondary roles in low-budget movies. The latter part of his life is currently impossible to verify properly. Pichpich (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one event is not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. He did a stunt twice, which received essentially no lasting coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:G7. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories[edit]

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

This article has several problems, and is fundamentally just duplicating the topic of the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article. It is not clear that there is anything here that really needs to be preserved and is not already in the other article. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and delete. The article exists because a tiny handful of people won't accepot that the amount of detail they want about conspiracy theories, is excessive. Sorry, but it is excessive. None of them is genuinely important. I doubt even Alex Jones believes them. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BarrelProof I thought we were talking about this on the talk page. Thoughtful (light-handed) merging seemed to be the genesis of that discussion - but there was also discussion about changes to improve the main article. I was just going to move it to drafts and I see that the deletion tag was applied. Is it possible for me to move it to drafts at this point?

Either way, there's no lead to link to that page any longer, so I'll start removing links to the article.

Done

If not, I am fine at this point of going right to delete. There are too many endless conversations about the main article to start with. There's no need to start an entire new conversation about this.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I opened the discussion here because it seemed like the Talk page discussion wasn't resulting in action. In my view, the article is so inadequate and such an obvious duplication of effort that the situation should not be allowed to continue. To me, moving the article to the Draft namespace doesn't seem desirable since it is not really something intended to eventually become an article on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me at this point to have it deleted. Again, I don't see any use in prolonging this discussion. I would like to apply an author-requested CSD - and then a closer can close this discussion out, per what has been said here and at the article talk page.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 31 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 00:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad Autónoma del Estado[edit]

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

Normally, this is a merger to Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo. However, other institutions have similar names — Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México and Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos in particular — and no institution is simply known as "Universidad Autónoma del Estado". There are also very few incoming links. Raymie (t • c) 23:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [was "Merge"]. It is clear that the institution covered in the article is the Hidalgo one, it says so directly. The Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo article was started in 2011; this is a 2016 article. So big deal the new article creator was not aware of the previously existing article. This article has material not included in the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo article. There are merger tags on the articles. I don't see why this is at AFD, it could be resolved by editors at the article. After the merger, it is reasonable to consider that this should be converted to a disambiguation page, if the primary meaning of "Universidad Autonoma del Estado" is proven not to be the state of Hidalgo one (founded in 1869, a major institution) vs. the state of Mexico one (founded in 1956 or 1828, depending upon interpretation, but showing up with more Google hits sooner perhaps). There is also a UAE of Baja California. Is UAE a general term requiring a page describing it, as State university does for U.S. state schools? Then change it from a disambiguation page to a broad concept article (that includes links to the several examples). --doncram 02:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My answer would be no. While many states have institutions known as Universidad Autónoma (Autonomous University), there are only three whose name includes Universidad Autónoma del Estado de...: Hidalgo, México and Morelos. (The Universidad Autónoma de Baja California does not use it.) Most states' comparable institutions are known by simply the state name, such as Universidad Autónoma de Campeche; a select few aren't autonomous, such as the Universidad de Colima. Raymie (t • c) 07:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, comprendo about it not being a term that is used. Whether any existed before or not, there are no incoming links from mainspace, besides from the merger proposal at Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, the merge target article. There is content not in the target: for example, it seems to me that "UAEH is a founding member since 2005 of the Consortium of Mexican Universities (CUMEX)" could reasonably be added to the target, and perhaps also that the "former rector of the UAEH, Luis Gil Borja was president of CUMEX from 2008 to 2010." So then "Merge" the content and then request delete by a {{db}} request linking to this AFD. This could be closed with merger instructions posted which explain that should be done. --doncram 05:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Doncram: I've gone ahead and slapped an A10 tag on the article. What I did not know is that this article emerged from some sort of educational project at a Korean university (I'd never even seen that namespace before!). The user then went on to create a bunch of articles on Mexico topics, some of which were speedied for copyvio. The quality of the remainder is very low and all are significant fixer uppers. Raymie (t • c) 06:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, given that you have merged usable content, and there are no other opinions in this AFD, then now I agree that this should be deleted. I thought you were going to wait until the AFD closed by some other editor. I am going to removed the Speedy Delete request at the article, because that is confusing for others who naturally ask why a speedy-delete request on an article at AFD (it is not proper to delete before a decision is made). But now anyone should be able to close this AFD with "Delete" decision as there are no objections to the AFD, and then the article will in fact be deleted. --do ncr am 20:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Carlos Schwindt[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail both WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC A Google did not yield anything that rings the WP:N bell. Article was de-Proded and CSD A7 was declined. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our criteria for the notability of academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate notability of this early career academic. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above rationale. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Guinea at the 2009 Lusophony Games[edit]

Country-by-year participations at the Lusophony Games are not notable, as it is not a major multi-sport event. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these ones. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the above as they are not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For new events like the Lusophony Games, the best use to the reader seems to be fewer, focused articles rather than sprawling linked-to articles that become more like a directory than a coherent article. I did searches on four of these (Angola, Mozambique, Sao Tome, and Equatorial Guinea) in Lexis, Proquest, and Newsbank and can't make a case for any coverage transcending WP:Routine and couldn't find any. Delete is warranted in terms of 1. GNG coverage standard and 2. Best help to readers/editors. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I think notable info should be moved to the main pages, like for instance the names of the medal winning football team of Angola at the 2006 Lusophony Games to Football at the 2006 Lusophony Games and Futsal at the 2006 Lusophony Games. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tung Chung#Schools - Consensus is usually to redirect primary schools if non notable which is the case here so am closing as redirect, Thanks. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ching Chung Hau Po Woon Primary School[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is a non-notable article about a school. This is because it has no "significant coverage" from reliable sources. KAP03 (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Tung Chung#Schools in lieu of deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only as there's no need to merge given the school is listed a "Schools" section there and there's simply nothing else convincing. In this case, deletion would not affect the article since it's simply a few sentences. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Servet Koçyiğit[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Ser2koc (creator, WP:SPA, self-identified as subject of the article-> WP:AUTOBIO) with no rationale. All I see is minor coverage (not in-depth), some awards that don't clearly establish notability, and no better sources (I looked). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as there are no actual museum collections or at least art reviews and that's what gets an acceptable article here. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Actually it's not. WP:ARTIST has 4 criteria and permanent museum collection is just one of them. As a recipient of major award and participating artist in many significant exhibitions as well as having solo exhibitions in many first ranked museums, he's passing is with WP:ARTIST's 4(b), 4(c). Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ copied from http://servetkocyigit.net/cv.html There is almost nothing worth saving, although the subject has particpated in exhibitions that may satisfy WP:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've made some edits, improving the article and as I wrote in comment below, he's passing WP:ARTIST criterias 4(b) and 4(c). Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he can pass WP:ARTIST, I'm just really uncomfortable with the subject himself just posting his CV on Wikipedia and getting away with it. That kind of behavior doesn't deserved to be tolerated. A complete rewrite and a COI statement from the subject would be in order. But if we limit the question to "is the subject notable", then yes, he is. KeepMduvekot (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He does not have permanent museum collections, but he is passing WP:ARTIST with references below. There are a lot of contenporary artists, especially working in the field of Installation, Performance Art and Mixed Media are not part of permanent collections by the nature of their art and current trends in museology, when a lot of contemporary arts museum and galleries prefer to operate as spaces for temporary exhibitions instead of amassing collections. He had shows in Israel Museum in Jerusalem, Haifa Museum of art, Torun center for contemporary art, Herzliya Museum Of Contemporary Art and some other European public galleries. Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note. He received Shpilman International Prize for Excellence in Photography at the Israel Museum which is main photography prize in Israel and alone grants passing WP:ARTIST: [12]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is being exhibited in a well-known biennale, such as Venice or New York, sufficient for WP:CREATIVE? Bearian (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, usually those who are absolutely unknown do not get to Venice biennale. So, you can definitely get some more things to pass WP:CREATIVE. As for NY, it depends which of them, there are quite many. If this is biennale at Whitneys, the answer is the same Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If an artist is selected to represent a country at the Venice Biennale with a solo exhibition in the national pavilion, then that would make them notable. It should be noted however, that not all who exhibit at the Venice Biennale meet the criterion of having "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Aperto, for example, while a significant exhibition, shows "emerging" artists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 00:55, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:06, 30 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rutherford Journal[edit]

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

Article on a journal that has produced 4 volumes since 2005 (the last one in 2011), without any indication whether it is still functional or not (besides the fact that its website is still online). It seems deceptively well sourced following reference bombing after the article was PRODded. At this moment, the article contains no less than 16 references, as follows. 1/ The faculty page of the editor, mentioning his editorship of the journal and his publications therein. 2/ Trivial non-selective index. 3/ The journal's "about page, consisting of a list of editorial board members and one line of 10 words (which, BTW, does not even support the first phrase of the article). 4/ A brief review in an Australian journal of the first issue of the journal. 5/ Another faculty page for the editor, mentioning the journal. 6/ An article on Rutherford, with one citation to an article that appeared in this journal. 7/ An article about Rutherford that appeared in this journal. 8/ A search of GBooks, showing a rather modest number of citations to articles published in the journal. None of the search results is about the journal itself. Even ignoring the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:NJournals, this does not indicate a pass of criterium 2. 9/ Trivial, non-selective database. 10/ Mirror of the journal homepage. 11/ Dead link to Intute website, which was a non-selective database. 12/ List of external links on a website dedicated to Alan Turing, maintained by the editor of the journal. 13/ Listing of the journal and some articles from it without any further discussion. 14/ Listing in a bibliography. 15/ A website hosted by WordPress reproducing some photos from the journal, which is otherwise not mentioned. 16/ Another WordPress blog quoting two articles from the journal.

As outlined above,the 16 sources in the article do not provide the multiple independent reliable sources providing in-depth discussion of the journal needed to meet WP:GNG. None of the databases mentioned is a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals. Therefore this fails both GNG and NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the journal is well referenced by humanities standards (rather different to scientific standards). Examples of references to the journal in reputable books published by leading international publishing houses:

Experimental Philosophy, Volume 2 (Oxford University Press): [13] Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science (Oxford University Press): [14] Companion to the History of Science (Wiley): [15] for Humanity: Information Technology to Advance Society (CRC Press): [16] Computability in Context: Computation and Logic in the Real World(World Scientific): [17] Boolean Logic to Switching Circuits and Automata (Springer): [18], Physics and Beyond (Springer): [19] Realism: Ontological and Epistemological Investigations (de Gruyter): [20] Popper (Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science): [21] Randomness and Complexity (World Scientific): [22] Review of the journal in Historical Records of Australian Science: Jenkin, John, review of Copeland, Jack, ed., The Rutherford Journal: the New Zealand Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (2005), Historical Records of Australian Science, vol. 17, no. 2, 2006, pp. 298-299. Examples of listings of the journal by professional bodies: Journal of the Association for the History of Computing: [23] New Zealand Academic Journals: [24] Isis Current Bibliography of the History of Science (published by the History of Science Society), on p. 61 under Communication and Computer Technology: [25] The Charles Babbage Institute Center for the History of Information Technology: [26] Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources: [27] Examples of listings of the journal in reliable wikis Chess Programming Wiki: [28] WWW-VL: History: Internet: [29] The Full Wiki: [30] It is also referenced from other pages of Wikipedia, e.g. Leo Corry Examples of scholarly articles referring to articles published in the journal [31] [32] [33] [34]

Specifically, Criterion 2 of WP:NJOURNALS, which is stated to be sufficient qualification for a stand-alone article: Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. The journal has been reviewed by Historical Records of Australian Science, a reputable journal listed on Wikipedia, as well as independent references elsewhere. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – note, for information, that the journal is still functional, not that this is a criterion in Wikipedia. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I said above, a smattering of citations (even for a humanities journal) to articles published in the journal does not establish notability. Neither do the "listings by professional bodies". Most such "bodies" will often link to sites that may be of interest to their members, without this being the result of any significant vetting process. BTW, anything else you care to disclose about this journal? --Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an area in which I have academic knowledge, so I know this journal is academically "notable" and respected. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you mean with "an area in which I have academic knowledge, so I know this journal is academically "notable" and respected"? --Randykitty (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep -- A peer-reviewed journal edited by a New Zealand professor is likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussions taking place at the talk page of NJournals, would you mind explaining on what guideline or policy your !vote is based? --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A case of WP:COMMONSENSE for anyone in academia, with which I concur. A journal with a notable editor is highly likely to be notable itself in practice. This should be a consideration under WP:NJOURNALS IMHO even if it is not at the moment. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be highly undesirable and contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. (Quite apart from the fact that the article on the editor as it stands does not show notability under either GNG or PROF). --Randykitty (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:PROF: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". He is the leading scholar worldwide on Alan Turing, as illustrated by his list of published books. I note that another criterion is: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal", an "WP:INHERITED" attribute. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to the person, not the journal. A journal is not notable because its editor is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jpbowen please do read WP:NOTINHERITED, which both Randykitty and Headbomb are referring you to. Please also see WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete perhaps marginally notable as it is discussed in some other sources, but based on my review of the article, it is under promotional pressure and is not worth the community's effort to maintain it. If it were solidly notable that would not tip the balance. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review of the nomination and arguments presented here, this fails WP:NJOURNALS, so I'll have to !vote delete. However, I'd have no objection to redirect/merging with Jack Copeland or University of Canterbury. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ - First, as has been pointed out, this journal has, itself, been the subject of an academic review (Review of the journal in Historical Records of Australian Science: Jenkin, John, review of Copeland, Jack, ed., The Rutherford Journal: the New Zealand Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (2005), Historical Records of Australian Science, vol. 17, no. 2, 2006, pp. 298-299. [35]) (note: The review is middling, saying: "Overall a very creditable beginning; and it is a pleasure to see a new journal in this broad field, especially one from south of the equator.') If there were two such reviews, I think the subject would clearly pass GNG. With just one, it isn't so clear. Second, as has been pointed out, articles in the journal have been widely cited. However, a review of those citations, most (all?) seem to be citations in passing and paired with citations to other articles in other journals. If some of those citations suggested the journal was publishing more influential articles, I think the subject would be more clearly generally or historically important (I would invoke the spirit of WP:TBK or something similar). In my opinion, then, the article doesn't obviously pass or fail GNG. Given that, while the subject is slightly outside of my expertise, I trust the opinion of Jpbowen that the subject of the article is suitable for inclusion and tend to agree based on my own assessment. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that Jpbowen is neutral here. --Randykitty (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I missed that you posted that link earlier, I would have discounted his support a bit had I seen it. But I am not quite swayed, sorry. I would like to note that mention of the Journal is already at Copeland's page, so there would be nothing to merge if the consensus is not to keep. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly knowledgeable of the area and know that the journal is respected with an eminent editorial board, many with their own Wikipedia pages. For example:

Margaret Boden OBE, University of Sussex, UK
S. Barry Cooper, University of Leeds, UK
Daniel Dennett, Tufts University, USA
Denis Dutton, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Paul E. Griffiths, University of Exeter, UK
Horace Romano Harré, Georgetown University, USA
Alan Musgrave, University of Otago, New Zealand
Graham Oddie, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA
Gualtiero Piccinini, University of Missouri–St. Louis, USA
Huw Price, University of Sydney, Australia
Nicolas Rasmussen, University of New South Wales, Australia
Doron Swade MBE, Computer History Museum, USA
Paul Thagard, University of Waterloo, Canada
Stephen Wolfram, Wolfram Research, USA

From: "Editorial board". The Rutherford Journal. Retrieved 19 December 2016. I would deem this notable in the common sense of the word at least. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think having an eminent editorial board says too much. Dennett, to take a famous member of that list, is on the editorial board of 16 journals, according to his online cv. Many of the other journals have pages, all are to me probably notable (many are clearly so), and The Rutherford Journal seems the least notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this doesn't say much. As long as a journal is not complete crap (and even then, often), academics will generally readily agree to be a member of the board, given that it almost never means that they actually have to do something... It's a recommendation for the journal and it looks nice on your CV. So unless there are reliable sources that document any substantive involvement of these people with the journal, it really doesn't say anything. --Randykitty (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is a borderline case with different editors having different opinions, but even the "least notable" journal (to quote above) is still WP:NOTABLE. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've struck my vote. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not demonstrated by the sources - Randykitty has accurately summed them up after the refbomb was unleashed. The editorial board does not determine notability for an academic journal - it is the journal itself that must stand on its own merits per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ISNOT. Also, thank you to Randykitty for showing me that User:Jpbowen has an article published in this journal [36]. Hence, in my view he is acting in concert with a bias as demonstrated by over-enthusiastically arguing for "Keep". In other words, he has skin in the game and really should recuse himself, rather than arguing endlessly for "keep".

This journal is, furthermore, not notable at all. Besides my initial arguments, this journal is not listed in acceptable selective databases and no significant historical impact has been noted by any sources. Hence, this journal fails WP:NJOURNALS and GNG. It appears that the journal went inactive in 2012 after only four issues or volumes beginning in 2005-2006 [37]. So far no evidence has been presented that contradicts this, and no evidence has been presented that shows its significant impact, historical or otherwise.

It appears there is almost a three year gap between Volume 2, published in 2007, and Volume 3 published in 2010. Then there is a two year gap between Volume 3 and Volume 4 published in 2012. So, I have to wonder if this is a serious endeavor or more like hobby for the founder who is still editor. Compare this with other notable journals that rigorously publish at regular intervals, such as monthly or quarterly, and some even annually. These are designed to disseminate current ideas and solutions circulating in that field to their audience. For example see Annals of Science and Archive for History of Exact Sciences - both comparably categorized in the category:History of science journals. Also, please note the selective databases section in each of these. The journal under discussion here is not even close to parity with these. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why reference 4 "Jenkin, John (2006). "Review of Copeland, Jack, ed., The Rutherford Journal: the New Zealand Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (2005)". Historical Records of Australian Science. 17(2). pp. 298–299." is compatible with "This journal is, furthermore, not notable at all."? One or two more references like this would demonstrate WP:GNG, conclusively as per Smmurphy above. For information, the journal is not inactive, with issues planned for 2017 and 2018. Happy Christmas to all! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the journal is still active or not has not really any bearing on its notability. Still, just out of curiosity, could you point us to the source of your contention that issues are planned for 2017 and 2018? --Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See [38]. See also selective index listing [39] in ARCH (Arts and Humanities Resource) hosted by the University of Oxford. Does this count for anything in Wikipedia terms? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A mirror of the journal contents and a catalog entry don't really do the job for me. --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am unable to find the article noted in reference # 4 (per above question), therefore, based on Jpbowen's connection to this journal, I cannot assume what the contents of this article says, or that it exists. I see an article title - but that doesn't mean anything. I am willing to read the article if a link can be provided or even a PDF document. Also, I agree that a 2016 issue does not confer notability and does not indicate future issues are forthcoming (which has no bearing on notability - but, for me, this does give a broader perspective). As far as I can tell, the link to the ARCH index does not tell me anything - and nothing I have come across indicates this is selective for academic journals. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is that article, I believe. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A review of the COI discovered in this AFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jpbowen. Mkdw ^talk 03:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment there. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's in the standard bibliography, Isis Current Bibliography of the History of Science and Its Cultural Influences. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:49, 30 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panicfire[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Tagged as unreferenced for seven years. Tagged for notability since March 2014. The usual Google searches found nothing significant. Worldbruce (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's been tagged for years as a unsourced orphan. A quick look doesn't turn up any reliable sources. Felsic2 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above rationale. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegian television series[edit]

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

List of guess what? Appears to be in Norwegian, and although various people have tried to do something about or with it, it's not improving. To my mind, it's a hopeless task for anyone to maintain and looks a bit like listcruft. Prod has been declined (twice). but the decliner hasn't done anything to sort the problem. Is it notable, and will anyone maintain it? I've looked through the dates of the series given, and either the Norwegians stopped producing TV series in about 2009, or no-one IS maintaining it. (Don't look at me - I don't even watch Brit TV...) Peridon (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm struggling to see a good argument for deletion here. It deals with a non-English language topic so will get less interest and input because of that, but if it isn't being maintained that doesn't really have any bearing on notability. The second prod was not valid, and it isn't obligatory to explain why a prod was removed or to improve the article when doing so. Worst case would, I would have thought, be to reduce the list down to the tv series with articles. --Michig (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go along with that reduction - Wikipedia 'lists' are really indexes to available articles rather than lists of everything. I do realise that the second prod was invalid. and I've notified both prodders and the decliner about this AfD. Peridon (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert back to the simple unannotated list from Special:Permalink/335993199, prune its red links and merge in new blue links from the current page. Leave out all other information, because that looks like WP:OR and is unsourced anyway. I'd be happy to do this, just ping me when the AfD is over. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lists of these television series are generally considered notable. I agree with some of the issues with this particular list, but the article itself should remain. Introducing sources would be good and a general tidyup. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a valid reason to delete this. Yes, it could a lot be better, but then so could much else. Edwardx (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is kept, it needs a lot of editing. The genres and notes in Norwegian need to be translated into English. Also, if I understand correctly, all the programs in the genre "Teleplay" need to be deleted because they are actually TV movies, not series. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed most of the "Teleplays", but there are probably a number of other one-shot programs on this list that don't qualify as series (documentaries, specials, etc.) that need to be removed as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. It's WP:NOTPERFECT. But it's a start. It's clearly a valid list for the category, per WP:NOTDUP. We don't delete lists simply because they're incomplete or in need of improvement, which almost everything is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently this list is in WP:TNT territory. Sure the topic is notable per se, but a tremendous amount of work is required. There's various suggestions above on how this list can and should be fixed. I'd happily change to a keep vote if someone actually does the work. Otherwise, the AFD will be closed, everyone will move on to the next topic, and this page will be left to rot for another 5 years. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, in theory a better alternative would be to it cut down so that it contains only the series with Wikipedia articles. In my opinion, over 90% of "list of" articles are pointless cruft, and at present this article is largely so, but I am willing to accept that a list which serves as an index to existing articles can serve some purpose. However, the trouble with closing deletion discussions as "keep but do such and such to it" (such as merge it with another article, or in this case prune down to only series with articles) is that almost always nobody ever actually does that work, so that the effect is that a discussion in which there is an unambiguous consensus that the current form of an article should not remain actually results in its being kept. If during the course of this discussion someone actually does the work of cutting the article down, then I will very happily change to "keep", but if none of the people in favour of doing so does it now, experience suggests that they are very unlikely indeed to do it after the discussion is closed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with list of articles often being pointless and unsourced, but consensus currently is that they are notable. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's obviously hard for general editors to work on a topic like this if they don't speak Norwegian. My own experience of the topic is limited to having watched a few episodes of Lilyhammer and so I'm not going to be the one to improve this. But it seems quite harmless and is the sort of topic that is likely to be quite accurate. What I can tell you is that the Encyclopedia of Television has a nice entry for Norway. That doesn't say much about the individual programmes but points to sources which might. Our editing policy to improve rather than delete. Like Frank Tagliano says, "It's the land of Norway, huh? The land of second chances." Andrew D. (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article does have problems, but the solution is cleanup instead of deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article does have problems, but I believe they can be fixed. I've started to try to translate some of the titles of the shows. It'll take time, but it can be done. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This kind of list is not a question about WP:NOTESAL, it is a list with a clear inclusion criteria that serves well as a navigational aid per our guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates with emphasis on WP:NOTDUP and as such is usually kept per WP:LISTOUTCOMES. As such this recent revision doesn't work: I tried to retain relevant titles from the 76k 2011 copy-paste from that revision of no:Alfabetisk liste over norske TV-programmer, but with a red-linked:blue-linked ration of c. 6:1 it would be pushing the envelope of WP:CSC considering the lack articles actually translated the last 5+ years, and it would defeat the navigational purpose for the (mainly) anglophone reader here. Add to that that with 600+ expensive parser function calls, the list was well pass the limit set in WP:EXPENSIVE. Consequently I pruned it to include only blue-linked articles. — Sam Sailor 23:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article does need alot of improvements however I don't really see any reason to delete it, I do wonder if these should all be moved to "List of Norwegian Television Series" etc etc however that's another discussion for another page, Anyway keep. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third international New Horizon conference[edit]

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

Appears to be a small conference in Tehran mostly centering on the (groundbreaking I'm sure) topics of how the US and Jews are bad, and Iran is good. Basically zero news coverage outside of the cited PressTV (state owned and literally the only legal Iranian television broadcaster apparently) that I can find, even searching for the name in Persian doesn't improve the outlook there. Coverage in Press TV is even less surprising and probably of even less consequence since speakers Mardhiah Hashemi and Caleb Maupin appear to be closely connected.

Nothing that I can find to indicate that this is a notable event even in Iran, much less anywhere else.

Hard to comment further, because there's such little coverage it's difficult to tell anything about the event at all. TimothyJosephWood 18:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I just can't find anything, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I couldn't find anything in non-Wiki searches either. So far as I can tell, the event isn't mentioned in the equivalent Farsi articles about the two participants who have them. More general searches in Persian Wiki using the Farsi name yielded nothing but "!ikiW siht no egap eht etaerC" or suchlike, nothing relevant that I could see within any article. Narky Blert (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above rationale. Appears to fail WP:GNG, unless new evidence provided. GauchoDude (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as WP:G7 Vanjagenije (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Anakin[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E. Sources focus more in the event than on the person. The fact is that this article don't meet the criteria WP:NN. The person is "notable" because of one event and the "notability" pretty much died out once the media turned away. Other than this one event, there is nothing that indicates notoriety, with pretty much no reliable or independent sources that indicate that. Sources don't go any deeper as to point out any notoriety or if the repercussions of his actions were that serious. Article maily uses the website "reddit" as a source, wich is not the best, by far. Looks a bit like "WP:PROMO" than anything else. Coltsfan (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"notability" pretty much died out once the media turned away? Sounds like a WP:DEGRADE to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By coltsfan's logic Wikipedia should have delete a lot of ancient historical subjects who are no longer with us. How ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again with straw man. The person never had notability to begin with, so there is nothing to degrade. The biography has no notoriety, nothing notable beyond this one thing he did. Doesn't make sense. Coltsfan (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person had WP:GNG so his argument is partly moot. Did he read my compromise plan outlined here? Or did he has a serious beef with the subject of he article? If not, why he is ignoring both my and other's calls to halt 1 on 1 arguments for a while?Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the wording of coltsfan clearly indicated an air of WP:DEGRADE, frequent goal post moving is detected. Possible compromise by his POV.

Strong redirect Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bugmenot123123123/sandbox for my compromise plan to accommodate everyone's concerns. Redirect the old article to the new stub article once I make the move on the latter. Thank you. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete (and maybe redirect)~~ Delete just the article "Cyber Anakin" After a very long deliberation on my part, I have decide to ask for a speedy deletion of WP:G7 since the AfD discussion is unnecessarily distracting me and everyone else from more important matters and had began to take a toll on my body. I would also cite the WP:SNOWBALL clause that dictates that it would be unnecessary to waste people's time if the AFD discussion is gaining a rough consensus. I guess that I have to assume a pragmatic approach regarding the matter due to the coalescing consensus that the article would have to be cleared at the very least. It seems that by this point the chance of the consensus suddenly changing is now approaching 0%. Thank you.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The reason why I struck off the redirect is hinted at the bottom of the page Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, revamp and redirect or Keep, but delete unneccessary details Redirect I have made up my mind after doing my legwork to understand the conventions. The information itself should be kept, but the Title and the content format will have to be rearranged. Since per WP:DEGRADE notablity can only remain steady or increase over time, changing the page from a biography type to an event type can spare us the efforts of having to recreate a page from scratch again in case the notablity increases. This should be a viable short term and long term solution.I have created the reduced stub event article and now it is inside my sandbox pending a final move. As for the old article, clear the contents and redirect it to the stub article once I make the final move for the stub article. Thank You Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reflecting the partial change of position Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Reflect a moderation in my position Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Radical moderation in my position Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

This article fells in the first criteria for nobability: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail". More than half the "sources" this article uses is reddit. I rest my case. Coltsfan (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that sense it seems that a major cutback/abstraction in the article content would address his concerns, as long as the goal post stays there.

That being said, from coltsfan's latest wording, details that sounds more like gossips should be abstracted from the article to address his concerns. In that sense AFD is too overhanded, since an infobox saying that too much unreliable source would be suffice.

Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- — Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't switch the topic from the article itself to my personal crediblity. This is a red herring.
    - On the other hand I express a regret for my part of the red herring. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used the 3O function to ask for a 3rd opinion on this matterBugmenot123123123 (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest of coltsfan's part After I have checked out coltsfan's portugese page, which you may access by first going to his user page and then click on Portugese in the language section, I have discovered that he is a Star Trek fan which might entail a major conflict of interest partly due to the Star Trek-Star Wars rivalry, since the subject himself is apparently a Star Wars fan and named himself after a Star Wars character. In this case, I strogly advise a multilateral arbitration to address the said conflict of interest on coltsfan's part while solving the matter. Who know if coltsfan was just jealous that no hacker who references himself to a Star Trek character has reach notablity as of yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Full link of coltsfan's portugese page: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Coltsfan
  - In my opinion I think that this conflict of interest may be the reason why coltsfan's efforts are more focused to degrading the subject's notablity and eventually putting it into a memory hole rather than improving the article. I am starting to see the reason behind his goal post moving behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfD's purpose is to allow for other users to provide input in support or opposition to the deletion of the article in question. Please stop squabbling and filling up this page with unnecessary comments. Filing a Third Opinion at this stage is unnecessarily gamey, so please stop that as well. Thank you.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 16:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the conflict of interest thing (outlined here) and the emotional thing (outlined in talk page of "Cyber Anakin"), can I use the Request for Comment thing or brough the whole issue to a "tea house" to stop the AFD from turning into a squabbling board and shouting match? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this serious? Like, for real, is this an argument? "Star Trek-Star Wars rivalry"? Really? i'm in shock. This is a new low. Coltsfan (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who can guarantee that we both won't get isolated if we turn this into a shouting match? And yep, you seems to have an obvious beef regarding this matter. User:MarshalN20 is terribly right about both me and you. I am just pointing a possible factor regarding your goal post changing behavior. Obviously the truth hurts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are making baseless and ridiculous personal attacks to me in order to discredit my argumentation. I work in articles all around wikipedia, in many different languages. What does that have to do with anything? This is a very shameful way to conduct the discussion because I never, at any point of this discussion, called into question your credibility as an editor. Now you can not say the same thing. This is ridiculous. Coltsfan (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could have become hotheaded and jealousy if my place is swapped with Coltsfan's. Also I may have to opt for a kind of page protection to deter this kind of POV behavior if the article is retained for some reason. I don't think that 3rd parties will see any inconsistencies between Ockham's razor and the conflict of interest theory, whether both me and the hotheaded editor likes it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 17:33, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

If coltsfan didn't offer reasons that contradict each other and use the talk page to explain everything at the first place when he first put up the infobox onto the article, things might have turn differently, and his motives may not be called into question, and I could have began work to subsume the article into an event article. Instead, he chose to put up vague explanations on places like "edit summary" when he first raised up the issue. Thank you Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per WP:BLP1E~~. There's obvious Gnews coverage but it all seems to stem from a single claim that "A hacker, who calls himself Cyber Anakin after the Star Wars character, is taking aim at Russian websites to avenge the MH17 crash," or variants thereof. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the Motherboard news report security researcher Troy Hunt confirmed Cyber Anakin's claims by saying that the data dump itselves is legiminate. I suggest subsuming the article into an "event" article, as outlined before.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. There is only one real article about this subject (motherboard), which only contains a fraction of the information listed in this article, and then that article appears to have been picked up by news.com.au. There also appears to be a conflict of interest at play here, which is making it more difficult to analyze and discuss. Bradv 17:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the conventions and looks like subsuming the article into an "event" article like the Mevlut Mert Altintas case might be something worth think of.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think changing the article's focus from a BLP to an event is going to be enough -- for the simple reason that other than a reported claim, there doesn't seem to be a notable event, yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With Troy Hunt's verification of his claim regarding the data dump, I think that the matter has demonstrated a degree of notablityBugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you are new to Wikipedia, so I'll explain: Notability means something very specific on Wikipedia - it is not the same thing as important or true. Please read WP:GNG. One person confirming that something was hacked, and the information being covered in one magazine using information from Twitter, does not meet any of the notability criteria. Bradv 18:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person may not be significat enough in overall, but the KM.RU and Nival data breaches might. As Shawn said, it's up to the question whether the said breaches warrant a data breach article. Now I am inclined to turn the bio page into an event page. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The event may be notable if you can find enough coverage. What else is there besides motherboard? I would recommend creating a Draft article at WP:AFC and submit it when it's ready. Then this page (Cyber Anakin) can be a useful redirect. Bradv 18:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is security analysis from 3rd party cybersecurity or telecommunications companies enough? Because I found this: https://www.cyberinsurance.com/breaches/kmru/ Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the redirect option is already in my compromise plan. Maybe the title should be "2016 KM.RU and Nival data breaches".Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Did you just reply to yourself?) I would say that will help, especially if we can combine it with some news articles on the subject. An article about the event is definitely more likely to stick around then an article about an anonymous hacker. Bradv 18:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I am just doing a fragmented reply. Anyways in the rebooted article most of the gossips like Rachel Marsden and the Olympic Truce would have to be left out. Also the hacks before the KM.RU and Nival and his Sputnik/Gagarin reddit frustration would have to be left out.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shawn in Montreal and Bradv, BLP1E. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Shawn has a very slight change in position Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the article creator's statement, I've struck through my delete and will leave it to others as to whether it's significant enough to warrant a data breach article, as part of Category:Data breaches. I hope this is also a lesson to Bugmenot123123123 that creating needless WP:Drama is not going to help you here -- but sticking to the facts will. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note duly taken, and the drama advice can be applied to coltsfan too. At least this AFD wont become a shouting match after all (sighs) Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The BLP1E still applies to this article, however. If Bugmenot wants to create a data breach article, more power to him/her, but this AfD is about this article. I have some doubts about the reliability of the cyberinsurance.com site, but that question and questions about how to craft such an article or whether some new article will or will not be notable is not within the scope of this AfD. I'd recommend that Bugmenot follow Bradv's advice at 18:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC), above. My !vote is unchanged. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that the discussion of the hypothetical new article is perfectly wihin topic though, this discussion is more like a what to do next matter.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since the redirect option seems to be gaining consensus (or is it me?) it's relevant to discuss about the hypothetical article here though. I would love to hear some inputs from experts of the Ukrainian crisis on this matter.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If you could find, say, significant Russian-language coverage of the data breaches that might help to build a case for notability for an article on the breaches -- or on the hacker. References do not have to be in English Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Shawn in Montreal, you would have to search pretty deep for the sources. In this article here, there is 8 sources, for instance (4 are reddit, one a non verified twitter account, one is a primary source and the two that are ok only mentions the guy) that doesn't say much. So in an article where 90% of the content is in fact Unverifiable by reliable sources, it's tough to consider other options. Coltsfan (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Passing mention by a security report: https://www.elevenpaths.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Breaches-2016_T1_EN_v1.0.pdf Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        A coverage by a third party security company https://www.cyberinsurance.com/breaches/nival/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Passing mention by WIRED www.wired.com/2016/03/security-news-week-whatsapp-faces-crypto-war Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        As bradv said, if the cyberinsurance coverage are combined with news articles, that might help the situation.

https://www.cyberinsurance.com/breaches/kmru/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 03:30, January 1, 2017 (UTC)

- - - - Also as I have hinted earlier that conflict of interest is very apparent in the discussion (yep I am saying about you coltsfan), now bradv seems to have noticed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 03:30, January 1, 2017 (UTC)
        User:bradv Shawn in Montreal Regarding the number of sources issue put up by the hotheaded contributor, I have to say that it is under my consideration too. I am envisioning a complete omission of Cyber Anakin's previous hacks before KM.RU and Nival, Rachel Marsden thing and the Olympic Truce event in the hypothetical article. Instead, the article is going to use news articles and third party analysis reports from cyberinsurance.com, and only a passing mention regarding his birth year and his pseudonym. Do I have your attention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misinterpret me. Being a Star Trek fan is not a conflict of interest. I suspect you have a conflict of interest, as you seem to know an awful lot about this Cyber Anakin guy, and aren't in the habit of creating Wikipedia articles about hackers. Regarding the article, please go ahead and create the article on the event as suggested. Regardless of how this AFD turns out, this content belongs on an article about the data breach, not here. Brad v 03:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only find that the subject itself is worth to enter into my line of sight and follow up though. If my mind don't play games on me, I recall that before this point I have been using IP to fix typos found in other Wikipedia article. The "Cyber Anakin" article is the first article created by me on Wikipedia, just as a fact.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since a redirect from the old page is within my watch, yep, the issues are related. As for my scope of editing with my account, it's called "niche interest". You may say that it is an excessive protective measure to stay out from edit wars, by focusing on one single subject topic.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going out the topic for a while, Reuters had an article covering the ST/SW rivalry

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN0TL1BV20151203 This is why for me, the point of view/conflict of interest concern is a legiminate oneBugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted a Third Opinion? You've got one: Delete. There's nothing there, even if you puff the one event this alleged bio is hanging on. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you got the cyberinsurance coverage here? Also if a full delete gets a green light, that would set a very bad precedent, if coltsfan's POV influence and the connection of Cyber Anakin's actions to the Ukrainian war were to taken into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugmenot123123123 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for fuck's sake, no one cares about this imbecilic "Star Trek/Star Wars rivalry," except you. And certainly not Coltsfan. Drop it. And I still don't see the refs that would amount to notability so I'm going to restore my delete. I'm quite convinced maintaining this article would only serve as a magnetic for more of this behaviour. WP:COMPETENCE is required here as well as notability. Enough is enough. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Yup, enough is enough, so the hypothetical stub article that would address everyone's concern is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bugmenot123123123/sandbox Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Afternote Regarding the Star Trek/Star Wars issue, no matter how lame it was perceived, I was trying to simply connecting the dots to find a best theory to explain all of coltsfan's hotheaded and goal post moving behavior in this issue. I am starting to doubt his good faith and began to suspect that some kind of bias is seriously affecting Coltsfan's judgement after the point where I saw the "Star Trek fan" thing on his Portugese user page. Considering the fact that the subject named himself after a SW character, it would be obvious for anyone else passing here to wonder if the theory turns out to be true, regardless of its perceived possibility. By conclusion, since I am tired of this kind of nasty politics and the rigid/nasty atmosphere going around here, and since the whole fiasco begins to waste my time and everyone else's time, I have filed a speedy deletion request. cc:User:Shawn in Montreal Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look how idiotic your claim is: I'm white so if this hacker is black would you then theorise that i'm doing this out of racism due to the history of racism in this country? I'm using here the Star Trek/Star Wars rivalry issue that you brought up, connecting dots that don't exist. You are saying that i'm hotheaded and bias, even though i never exalted myself in this discussion, never called you names or theorised stupied things in order to discredit whatever argument you were using. I know, Bugmenot123123123, other than this "rivalry theory" you don't have anything to use, since the wiki rules are clearely on my side, as many editors point it out. Instead of using this chance to learn something, you continue to attack my integrity as an editor and saying things that are completely baseless and don't help the discussion. I recomend you to read WP:EQ, if you have the time. So, for the love of anything you believe, drop this "Star Trek/Star Wars" thing. It's childish. It's making you look desperate and it costed you support. I know you are not an idiot, so don't act like one. Coltsfan (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Same to you regarding WP:EQ, I have to admit that I had tried to restrain myself after the 3O had warn that the discussion between us might turn very sour, so I guess you may have failed to take note of that and is not a saint in this matter too. The Star Wars/Star Trek rivalry is more about an ideological/opinionated one, akin to that of Capitalism/Communism and the support of either Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election, although a bit less severe. Also the compromise plan appears to be working since the page regarding the event itself has passed review from a new page patroller which appeared to be well versed of the Wikipedia conventions (check my contributions to navigate yourself to that page). A redirect page has been set up on the Cyber Anakin (hacktivist) page. For this page, I myself can't guarantee that another artist/youtuber or the like will not use the name "Cyber Anakin" causing a degree of confusion, so now I have to be pragmatic and to agree to the consensus that the article "Cyber Anakin" should be cleared and become a placeholder for a potential disambiguation page if the disambiguation scenario happens. I had struck off the redirect thing in my vote. Did I made myself clear regarding both the SW/ST issue and my intention to clear the contents of just the "Cyber Anakin" page?Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The speedy delete request has been denied, though the consensus that the article itself should be deleted is now here. So I will ask the admin who denied the speedy delete request to assess the consensus and close the discussion. After that point, I will refile the speedy deletion request. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I forgot to mention that Everipedia, a Wikipedia competitor, has transwikied the full "Cyber Anakin" article using a bot. This could explain my vast moderation of my position over time.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody, absolutely nobody cares two s*its about "Star Wars/Star Trek rivalry". I didn't even knew that this existed. What do you think we have here? A bunch of children and fanboys? We're all grown ups here and we act like it. As for you, read my advice: grow up! Second, the consensus here was unanimous towards the deletion of whatever this article was suppose to be. Again, instead of learning from this experience you go for the offending other users with your "theories" that are not here nor there. So, since this page is going to be 100% deleted, i'm out. Bugmenot123123123, you can stay with your conspiracy theories about COI. Go full Alex Jones, why do i care. Just take full notice of the WP:NN and don't repeat the same mistake. As for the "restrain", you did a very lousy work so, for the personal level, i expect you improve your manners. Bye! Coltsfan (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coltsfan, next time please don't be vague on your reasons whether you do any kind of edits that might touch the disruptive line. Also I don't think that age alone can weigh how "grown up" people might be, since as I said earlier, I am living in an honor/face based society where the both are taken seriously and failures are usually frowned upon. I saw a documentary about hypothetical disaster scenario and survivalism (I think it's from National Geographic) where a scientist said that human nature are inherently unstable so I think grown ups doesn't differ much from children if compared with inherent human nature. That's why the political system of the USA is focused on checking and balancing against the instability part of human nature. America is already great in this respect, although I am afraid that this kind of system may not survive a Trump administration. I do advise you to maintain some kind of cultural sensitivity. Thank you.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bugmenot123123123, this is exacly the problem: you are talking about Trump, the world and America nowadays, riveralys... You're tripping. All this discussion is about one simple article not meeting the standards for notability. Nothing more. Stop the nonsensical stuff! Coltsfan (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Wechsler[edit]

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

The subject of this article has not itself received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also, it has been tagged as non-notable for nearly two years. --2604:2000:E016:A700:951:D485:DE63:C416 (talk)

Note: the above rationale has been copypasted from the article's talkpage to complete the IP editor's nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete celebrity doctor wannabe. WP cannot be part of their efforts when they fail GNG like this person does. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~ delete — This subject is problematic because she has been extensively quoted in reliable media (14 NYT mentions, for example) but no major coverage about her. NYT also carried an obit that appeared to be about her father, a New Jersey budget official; and Wall Street Journal has mentioned her in connection with her being appointed to the governig board of Valeant in a corporate shakeup; but everything else that turned up in searches was quoting her expertise, or interviewing her, so not technically an independent source. There is also a Duke University interview with her on her experiences at Duke as a Jewish student. She probably would qualify as a celebrity doctor, having the endorsements of Dr. Oz, Oprah and Seventeen Magazine, but the problem is lack of secondary sources about her. I lean toward keeping it because she is the author of a popular book, The Mind Beauty Connection, and I think there is enough to support at least a revised stub/start article. I also think this subject is more of interest to female readers, not so much to our 85 to 90% male editors... Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changed my mind after a more thorough search for reviews of her book — no independent RS there, either. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I see zero significant coverage about the subject. There must be hundreds of skin doctors in New York City, with dozens of associated dermatologists at Columbia Presbyterian and 36 clinical dermatologists at Mount Sinai alone. She's academically unknown. I admit that she might pass as a celebrity per WP:GNG, but I'd like to see better sourcing added to the article before I go along with such a consensus. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD debate has been listed on the Medicine/Dermatology task force talk page and the Medicine/Psychiatry task force talk page.

Delete: Per nom and above rationale. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 AFF U-15 Women's Championship[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Under 15 football is non-notable JMHamo (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. JMHamo (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - U-15 football is presently not notable. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above rationale. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source : http://www.aseanfootball.org/v2/aff-u15-girls-championship/aff-u15-girls-championship-2017/ : It's a source of AFF U-15 GIRLS’ CHAMPIONSHIP 2017

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nejc Lah[edit]

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

Not yet notable in the sense of WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per the above-cited guidelines. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet out notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:NBASKETBALL Jrcla2 (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, does not pass any SNGs.—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Major League Soccer players with national team caps[edit]

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

Please refer to WP:LISTCRUFT #3, #6, #11, #12; there is little to no prose nor is there any explanation as to why the topic is notable. Lists still need to meet notability criteria. Please also see WP:LISTN. Spiderone 08:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LISTCRUFT is an essay and not a policy or even a guideline. The list makes sense to the editors of MLS and so I won't mess with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay demonstrating how certain lists (such as this one) fail the policy of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be just as easy to create an essay in favour of lists, particularly lists like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is, or should be, a fairly standard cross-over and certainly not LISTCRUFT. Article needs a better title though - shouldn't just be 'current' players, but all players who earned international caps while playing in this league. Giant Snowman 19:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary list. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LISTCRUFT is an essay and not a policy/guideline. The list makes sense to MLS editors of MLS. Suarez FC —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split – The information is legit however these are 3 lists of which only 2 belong together. Hence split into:

List of Major League Soccer players with national team caps
List of Major League Soccer players with World Cup caps (this name may still need a tweak)

Each article can be organized as one sortable table. gidonb (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable topic. There is no evidence of other sources listing players this way. 78 players from MLS received international call ups in a recent international window - this is a huge number, meaning that this list will balloon in size over the years. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- With 22 teams in the league today and a goal of 24 soon, yes this number will balloon. Also, the league has been able to attract higher-quality players, the number may increase as well. But size is not really a limitation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Santa Rosa de Copán, "Los Llanos"[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google finds not a single suitable source under either its English or Spanish title, and the article offers none. Largoplazo (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. This is unreferenced promotional junk. The creator, Vitrubius32, indicates on their user page that they might be the author of same. The version on es-wiki should be deleted, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just launched a deletion discussion on Spanish Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and as far as I can tell unsourceable.—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The book doesn't seem to be notable and most/all of the history material in the article is already covered in the history section of the page on the city itself. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This book is my work, is a resume description of my city history, now why deleted? (Talk) 21:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons given above. It doesn't meet the requirement that articles be about notable topics. Wikipedia isn't a place to attract attention to your book, or to write about subjects over which you have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Largoplazo (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Most local history books are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above rationale. GauchoDude (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nerf modding[edit]

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

Non-notable hobby product / activity. Only sources available are fanboy sites- unreliable [40], blogs [41], zines, etc [42], and You Tube. Basicly WP:TRIVIA, pretty much flying in the face of WP:NOT as well as basic WP:GNG by having absolutely no significant coverage in any independent reliable sources. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been meaning to nominate this for deletion too since I saw its creation. I also can't find any reliable sources to suggest it's a notable topic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above rationale. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Martell[edit]

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

At first glance it looks like we have a lot of sources on Martell. However these all add up to just saying "look, a women who is bald was a contestant in Miss America". This can be covered in the entry on her in the Miss Delaware page in the notes, and actually is. There is no justification for having a stand alone article. If the coverage had extended beyond when she was a Miss America contestant and showed sustained notability as an advocate for these causes, we could justify this article, but it does not, so we cannot. The previously deletion discussion focused on the fact that the coverage existed without really considering if it was sustained or not. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and chastise nominator for re-nomming this: JPL nominated this article in August. The discussion was closed in September as kept-kept (not no-consensus-kept, kept-kept). Nearly everybody there agreed Martell passed GNG. She still passes GNG; and articles shouldn't be renominated this quickly unless either a) the close was no-consensus, or b) new information came to light. p b p 16:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfDs DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Purplebackpack89 and the result of the previous AfD, which closed as "Keep" just three months ago. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the previous AFD --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PurpleBackPack. †dismas†|^(talk) 01:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD. Passes WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 02:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC and not a WP:BLP1E situation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E - Meets WP:GNG, and is not a single event subject, as shown by the sources provided by user GRuban in the last nomination. Johnpacklambert please do not nominate again unless there is new information. -- Taketa (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol Aspiration School[edit]

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

Article about a secondary school consisting mostly of course listing information. I am unable to find any independent sources with which to establish WP:ORGDEPTH notability. - Mr X 16:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: a false redirect and false closure to this page by an IP have been reported at WP:ANI. Jus da fax 07:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG (pretty straightforward). Exemplo347 (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be sources the the article, are they not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the claim is that they are RS in Mongolian, but given the multiple hijinks this nomination has suffered, including !vote deletions, template deletions, false redirects and even a false closure, who knows? Jus da fax 14:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it RS do not have to be in English, so if they are RS then the article is sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to be sourced, until someone can show these are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify From what I can tell, one of the links would qualify as independent, significant coverage. Both Shuud.mn and Khanuul.mn appear to be legit news sites, but the article on the latter is a brief "some students graduated today" one. The article on the former appears larger and although Google Translate renders it in unreadable fashion (Headline:"Children are not orgood National School went to Cambridge University, push yourself to shoot"), I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt that it is significantly about the school in question. To bring it to regular standards, it would need more sources and removal of most course and club information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The shuud.mn article seems to be discussing three different schools, and probably contributes relatively little to notability. The khanuul.mn article is routine coverage. The mminfo.mn article does not go into any real detail about the school, its curriculum, or its history. Apparently, this school exists on one floor of a public school. The school is only about five years old and it's unclear how many students it has. - Mr X 18:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, it's not a school, it's a group that uses classrooms in schools. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of their own building does not mean this isn't a school. If there are sources showing this is a diploma awarding organization, seperate from the organizations whose buildings they use, it's a school and is notable. John from Idegon (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have here a halfway decent new article about an accredited secondary school with four properly formatted references and a fifth possible reference. The article is written by a new Mongolian speaking editor who is understandably upset that their article may be deleted, and has expressed their hurt feelings in edit summaries. We need more Mongolian speaking editors not fewer. This is a classic example of biting the newbies. This is precisely the type of article we should be encouraging not discouraging. This is the English encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world, and it is a major error to use the shortcomings of Google Translate as a reason to conclude that other sources are not available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as our longtime consensus of accepting all secondary schools, regardless of any improvable concerns, and this itself has no serious bounds for the article itself. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Verifiability still applies and that threshold has been met in this case. Other concerns can be resolved through the normal editing process and actual human communication with the new editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on non-Anglophone schools. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Santore[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, page serves as promo and only sources are an article that makes no mention of him and a link to a bid on his piece. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any coverage of him in GNews or GBooks. As written, the article fails WP:CREATIVE. Verdict: non-notable artist. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely an autobiography, and no indication that the subject meets WP:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors. Please consider this for inclusion. We are trying to locate press that references the shows and exhibitions listed. These shows were before the internet and the articles that we have been able to find online. They are not the articles that we have hard copies of from the original date of publish. Mr. Santore has an extensive collectors list. We respectfully request and extension of 30 days to locate and submit the necessary references to meet the publishing polices. Thank you! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.129.154 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this straight. OK? There are no listings in the article of exhibits since 1989, and those prior to that are small, for-profit galleries -- or corporate offices where no member of the public will ever see this man's art. I found no media stories, nor newspaper articles, few mentions in any published books, a single free image, and nothing in the New York Times. I really don't see how 30 more days could produce any reliable source. There is another Robert Santore, but he is a chemical scholar at Syracuse University, and does not appear to be the same person as this subject. I found three listings in art magazines, but they were merely passing mentions. Not all artists are notable. We are not a free web-based gallery; we are a charity that publishes an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All time top goalscorers in Europe's top five leagues[edit]

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

This is original research (why five leagues, not 10, for instance?). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSTATS... Giant Snowman 09:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The selection criteria of the five leagues is purely the creator's opinion. The page goes against WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Kosack (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serious NPOV issues Spiderone 10:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inherently unencyclopedic. The current top five leagues were not always the top five, nor will they necessarily be in perpetuity. Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and NPOV. gidonb (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR, WP:NOTSTATS. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons given by others. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Ram Satiija[edit]

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

Puff piece. All about his business and how much money he has. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:TNT and WP:SNOW - run of the mill rich guy who has done nothing except to make more money than you. Only one reliable source in the article, and that's not much. We are not a free web host for rich people's resumes -- we are a charity! Bearian (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killian Forde[edit]

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

Non notable local councillor. Drunken hoax incident aside has garnered no media attention. Local politicans arent inherently notable. Finnegas (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— former city councilors are not inherently notable, even if they occasionally appeared in media articles.TheBlueCanoe 15:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG and a relatively minor figure. st170e^talk 19:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NPOLITICIAN. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - large cities' councilor are notable. Is Dublin, the capital of Eire, big enough? FWIW, two heavily-drinking ancestors of mine were chased out of Dublin; they both lived past 80. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:GNG and WP:NPOL not demonstrated. All coverage seems to relate to one event - which raises concerns relative to WP:BLP1E. Wouldn't seem to meet project scope. Guliolopez (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Wilayat Butt[edit]

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

Author removed PROD template (also at Pakistan Peacekeeping Mission). Non-notable individual. No independent reliable coverage available whatsoever, neither in English nor Urdu as far as I gathered. Sources presented at the moment are as good as none. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article subject has won a couple of (obscure, probably nonnotable) awards, but I don't see any of the independent biographical sources that we would need to maintain an article. Doesn't meet the general notability guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per author blanking page repeatedly. -- Dane ^talk 17:27, 30 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. Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Peacekeeping Mission[edit]

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

Author removed PROD template (also at Farhan Wilayat Butt). Non-notable organisation. No independent coverage available whatsoever, neither in English nor Urdu as far as I gathered. Sources presented at the moment are as good as none. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few articles by the group's founder, but nothing independent, and nothing actually about the group. This clearly doesn't meet the general notability guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this per WP:CSD#G7; the original author has been blanking it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 30 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juiceroof[edit]

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

Contested prod. I tried to engage with the editor via the talk page but didn't get a reaction. Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Schwede 66 05:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seven news results, five of which are press releases, one of which is a false positive, and one of which is this story from a local paper which mentions the group once in passing. Maybe one day, but not today. TimothyJosephWood 17:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Baqai[edit]

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

Delete. Cannot see how this meets WP:Notability. He is a businessman, as are countless others who do not merit an article. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Formula One season[edit]

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

Crystal bol, WP:TOOSOON The Banner talk 11:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: consensus at WP:F1 says that it is acceptable for future season articles to be created up to eighteen months in advance provided that the article is sustained by multiple references and contains "new" content; ie, it is not simply repeating content from other articles. The article itself has been carefully worded to avoid violating WP:CRYSTAL; you will note that it never says future events will happen, only that they are planned or scheduled. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this event is notable and almost certain to take place and everything already written is reliably sourced, and the article does not contain any personal speculation or opinion. The reasons offered for deletion do not persuade me with WP:TOOSOON being an essay concerning articles about actors and films and WP:CRYSTAL explicitly allows coverage of anticipated future events, such as this one, which are verifiable and for which the subject matter is of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. -- de Facto (talk). 14:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article already has relevant sourced information. I mean, we already have United States presidential election, 2020 based on already having sourced and relevant information. United States Man (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All in all, I feel the consensus from the previous deletion discussion for this article still applies. So much so that this could actually have been nominated for speedy deletion. There simply isn't enough news specifically for the 2018 season. There certainly is sourced content in this article, but the only bit of it that is news specifically for the 2018 season is the return of the French Grand Prix. I feel that is not enough to warrant this article yet. The focus of the sport lies with 2017 season right now and that is were ours should be as well.T v x1 15:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". It would be even more notable if it didn't go ahead. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as expected and planned future event per WP:CRYSTAL DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 30 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. Opinion here is divided, with several users for deletion stating that the article functions as an advertisement, essentially qualifying for deletion per WP:NOT. Conversely, several users have stated that the company meets notability guidelines, with some stating that promotional tone has been addressed or can be addressed via copy editing. Of note is that the article was copy edited by some users to address promotional tone after it was nominated for deletion. Ultimately, no consensus for a particular action has arisen within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capillary Technologies[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)

Literally a blatant advertisement not only given the overfocused information, but also the fact it's clear the company contributed to this, in both with its employees and a company account, see "Capillary1", and that's basically sufficient to delete alone with WP:NOT policy. After this, we then consider the fact everything is literally advertising, either published or republished, therefore showing none of it can be taken seriously, and we certainly shouldn't since we know the damages of advertising here. Searches unsurprisingly showed nothing but such blatant PR, therefore the WP:NOT policy still applies. To even explain, note how the consistency of all sources focus with company advertising, and damned in these assured, "The amazing story of this company and what they say" is one of them. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:ORG via substantial coverage in respected business publications. A click of the "news" button at the top of this AFD shows sufficient substantial coverage in business publications . Please do not assert that any editorial coverage in a business publication by a staff writer is an advertisement. Look up the definition of advertisement. It is paid coverage written by the company. The relevant part of WP:NOT says "(NOT)Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. " That applies to this article. Every editor is free to remove any statement which is promotional in tone or which is not reliably sourced. In fact various editors have worked on the article since a possible single-purpose account created it. If a likely company account edited an article at some point in its history, along with unbiased unrelated editors, that is not a sufficient ground to delete it. Edison (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply to enhance my nomination, I will state that WP:NOT twice mentions "Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, means of advertising companies or anything close to it" and that's exactly what this is, to the letter, in that it goes about company finances, services, who it worked with, its people, etc. None of that is notable and we should not mistake it as such and, as it is, we've confirmed as shown in numerous other AFDs closed as Delete, we cannot confide in these publications because of the sheer blatancy of publishing whatever the company asked for, not what genuine news needed. Therefore, we cannot ignore WP:NOT and accept whatever advertising exists, because "it needs improvements" is not taking away this is an advertisement in and out, and those are allowed removal by policy alone.

Therefore, now said about the unconfided usability in these sources, there are therefore no actual sources to use because it's all advertising. WP:ORG means nothing if policy is applied, and it's a policy we use every single day. What's once again damning is the sheer fact it's obvious this company used this article as an advertisement and also involved its own employees, that alone is enough for deletion regardless of anything, because as WP:NOT also cites "Wikipedia is not a PR webhost". SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; this information belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The elements which made the article look like corporate spam are gone in one of the recent edits. The page has improved history section now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.156.47 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 122.166.156.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The main concerns with this entry were edits made by an apparent internal employee of the company in question as “Capillary1”, the content which did not have a neutral point of view and links to non authoritative websites. The issues seem to have been fixed now where the Overfocused information written by User ‘Capillary1’ have been removed and general information available on trustworthy news sources has been added, satisfying WP:NPOV. I don't agree with SwisterTwister’s comment stating - ”sheer blatancy of publishing whatever the company asked for, not what genuine news needed” since most of the information mentioned on the wiki page has trustworthy and valid citations . According to me, the tone of history section and the rest of the sections seem quite generic and neutral that satisfies WP:NOT. The citations now point to authoritative external sources which are not paid advertisements but trustworthy news coverages and this satisfies WP:NOT. It was also stated that the mentioning of the Financing of the company violates WP:NOT but these are significant events in the company history. A google search makes it evident that there are trusted business publication references and satisfies WP:ORG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastMonk (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC) -See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aseemksinha — TheLastMonk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment -- two of the "keep" votes comes from single purpose accounts. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, this debate is not a Vote as you said, but a discussion of fair opinions on the article. Secondly, Every account will look like a single purpose account in beginning even after a few edits. Thirdly, since you seem to be an experienced contributor, you must have read the Single purpose account page you must be aware of the community standards of not Biting the newcomers, to focus on the subject matter and not the person. Fourth of all, Please look at the valid points I have made and review the article based on that and help come to a consensus since our collective motive here is to protect genuine and worthy content on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastMonk (talk • contribs) 05:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering that this is a Singaporean company, I find it extremely suspicious that it has not received significant coverage in the Straits Times (which is pretty much the only broadsheet newspaper here). That led me to look at the sources. Most of them are from Economic Times/Indiatimes which as we have seen here have often published redressed press releases. In addition to that, many of the sources are often routine news of merger/aquisition/product launch. There is not one good article which focuses on the company and explains why it is significant or what impact it has made. The sources are not good enough for WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. Add to that the promo pressure - the article is swamped by SPAs and so is this AFD (and I suspect undisclosed paid editing going on). There is absolutely no need to waste volunteer time on stuff like this - this is pretty much against WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be WP:SPAM & per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 05:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
week Delete Article writing is very poor and intends are clearly promotional in nature. But it is known and substantial company to be here if we can keep merely startups who are just started somewhere. It is covered by popular known media as well as material for books. Might be Neutral writing is the right way to keep it. Right now it is written like a company profile nothing else. Improve the content my vote may change. Light2021 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The page might not meet the high standards of Wikipedia, but that solely should not be the reason to take this down. The company is quite a renowned one and has progressed quite well in last couple of years. The references of the page are to prestigious publications in India and abroad, and it will be hasty to term them as advertisement. Given the nature of Wikipedia to be repository of information, it will behoove to have this organizaion with of course better content. Aseemksinha (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aseemksinha[reply]

"The page might not meet the high standards of Wikipedia, but that solely should not be the reason to take this down." That is actually a very good reason to delete this page. Wikipedia is not a place to promote one's business and Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "it would be hasty to term them as advertisement" Yet that's exactly what the contents are, nonetheless, as it's all advertising so that compliments the fact of "might not meet the high standards", we never keep articles simply by the basis of "they are known and advanced". In fact, none of the Keep comments have said anything else but "they're important!". SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Every source that can be found from a Google search and also the cited references show that the company is Headquartered in Singapore. A little bit of digging in web shows that the company operates globally and has a bulk of its market and operations outside of Singapore which explains why this company is mentioned more outside of Singapore. It also has been cited by trusted sources such as Harvard Business Review, Forbes, Fortune, Gartner, TechCrunch etc which have written in length on why the company is significant, satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. Therefore Not having references from one particular Newspaper (Straits Times in this case) or from one particular region(Singapore) is not sufficient ground to call an article not good enough for WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. Moreover, the article in its current state seems to have a neutral POV with sources cited even if it has been edited by several SPAs. (SPAs are not against Wikipedia Policies as long as they stick to the code, follow the guidelines and write from a neutral POV). Ashwing (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aseemksinha[reply]

Keep The sources and awards are enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. The arguments for deletion are not compelling. If it had a POV problem in the past or even if it still has one now, that is not a reason for deletion. That is a reason for fixing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMathews (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a policy-based comment? The links above are suggestive guidelines, not policies. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Punit, Itika Sharma (2014-11-07). "Six-year old startup Capillary Technologies faces road blocks. Startup backed by Norwest, Sequoia, Qualcomm & Amex Ventures to see exit of 2 co-founders by March 2015, tweaks US strategy amid lukewarm response". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  At a time when several investors are placing bets on Indian enterprise software product startups, Capillary Technologies, which provides cloud-based software solutions for retailers, is faced with multiple road-blocks in its seventh year of operation.
  While sources have earlier said that Capillary's co-founder Krishna Mehra is on his way out of the company due to differences with other founders, it is now learnt that a second (of the three) co-founders, Ajay Modani, has also decided to step down.
  ...
  Capillary Technologies enables retail marketers to manage customer data, gather insights from the same and personalise engagements through social media, mobile, e-mail, online, and in store channels. The company is backed by marquee venture capital investors such as Norwest Venture Partners, Sequoia Capital, and Qualcomm Ventures.
  It was also the first Indian company in which American Express Ventures invested earlier this year. Capillary Technologies has so far raised around $34 million in institutional funding rounds, as per online startup database CrunchBase.
  According to the company's website, its clients include retail giants such as Marks & Spencer, Nike, Puma, Raymond, Peter England and Lifestyle, along with food chains like Pizza Hut and Faaso's.
2. Dharmakumar, Rohin (2012-11-05). "Capillary Technologies: Secret Cache. Safe online digital storage: File away your returns". Forbes India. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Two college buddies drop out of their jobs, tinker around with a few ideas, and come up with just the product customers were looking for. Aneesh Reddy and Krishna Mehra came up with the name ‘Capillary’ before they had any idea what the business would be. But after a couple of early ‘pivots’ around shopping ‘deals’ and licenced, on-premise retail CRM (customer relationship management), they hit the sweet spot: A hosted, pay-as-you-go retail CRM that builds a world of data and intelligence around each customer, using mobile phone numbers as identifiers. No new terminals, no servers, no customised implementations—just actionable analytics, like suggesting an instant 15 percent discount on trousers to a customer who’s buying shirts.
  ...
  Capillary is used across nearly 10,000 stores today, and handles over 2.5 terabytes of data across 15 million customers.
  ...
  Till it raised a mammoth Series A funding of $15.5 million in September, Capillary was mostly under the radar, thanks to $1.5 million in angel funding from 17 different investors across the world.
3. Chng, Grace (2014-02-20). "Start Singapore". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  AMERICAN Express Ventures, the venture capital arm of the well-known credit card company, has made its first investment in a Singapore software firm.
  It has teamed up with venture capital firms Sequoia Capital, Norwest Venture Partners and Qualcomm Ventures to invest in Capillary Technologies. According to US tech blog Techcrunch, the total investment was US$15.5 million (S$19.6 million).
  Capillary Technologies sells software to help retailers understand customers' buying behaviour. It will use the funds to expand into new markets such as the United States and Australia.
  ...
  Capillary moved to Singapore nearly three years ago from Bangalore, India, where it was founded.
4. Cheok, Jacquelyn (2014-02-13). "Local CRM startup bags $5m funding from Amex Ventures". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  LOCAL startup Capillary Technologies, which makes customer relationship management (CRM) cloud-based software, recently bagged close to $5 million in funding from American Express (Amex) Ventures, in what it claims is the latter's first investment in the region.
  The funds will be used to expand Capillary's services in existing markets including Singapore, India and the US, as well as open new offices in Australia and China this year, chief executive officer Aneesh Reddy told The Business Times.
  ...
  To-date, Capillary has raised over $20 million since its launch in 2008.
  The global CRM software market is forecast to hit US$36.5 billion by 2017, according to global information technology research firm Gartner.
5. Cheok, Jacquelyn (2014-07-18). "S'pore-based CRM start-up bags US$14m Series B funding". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  CAPILLARY Technologies, a Singapore-based customer relationship management (CRM) start-up, is going places - and literally too. It recently bagged US$14 million in Series B funding - one of the highest amounts by a Singapore start-up - in a round led by US-based Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners.
  Existing investors Qualcomm Ventures and American Express Ventures also participated, taking Capillary's total funding to over US$30 million to date. The start-up now manages enterprise customers in some 16 countries worldwide, having entered new markets such as the US, Australia and South Africa shortly after it raised US$14 million Series A funding in 2012.
  ...
  The start-up's latest clients include Marks & Spencer, KFC Singapore, Lacoste, Keedo and Courts. This brings its total client count to more than 150 major brands across 10,000 retail locations, and total reach to over 100 million consumers globally. With the Series B money, Capillary will enhance its product offerings, enter new markets and expand headcount.
6. Shu, Catherine (2015-09-02). "Social CRM Provider Capillary Technologies Raises $45M, Acquires MartJack". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Capillary Technologies, the Singapore-based social CRM company, has raised a $45 million Series C to fuel its evolution into a omnichannel retail platform. The round was led by Warburg Pincus with participation from returning investors Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners and brings Capillary’s total funding so far to $79.1 million.
  Most of the capital is earmarked for the acquisition of e-commerce software platform MartJack, which significantly expands Capillary’s online retail capabilities. Capillary also announced the purchase of Ruaha Labs, a machine learning startup.
  ...
  Capillary is currently targeting expansion in India, China, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and the United States. Increasing its SaaS offerings means that Capillary now competes more closely with companies such as SAP, Oracle, and Salesforce.
7. Perez, Sarah (2012-09-25). "Social CRM Company Capillary Technologies Raises $15.5M From Sequoia, Norwest & Qualcomm". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Capillary Technologies, a social CRM company that helps retailers engage over mobile, email, social and in-store channels, is announcing the close of $15.5 million in Series A funding led by Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners with Qualcomm Ventures also participating in the round. The company, which offers a cloud-based SaaS platform for customer engagement, clienteling, loyalty and social CRM solutions, currently works with over 100 major brands across 10,000 locations worldwide, and just recently entered the U.S. market.
  Current customers include Pizza Hut, Puma, Robinson’s, United Colors of Benetton, Mothercare, Store21, Sunglass Hut and Nike.
8. Mishra, Pankaj (2014-02-12). "With $4M In Fresh Funding From Amex Ventures, Capillary Wants to be Salesforce Of Social CRM". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Capillary Technologies, the social CRM startup based in Bangalore, has raised additional funding of around $4 million from American Express Ventures. The startup plans to expand into the U.S., Middle East, China and Australia with this fresh funding, which takes the total capital raised so far to around $20 million.
  Norwest Venture Partners, Sequoia Capital and Qualcomm Ventures are among other existing investors in the startup.
  ...
  The startup competes with bigger enterprise vendors such as Oracle, Salesforce and SAP on one hand, and smaller, niche startups including Mobiquest, Swiply and Punchd at the other end. Its product — InTouch — gathers real time customer data, applies predictive analysis, and helps retailers such as Nike, Puma, Marks & Spencer and Nokia contact potential customers with personalized offers on-the-go.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Capillary Technologies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the current version of the article and consider it to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That the article can be further improved is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow assessment of provided sources - final. Nördic Nightfury 11:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 11:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis from the sources above:
At a time when several investors are placing bets on Indian enterprise software product startups, Capillary Technologies, which provides cloud-based software solutions for retailers (hold for company quote) .... Capillary Technologies has so far raised around $34 million in institutional funding rounds, as per online startup database CrunchBase....According to the company's website, its clients include retail giants such as Marks & Spencer, Nike, Puma, Raymond, Peter England and Lifestyle, along with food chains like Pizza Hut and Faaso's (clear advertising with the usual signs of company cosmeticizing, and the final part itself says "company website information"}} showing the blatant signs none of it was independent but instead the company's own words, the publication itself is known for republishing company words)
Capillary Technologies, the social CRM startup based in Bangalore, has raised additional funding of around $4 million from American Express Ventures (hold for additional funding information).....Its company competitors are...." (another clear PR with the natural signs of PR involvements, sheer consistency)
Capillary Technologies, a social CRM company that helps retailers engage over mobile, email, social and in-store channels, is announcing the close of $15.5 million in Series A funding led by Sequoia Capital and Norwest Venture Partners with Qualcomm Ventures also participating in the round (the company's services are....) its clients include (yet again following the same exact information and words, yet a different publisher and date, showing the author is only the company itself and naturally since it's about the company's own business plans)
Capillary Technologies, the Singapore-based social CRM company, has raised a $45 million Series C to fuel its evolution into a omnichannel retail platform....The company announces...Its clients are... (Yet another PR consistency
LOCAL startup Capillary Technologies, which makes customer relationship management (CRM) cloud-based software, recently bagged close to $5 million....The funding will be used for....The company's other funding is....and the other plans are... (yet another PR consistency)
A well known company....has teamed up with venture capital firms Sequoia Capital, Norwest Venture Partners and Qualcomm Ventures to invest in Capillary Technologies....
(Hold for company's CEO story)....Capillary is used across nearly 10,000 stores today, and handles over 2.5 terabytes of data across 15 million customers.

When a company's only attention is by seeking and hoping for funding and clients, it shows it hasn't even stabilized itself and thus is publishing and republishing PR, since that's their only interests and, as it is, WP:NOT clearly states "Wikipedia is not a business listing for simple company information such as funding, activities, etc.". There's no compromises here since it's clear the only "news" there is, what the company itself wants its clients to hear. As it is, my nomination clearly stated the company itself only used it for clear advertising and here we are now, with SPA comments. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- actually, speedy Delete as G5, since all major contributors appear to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets of the editing ring whose representative is User:Ashwing. Unfortunately, the data here is too hold to prove it by checkuser but everything about the article is consistent. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

The article was created 11 November 2011‎. Ashwing (talk · contribs) was blocked five years later in December 2016. WP:G5 is not applicable. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and to the extent that arguments to remove all companies from Wikipedia are relevant, why are they not stated as IAR? Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major reliable sources think their audiences need information about this topic, such as Bloomberg and Gartner, and we follow the sources. The article is fine, as it has useful things to say that serve as a reference point for the topic, interconnecting that information into the world, written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "WP:GNG" as a wikilink to my !vote, to address an objection below. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a policy-based vote and simply stating "major reliable sources hink their audiences need information about this" is not how our policies work at all and they never have, because our articles aren't controlled by these said "major reliable sources" or how they controls our actions against them. We have also never accepted things because they were "fine and useful" especially not when it's clear advertising as shown here; I even showed above how the company blatantly republished its own quotes in said "major reliable sources" so there's not even independent "news", hence the sources are not acceptable. All of our policies in WP:What Wikipedia is not clearly state "Wikipedia is not a general listing for business information, services and other contents" and this exactly fits here. Therefore, the fact the account itself was blocked for advertising is relevant and it damages us as an encyclopedia to keep any articles connected to those campaigns. Like with these other advertising campaigns, we remove them as they have no place here. The fact the quoted "reliable major sourcing" above was shown to be simply be published and republished PR says enough since the news publishers couldn't even be clean about it, so we shouldn't jump into ourselves. As the Delete votes commented earlier, the concerns about advertising, SPAs and the overall influence here is alone to delete, regardless of existing sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per our article, the proof by repeated assertion fallacy "is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted...In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth..." Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Aboobaker[edit]

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

From the reliable references in this article, it would appear that Mr Aboobaker has been the equivalent of a Vice-mayor in Kalamassery a few times. I suggest that, as Mr Aboobaker has ~~not been elected to any political position whatsoever~~, this article should be deleted. Shirt58 (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious from the reliable references in the article that Mr Aboobaker has been elected to political offices. My comment that he was "not been elected to any political position whatsoever" is incorrect. I should have simply added WP:POLITICIAN, noting that Mr Aboobaker is an "elected local official" but that "just being an elected local official, ... does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".--Shirt58 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources in the article are reliable, and the person fails WP:NBIO. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment x 2

I disagree with the assertion that the sources in this article are not reliable.

I see no good reason why the Kalamassery municipality website is not reliable source about itself or its elected politicians.

I see no good reason why http://www.lsg.kerala.gov.in/en/index.php is not accepted as reliable source about itself or its elected politicians.

That written, I still think this article should be deleted. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to demonstrating notability, reliable sources have to be independent of the topic. A person's "staff" profile on the website of his own "employer" is likely to have been at least partially written by the subject himself, and can thus contain inflated biographical puffery and/or sweep inconvenient aspects of his biography (such as notable controversies or criticisms) under the rug — so that's why such a source is technically valid for basic verification that he exists, but cannot actually contribute toward the question of whether his existence is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article for it. It takes media coverage about him to resolve that latter issue, not profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the vice/deputy-mayor of a municipality of 63K is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — even the mayor of a city that size wouldn't be guaranteed inclusion if he couldn't actually be sourced over WP:GNG — but the referencing here is entirely to sources that cannot carry notability, such as a profile on the municipality's own self-published website about itself and a profile on the state government's overview agency for its local government subdivisions. No evidence of reliable source coverage in media has been shown at all — but media coverage, not primary source verification that he exists, is the kind of referencing it would take to make his existence notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, below the limit for WP:NPOL. --Soman (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truemors[edit]

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

I was pretty horrified when I stumbled across this page. It had a lot of in-line links and no proper refs. When I clicked on the links, I found that many of them were dead (including links to the purported website this article was about - which appears to have disappeared into the ether.) I marked them as dead, converted what inline links I could into proper refs and then tagged any "facts" I could not reference. What I'm left with is a page of text that's unreferenced, referenced to a site that's not a reliable source, or referenced to a dead link. I would have put up a PROD notice but that was done once, back in 2007, shortly after the article was created. As best I can tell, it ought to have been AfD'd then. But it wasn't. Nine years later, it's really time to delete this piece about a project that I don't think ever achieved notability in the first place. David in DC (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is not in great shape, but instead of deletion it should be updated. A Google News search shows coverage at TechCrunch, Entrepreneur, IT World, Huffington Post indicating that it is in fact notable. Wish folks would put in some time to improve rather than just put things up for deletion. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The TechCrunch piece is an item of fewer than 10 sentences about Truemors being acquired. There's another piece about the acquisition in something called Venture Beat. The HuffPo column is opinion, not reporting. Perhaps it would be helpful if you identified the articles you think bring this article into line with our notability guidelines, because I DID look and found nothing more than opinion pieces and passing mentions. Kowalski is notable. Truemors, not so much. David in DC (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't gain any notability at all in its little time up on the web, certainly has none at all right now. I would also rather see some sources outside of the tech news bubble; all of those sites basically circled around any Kawasaki project like a flock at that time in history (Venture Beat also is pretty much a publication which exists to hype up this kind of stuff without an opposing view). Nate • (chatter) 23:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs work, but Guy Kawasaki is a notable figure and his major projects have adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not temporary DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:17, 30 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Club Mahindra Holidays[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and has a history of continuous addition of promotional content. WP:PROD removed without citing a reason (by a MACid) Ajf773 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Club Mahindra is a notable company and brand. The article in its current state cannot be on wikipedia. However if it is improved and relevent citations are added to correctly present various useful information about this company, It would be a good value addition.C. Harris (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Striking comment by TheLastMonk. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashwing.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; this is strictly advertorial content and belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Club Mahindra is indeed a notable entity in India under WP:NCORP. I think we can improve this article beyond its current state. I say we keep it and improve it. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the article contained unnecessary promotional stuff and is possibly being monitored by "sympathizers", I don't think there is any ground for deletion. It definitely satisfies WP:CORP with multiple non-PR reliable, WP:independent sources in publications like Travel Daily News, Business Standard, NDTV, The Hindu, more, and more, and some more (print media). These are wide coverages about the company acquiring other companies, its revenues, its business models, takeovers, and other relevant stuff that is of interest to the public at large. The fact that none of these are in the article also cannot be an excuse to consider deletion. Although being listed does not make a company notable, but WP:LISTED can be very well cited here. I have improved the article and removed promotional stuff, so WP:PROMO is out I think. Finally, per WP:PRESERVE, I think the article should be retained. We are building an encyclopedia here, and try to fix the problem. 1.186.37.86 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, what you've listed is not escaping the clear PR as (1) we've established these publications have blatantly published company advertising and (2) there's nothing to suggest a confident independent coverage without the company itself either paying or influencing it. WP:NOT is the highest policy we have for companies and it explicitly allows removal of anything questionable. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've been watching and I'll comment now about what's listed above: It's simply business announcements, mentions and other triviality, it's not lending actual substance for notability and it's clear this itself only exists for said PR. The links above even all have the same consistency of publishing the same PR and same formatting of them thus showing the company itself was the sole author, not the publisher itself. That alone is enough to suggest deletion since there's no actual substance to begin with. "Fix the problem", as the comment above, is by actually deleting advertising when we see it, and that itself "improves the encyclopedia" (also quoted above). With this said, the fact it's part of another company and then what's here is not substantial, says alone there's nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The company seems to pass WP:NCORP to me with coverage in sources via a quick search, but the article is a little thin. Needs improvement and content to stay relevant. If consensus is to delete, I'd suggest merge to the parent article Mahindra Group -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Magpies[edit]

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

No secondary coverage. Completely non-notable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club has played in the national cup, which is generally deemed to make a club notable (see WP:FOOTYN). We have articles on all the other clubs playing in the second tier in Gibraltar (see Gibraltar Second Division). Number 5 7 10:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Do note that that's an essay. Notability for organisations and companies is a guideline, and WP:VERIFY is a policy. There is absolutely zero secondary coverage about this non-notable team, and there is no such thing as inherited notability. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware it's an essay, but it's also the result of multiple AfDs in which this was decided to be a reason for keeping articles on football clubs (see e.g. this, this, this, this etc; there are plenty more in the deletion archives if you want to check). Number 5 7 12:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Wikipedia policy is that we need some sort of source to write things about something. There are no simply no sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, has played in the national cup competition Kivo (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per users above and notability is there.700yuster (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though needs expansion; per 57, the national cup competition should qualify it DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The national cup competition qualifies the page as notable. Needs improving not deleting. Kosack (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with national cup appearances, clearly meets notability guidelines for clubs laid out in WP:FOOTYN. Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Snap Inc.. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vurb[edit]

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

The main reason as I see it for ghits for this 'mobile search engine' seems to be that Snapchat might be taking, are taking, or have taken them over. What "enables people to find, plan, and share by connecting them to the most relevant information and tools from apps and services in a single experience" means, I am not sure. They probably do it. But are they notable? Or should the article be improved by someone who can see more in it than I can? Peridon (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only coverage the app has received in reliable sources is its acquisition from Snapchat. Possible merge with Snapchat. Meatsgains (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Snap Inc., which has passing mentions that essentially only state the company's name, but provides absolutely no context about what Vurb entails. This is a functional WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge Return from Tomorrow; keep George G. Ritchie. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return from Tomorrow[edit]

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

non-notable book. Also co-nominating George G. Ritchie the non-notable person who wrote the book. Obvious products of advocacy concerning Near-death experience; fails WP:GNG Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both Fail WP:GNG. I could not find any reliable sources for the book offering significant coverage, and no reliable independent sources covering the author. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Bailey, Lee W.; Yates, Jenny, eds. (2013). The Near-Death Experience: A Reader. New York: Routledge. p. 65. ISBN 113666694X. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The book notes:
  
  George Ritchie, M.D., had a near-death experience in 1943, during his World War II Army service. It was a milestone NDE, because it was the first NDE account heard by Raymond Moody. Ritchie's story opened the door to contemporary near-death studies. Moody dared to begin research on NDEs in part because Dr. Ritchie, who affirmed the reality of the near-death experience, had such a solid reputation as a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia Medical Center. Dr. Ian Stevenson, at the same Medical Center, expresses the same respect for Ritchie's reputation in his foreword to Ritchie's book, My Life After Dying, from which we have excerpted part of the original experience. Dr. Ritchie first published the account in his book, Return from Tomorrow, which sold over 200,000 copies. The more recent book tells how the near-death experience has affected his life. Dr. Ritchie now has a gift for healing that involves faith as well as medicine.
  George Ritchie, M.D., is now retired from his practice at the University of Virginia Medical Center.
2. Hill, Gary Leon (2005). People Who Don't Know They're Dead: How They Attach Themselves to Unsuspecting Bystanders and What to Do About It. Newburyport, Massachusetts: Weiser Books. p. 52. ISBN 1609251377. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The book notes:
  
  In Return from Tomorrow, George G. Ritchie tells the story of his own death in an army hospital at the age of twenty in 1943. If, as Raymond Moody says in the foreword to Ritchie's book, one defines death as "that state of the body from which no restoration of function is possible," then George Ritchie was not really dead. Yet, for nine minutes Ritchie's vital signs went flat, and what he saw and heard while "gone" changed his life.
  He leaped up, turned around, and found the body of a young man in the bed where he had been. The body was his. Now out of his body, he began to float, then fly, "as if thought and motion had become the same thing," first over moonlit rural landscape, then down into an industrial city teeming with people. So many people, in fact, they seemed to be occupying the exact same space. Two men bore down on the same stretch of sidewalk and, amazed, Ritchie watched them walk right through each other.
  Once aware that he had lost his ability to grasp things, or make contact or be seen or heard, Ritchie realized that his predicament was being shared by the frenzied glut of disembodied beings he saw milling about him, straining to be noticed by the living, snatching after cigarettes, begging for foregiveness, yapping advice, and being thoroughly ignored.
  "Disembodied beings, completely unsuspected by the living, hovered right on top of the physical things and people where their desires were focused," Ritchie writes.
3. Liester, Mitchell B. (2013-01-01). "Near-Death Experiences and Ayahuasca-Induced Experiences - Two Unique Pathways to a Phenomenologically Similar State of Consciousness". Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30 – via HighBeam Research.
  The article notes:
  
  The next major advance in our understanding of NDEs occurred when an undergraduate student at the University of Virginia named Raymond Moody attended a talk given by the university's psychiatrist, Dr. George Ritchie. During this presentation, Ritchie described an experience that happened to him during World War II. In 1943, Ritchie developed severe pneumonia while undergoing army basic training at Camp Barkeley, Texas. His condition deteriorated rapidly and while awaiting a chest x-ray, he grew weak and collapsed. After regaining awareness, Ritchie flew through the air, "traveling faster, in fact, than I had ever moved in my life" (Ritchie, 2007, p. 46). He tried talking to others, but they ignored him, as if he were not there.
  After returning to the hospital, Ritchie met a being of light that emanated unconditional love. He then went on a second journey, this time with the being of light. Communication between Ritchie and the being of light occurred by thought instead of speech (Ritchie, 2007, p. 63). They traveled to distant cities together and witnessed people going about their daily lives. Ritchie then returned to the hospital a second time. When he opened his eyes, he discovered the bed covers had been pulled over his head. Although alive, Ritchie suffered from delirium. Several days later, when he regained clarity, he learned that after collapsing in the radiology department, he had grown increasingly ill. The ward boy had found Ritchie without a pulse. He summoned the doctor, who pronounced Ritchie dead. Nine minutes later, Ritchie was checked again and for a second time was pronounced dead. Then, following an injection of adrenaline, Ritchie's heart began beating again. Ritchie made a full recovery. He later attended medical school, became a physician, and then worked as a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia, which is where Moody heard his story.
4. Snelling, Rodney L. (1992-10-07). "What Is There After Death? - Author Finds Himself No Stranger to Controversy". Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  When Dr. George G. Ritchie Jr. retired from his psychiatric practice in 1987, one of his goals was to complete his second book. That book, "My Life After Dying: Becoming Alive to Universal Love," has just been published, but not without some difficulty.
  ...
  Eventually, Ritchie chose to tell his own story in his first book, "Return From Tomorrow."
  ...
  Last month, Ritchie was one of several people who appeared on the Joan Rivers television show to discuss life-after-death experiences.
  Born and raised in Richmond, Ritchie entered the premedicine program at the University of Richmond with plans to become a doctor.
  He remained in the inactive reserves while in school, but in 1943 volunteered for active duty. It was during his training in the United States that he had his brush with death and his short incursion into the afterlife.
  Later, when he had recovered his health, he saw service overseas with the U. S. Army in Germany.
  After the war, he returned to his medical studies and received his doctor of medicine degree from the Medical College of Virginia in 1950. He completed his internship there in 1952.
  From 1952 to 1964, Ritchie practiced family medicine in the Richmond area.
  Ritchie and his wife, Marguerite, have two grown children, Bonnie, 38, and John, 36, and two granddaughters. His interests in children have extended well beyond his own.
5. Sessions, David (2013-02-08). "Is Hell Real?". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  In 1943, during World War II, George Ritchie was pronounced dead at an Army hospital, only to wake up nine minutes later. Ritchie went on to become a psychiatrist and write several books about those nine minutes, in which he claimed to tour the devastation of hell in the company of Jesus Christ.
  “Everywhere spirits were locked in what looked like fights to the death, writhing, punching, gouging,” he wrote in Return From Tomorrow, originally published in 1978. “Even more hideous than the bites and kicks they exchanged, were the sexual abuses many were performing in feverish pantomime. Perversions I had never dreamed of were being vainly attempted all around us.”
  Ritchie’s story inspired Raymond Moody, who coined the term “near-death experience” and published the runaway 1975 bestseller Life After Life.
6. Benns, Matthew (1997-08-24). "'I was flying 500ft above the ground...but my body was in a - hospital bed'". The Sunday People. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Dr GEORGE RITCHIE'S STORY
  All George Ritchie wanted to do was get home for Christmas and begin his training to be a doctor.
  Instead he found himself in a United States Army hospital coughing up blood from a chest infection and running a fever.
  As his condition worsened he was taken for an X-ray. He blacked out. Ritchie said later: "Faintly I heard the Captain shout to the nurse and ambulance driver, 'Grab him'."
  ...
  Later Ritchie discovered that he had been pronounced dead but a young ward attendant had argued that he had seen Ritchie's chest move.
  A doctor agreed to inject adrenalin into Ritchie's heart and it started to beat again - at least eight minutes after it had first stopped.
  Ritchie recovered and, 10 months later, driving through Vicksburg, Mississippi, he saw the white cafe with the neon Pabst Blue Ribbon sign he had seen for the first time during his near-death experience.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow George G. Ritchie to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to merging Return from Tomorrow to George G. Ritchie since I have found some coverage of the book but not substantial enough to justify a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge book to George G. Ritchie. Artw (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge book to George G. Ritchie per Cunard. Also, transfer the refs above to the talk page of that article so they can be incorporated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George G. Ritchie. The coverage of Ritchie and his claims are well-established (thanks to @Cunard:). Coverage of this book itself is lacking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gameshow (album). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Decisions (Two Door Cinema Club song)[edit]

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

Non notable single Nördic Nightfury 09:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge details to Gameshow (album). ww2censor (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Concur with Ww2censor. Finnegas (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gameshow (album). I merely made a redirect to the album page, then an IP address expanded on it. Daerl (talk) 02:07, 31 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 speedily deleted. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC) no consensus. I don't think author knows how AfD works, having speedied it. Removed and procedural closing - main article up for deletion with several CSD tags (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 11:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Premier genie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Josvan Talk 09:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Care to add a deletion rationale? --Michig (talk) 11:46, 30 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 consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Nadas[edit]

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

Non notable professor/software developer Nördic Nightfury 09:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability provided in the article.--greenrd (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-notable software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minuscule citation record does not pass WP:PROF#C1 and no other notability is evident. Working at the same places as some famous people is also not grounds for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criterion G12. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tatipaka disease[edit]

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

Josvan Talk 09:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copyright infringement, speedy delete.Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 30 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 speedily deleted. T. Canens (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) no consensus. I think author intended for article to be speedied rather than open for discussion (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 11:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hebei Sinft Filter Co., Ltd.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Josvan Talk 09:02, 30 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. Nominator withdrawal - I will say in my defense however some were linking to pages outside Wikipedia, whether or not the page is notable, it can be disputed. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 08:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of ultramarathons[edit]

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

Merely just a list of non notable ultra marathons. Nördic Nightfury 09:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of blue links showing these are in fact notable ultramarathons. The list is thus perfectly valid. Dream Focus 12:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus and WP:CLT. Could use some trimming to remove entries without articles, but that's an editorial issue. ansh 666 19:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. It needs cleanup and proper alphabetical ordering, but there are plenty of bluelinks. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 31 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milivoje Mijović[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. Non-notable basketball player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the Macedonia League is not fully professional. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Euryalus (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Belt & Wezol[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like it was copied from WP:GARAGE. Nothing to support notability under any standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Euryalus (talk) 07:51, 30 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 keep. Incorrectly formatted AfD Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where are the references and external links which provides readers proof that this place actually exists? Scorpion293 (talk) 20:38, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Brown[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A state-level pageant win is an insufficient claim to notability and significant RS coverage to meet GNG cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; also noting that the result of the national contest did not even place her- no major competition wins. And why is that blank section there?! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 07:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is not just a state pageant winner but also a national winner as Miss Teen USA 1986. Winners at Miss Teen USA seem to be a notable achievement. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum AfD is not cleanup. We already cover this topic elsewhere in the encyclopedia as shown in WP:BEFORE B5, so WP:DEL8 is out of scope. Notability is then a content argument as to where and how we cover the topic, not if we cover the topic. As per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, a deletion forum is not the place for content disputes, rather the discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The article overwhelmingly fails the general notability guidelines, the one source is from the Miss Universe Pageant organization itself, and so can not be considered indepdent of the contestants the organization exists to promote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is your WP:IAR argument to ignore WP:Deletion policy? Unscintillating (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete this article is because the subject does not meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This response ignores WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, so it ignores WP:Deletion policy. Further, it provides no WP:IAR reason to ignore WP:Deletion policy, which was the question, so is a non-sequitur. Unscintillating (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT apply here, as well as the "content dispute"? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my statement on this point above. The question here remains "What is your [JPL's] WP:IAR argument to ignore WP:Deletion policy? Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability is not a content issue. Neither is a lack of reliable source coverage, which deletion policy explicitly addresses. WP:ATD applies if and only if the subject is notable (and this person isn't). Even WP:ATD lists full deletion as a last resort. The only other viable option here is redirecting to pageant, but "Allison Brown" may be too common a name to be a useful search term. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k: Notability is not a deletion policy. Notability is a guideline that tells us if we want a topic to be a standalone article. If the topic is not notable, and the topic is not a standalone article, notability has nothing more to say. Specifically, it is typically non-notable topics that we merge or redirect. Merge and redirect are content decisions and do not need admin tools. I wrote the essay WP:INSIGNIFICANCE that collects much of the applicable text. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a contested request to remove an article from Wikipedia. Just because we didn't explore every alternative to AfD before coming here doesn't mean we shouldn't now find a consensus about what to do with this article. Outright deletion for lack of notability is a valid option. Articles about non-notable topics are deleted from Wikipedia every day, usually by PROD or speedy. Finally, writing an essay about a Wikipedia policy does not change consensus understanding of how that policy works. • Gene93k (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not "Allison Brown" is a useful search term, it can be used to create Wikilinks, just as deletion creates redlinks that damage the encyclopedia, such as in the following articles:

Miss Teen USA
Miss Teen USA 1986
Miss Oklahoma Teen USA
Miss Teen USA 1987
Miss South Dakota Teen USA
Miss USA 1987
Miss Universe
Kelly Hu
Christy Fichtner
List of Miss USA states and territories

What is interesting in this list is that it does not include Miss Oklahoma 1986. List of Miss USA states and territories indicates that Allison Brown was the last entrant in a 4-year experiment in which the Miss Teen USA pageant winner was entered into the Miss USA pageant. Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia provides a wonderful tool called Twinkle. One of its functions is to clean up red links in the blink of an eye. • Gene93k (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent reliable source coverage and per my comments above. Following WP:BEFORE, I found no RS coverage in Google or HighBeam. The Miss Teen USA win is notable only if reliable sources cover it. The 1986 pageant article is completely unsourced and no RS coverage was found in an independent search. The basic question for inclusion of any subject is: do we have enough reliably-sourced information to support a useful, verifiable and balanced article without resorting to original research? We don't have that here. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not notability, and it has been this way for a long time. Notability is a guideline that does not define content, with an exception involving lists. Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: Even if verifiabilty was the key threshold, verifiability WP:V depends on independent reliable published sources. This article doesn't have any. It also is a poorly sourced BLP that is grandfathered against the WP:BLPPROD policy. Notability is the consensus guideline we use for inclusion. That's why we don't have 7 billion biographical articles or one million primary school articles. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There are five names in this article, all of which have had references at some point in time, as seen in the edit history.
I also reviewed your BLPPROD link. The external link in the existing article seems to be enough to overcome BLPPROD. Further, as per point 3 in "Deleting and undeleting", the BLPPROD fails on "there is no suitable previous version to revert to".
Further, an excellent fully-formatted source is available in this AfD.
In summary, AfD is not cleanup, and an editor would need to cite WP:IAR to use the current state of the article as an argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As for notability being the consensus guideline for inclusion, the words oversimplify and in doing so miss the point, because topics can be included whether or not they are standalone articles.
The example you give of 7 billion people works well enough. Those 7 billion fall into three groups: notable, significant, and insignificant (not included). The notable ones are eligible to have articles, the significant ones are eligible for inclusion somewhere in the encyclopedia but not as standalone topics, and the insignificant topics are not included. Both the notable people and the significant people are included. An example of a significant biography is Jonathan Medved.
WP:V has said for years that, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability" The words were moved to footnote #1, but they are still there. Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote from WP:V takes that sentence out of context. WP:V is a core content policy. It is part of the statement that all mainspace content must be verifiable. It also goes on to say "this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included." WP:V says nothing about articles themselves. Again, keeping or deleting an article is covered in deletion policy, which cites notability as a guide. • Gene93k (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To your point, yes, there exists WP:V reliable information about insignificant topics.
I think you are still missing my point. Inclusion occurs at a granularity lower than standalone articles. Again, topics can be notable, significant, or insignificant. I suggest you look again at Jonathan Medved. We don't currently consider this topic to be "worthy of notice". We do consider this topic to be worthy of inclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the RS coverage found so far, the subject rates mentions in the Miss Teen USA and Miss Teen USA 1986 articles (already present). Wikipedia will suffer no great loss if the standalone article is nuked. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k: I think we are making progress here. Regarding the statement "Wikipedia will suffer no great loss if this standalone article is nuked", do you agree that this is an IAR argument for deletion? How do disregarding WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT improve the encyclopedia? The later directs attention to WP:Editing policy which has the "preserve" policy. Specifically, why is any loss at all acceptable? Why is an IAR deletion preferable to a policy-based discussion in a proper forum regarding notability? Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jonathan Medved bio stub that you tacked onto the father's article is an example of undue weight given with sources that aren't the best. As I said above, the current subject rates mentions in the pageants she competed in. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the statement that the New York Times and Businessweek.com are not the best, but this is missing the point, as this was provided as an example of a non-notable biography included on Wikipedia. And it is not reasonable to think that all non-notable BLPs on Wikipedia fail undue. Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:DEL8, WP:DEL8 does not exist outside the context of WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. WP:Deletion policy#Alternative to deletion, including merge and redirect, are priority alternatives over WP:DEL8, as we are here to build an encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check Google Books? I saw three good snippets there:

Edmond Oklahoma, Always Growing
Exploring Oklahoma Highways, Trip Trivia
Legendary Locals of Edmund

I clicked on the third and found a 2014 book from Arcadia Publishing:

David Randall Fisk (17 February 2014). Legendary Locals of Edmond. Arcadia Publishing. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-4671-0123-3. Retrieved 2016-12-31. Brown swept the contest, winning the interview, swimsuit, and evening gown competitions...she moved to Los Angeles and appeared in some TV shows and commercials, including a spot as Sarah Horton on Days of Our Lives.

Again, while on the one hand the topic has obviously attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time, it is a minor point in this case to argue that the topic is not notable, as notability is not the threshold for inclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three book entries: The first is a passing mention. I could not preview the second, but Worldcat only finds it in two libraries. The third is a one-paragraph entry provided by the subject, a primary source. More than nothing, but still way short of WP:BASIC. The attention of the world at large needs to be proven with non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To your last point, this idea is confusing WP:N with WP:GNG. The words I've used are from the WP:N nutshell, avoiding the specifics of WP:GNG, and the words you've used are from WP:GNG. And I only wish that there was "proof" of WP:GNG! Unscintillating (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N and WP:GNG are pointers to different parts of the same guideline document. By your own admission, you are cherry picking. Also, WP:BASIC is summarizes GNG and refers to it for clarification. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beauty pageants/archive provides a wealth of examples of what usually happens to GNG failures. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an advanced or controversial concept that: WP:N <> WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can agree that the source is "more than nothing". Unscintillating (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Find sources template for an alternate search term:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Contrary to @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:'s comment she won the most notable Teen pageant in the country. Obviously a standard Google search now is not going to show the breadth of coverage she received in the 1980s but a quick search of Newspapers.com shows 200 references, a scan indicates that many are significant although I no longer have a membership unfortunately. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current content and redirect title to whichever article the subject is most prominently mentioned in. bd2412 T 15:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep Not the forum to discuss guidelines. The question is are there RS independent of the subject which determine that she was/is notable. There are scores. [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], Though this one is very questionable, might be an avenue for further research. Her notability for that event continues to be mentioned [49], [50]. Thus, she easily meets GNG. SusunW (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all local publications, such as Clovis News Journal and Farmington Daily Times, offering routine coverage as in "local person wins award". I don't see this sufficient for notability under GNG. Same goes for later pubs such as The Norman Transcript. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually looked at them, you will note that the majority of them were issued with credit to the agency Associated Press. There were hundreds of versions printed during the period, all over the country. Furthermore, they were printed in the era of hard copy press, when it was expensive to print, not just a matter of internet glomming. Thus, weight is given to the fact that the various papers themselves gave import to print the story. We don't determine notability. Sources do. (By the by, neither "Clovis" nor "Farmington" are in Oklahoma. Nor is Salina, Kansas or Cumberland, Maryland. Clearly not local girl coverage, as you indicated above, K.e.coffman.)SusunW (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's WP:GNG wants reliable sources, and "local" has no definition there, which means that however "local" sources is defined, they are just like any other sources. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Teen USA in the absence of substantive RS coverage. The title is her principal claim to notability, but, like many notable awards, apparently hasn't proved significant enough to generate enough coverage to sustain an individual article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: the problem is there are plenty of RS but they're stuck behind the paywall of newspapers.com. The snippets that can be seen from a search indicate there's substantial coverage but without an account I can't access them to include in the article, and I've already burned through the free trials. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect only if needed as it's clear her mere participation in a local pageant and this being the only significance is not what amounts or contributes to a convincing article and there's nothing else apart from this and nothing to suggest the importantly needed improvements hence, all in all, that's actually enough to delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Local pageant??? She won the national Miss Teen USA title. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it largely seems to have been overlooked, she was a national not local titleholder, as many have erroneously claimed. What are the guidelines where sources that might potentially save an article are stuck behind a paywall? See [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. All of the links I provided (& I was able to see a small part of it on the search page) appear to have been syndicated from Associated Press. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PAYWALL. Being behind a paywall is not a reason to reject reliable sources. However you do need to have actually read them if you are adding material cited to them. Without being able to read the sources other than snippets, it may not necessarily be able to determine in what context they were used etc, were they indepth or routine coverage and so on. If you can get someone to look at them (theres a link for help in WP:PAYWALL) and verify what they contain, that would help. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googling "Allison Brown teen usa" brings up a plethora of entries to the effect "...Miss Teen USA, Alison Brown...". So I'm convinced that she indeed was Miss Teen USA and there are sufficient refs to prove this. Being Miss Teen USA is a big deal so that tilts the case in her favor. Is there enough material to generate an article (of a paragraph or two, at least)? Based on the arguments and material presented above, there seems to be. So no reason to delete. Herostratus (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only because she meets WP:GNG, but also because the nomination statement, as well as many of the "delete" votes are factually inaccurate. This is not a "state-level" or (laughably!) "local pageant" winner; Allison Brown won the national-level Miss Teen USA title in 1986. This article is a prime example of a poorly written article on a notable person (which really shouldn't be all that surprising, as everything she is notable for happened in the pre-Internet era), and, as we all know, Deletion is not cleanup. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victorville riot[edit]

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

One small local event. Stale WP:NOTNEWS. John from Idegon (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a classic example of an article which while relatively harmless, should be speedy deleted but for which no CSD criterion exists. Several established editors have tagged it for various things, including yourself John, and Robert and CAPTAIN RAJU - I wonder why no one simply PRODed it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Silverado High School (Victorville, California) There appears to be a merge proposal on the article already, but let's get this done here. Alansohn (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial/no enduring significance - no need to merge. Neutrality^talk 13:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as routine news event, or Redirect to high school. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 30 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Novatium[edit]

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

Quite clear advertising and it's not enough to then say the sheer blatancy of PR and quit close signs to paid advertising in them, and searches mirror a few pieces of them, showing there's not even anything close to genuine substance, let alone actually satisfying our policies and it's clear this was never planned for anything else but advertising hence there's nothing to negotiate. These subjects and matters are quite easy to pin as advertising but when it's as clearly company-involved like this, there's simply no other chances of hopeful improvements especially when the company account "Novatium" heavily contributed, subsequently followed by apparent employees (especially note the 2 accounts Emmess2005 and Emmess2006). Also important to note is the fact of 3 deletions close to the start of this current one, and this was in fact speedied again at the time but removed. There's nothing to actually improve if all it's planned for, regardless, is for advertising which is exactly the foundation here, hence violating policies. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Malik, Om (2005-08-01). "The Next PC Revolution will be Televised". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-12-29. Retrieved 2016-12-29.
  The article notes:
  
  ... And long before them, Oracle and Sun Microsystems chiefs Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy tried, and failed, to market so-called network PCs.
  So what gives tiny Novatium an edge over such high-profile competition? Most of those companies have focused on making traditional desktop PCs or laptops cheaper by using older, slower chips and skimping on memory and hard-drive storage. Novatium, on the other hand, has created a state-of-the-art network computer that mimics a traditional desktop machine at a fraction of the cost--and that will soon be made to run on any television, anywhere.
  ...
  Novatium sees a similar opportunity lurking today. Just as millions of Indians skipped land-based telephones altogether and went straight to wireless when it became affordable, Jain and Novatium's other two founders--Ashok Jhunjhunwala, a renowned engineering professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, and Ray Stata, chairman of U.S.-based Analog Devices, a $2.6 billion chipmaker--are betting that they'll skip desktop PCs and go straight to network computers.
2. Overdorf, Jason (2007-10-12). "The $100 Un-PC". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  If Rajesh Jain is successful, the NetTV, which hooks up to any television, could be the first in a family of devices that connect the next billion people to the Internet. Jain, 39, is cofounder and chairman of Novatium, the Chennai-based company that makes NetTV and NetPC, a similar product that uses a normal computer monitor. Both are based on cheap cell-phone chips and come without the hard-disk drive, extensive memory and prepackaged software thatadd hundreds of dollars to the cost of regular PCs. Instead, they are little more than a keyboard, a screen and a couple of USB ports--and use a central network server to run software applications and store data. Novatium already sells the NetPC for only $100--just within reach of India's growing middle class--and Jain believes he can soon drive the price down to $70.
  ...
  Started with only $2.5 million, Novatium has just 60 employees, but it is attracting attention from many major players.
  One reason is that Novatium machines are open to all. Unlike most thin clients, Novatium's devices work with any network server without requiring major modifications, whether it uses proprietary software from Microsoft or Sun, or free software from an open-source company like Linux. Microsoft is participating in the Chennai pilot program because Novatium's subscription-based payment system could generate profit in markets where most users run pirated versions of Microsoft products. Top U.S.-based executives from Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and other companies have visited Hema's house and other homes wired with the NetPC and the Nova NetTV to see how the utility computing model could work in the home. And network server giant Sun Microsystems--whose slogan has long been "The network is the computer"--has already inked a deal to market the NetPC to enterprises and schools in India beginning this year. "There's a 100 million-unit opportunity in the next five years in India itself," Jain says.
3. Simhan, T.E. Raja (2009-04-20). "BSNL ties up with Novatium for rural broadband service". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  The Nova netPC works on a ‘thin client’ concept. It is a small box and does not contain any software or application. It is linked to a central server, which hosts all applications. The box does not have any configuration or processor. The central service has all the storage and guarantees data privacy through encryption.
  ...
  Novatium was co-founded by Mr Ray Stata, Chairman of Analog Devices, Mr Rajesh Jain, Managing Director of Netcore Solutions, and Prof Ashok Jhunjhunwala of IIT-Madras.Mr Singh said Novatium has decided to postpone by six months raising `large sums of money' for expansion due to the high cost of funds. However, it will raise around $5 million for the short term requirement.
4. Sachdeva, Sujata Dutta (2008-07-26). "Novatium ties up with MTNL for $100 PC". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  They grabbed international headlines when they launched their $100 (around Rs 4200) Net PC in January this year. It was touted to be one of the cheapest Net PCs anywhere in the world. So much so that Novatium Solutions, the Chennai-based company that was incubated at IIT Chennai went on to be featured by Newsweek as their cover story some months ago.
  Six months later, after tasting success with their pilot project in collaboration with MTNL in Delhi, the company is now drawing up expansion plans. This month Novatium is signing a commercial deal with MTNL to provide the PC and computing services with all MTNL boradband plans. "In the pilot project, MTNL included it in their Rs 399 broadband plan. Under the revenue sharing agreement, MTNL kept Rs 100 for the net connectivity while Novatium got Rs 299 for computing services per user," says Jaideep Kohli, COO, Novatium Solutions.
5. Sharma, Ravi Teja (2009-06-12). "Thin Client, Fat Business". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Novatium Solutions, the company started by Rajesh Jain of Netcore Solutions, Ray Stata of Analog Devices, Prof Ashok Jhunjhunwala of IIT-Madras and Alok Singh, former CEO of Cummins Auto Services, took a year to develop its first product called the Nova NetPC version 1. The NetPC is a thin client computer. This means that the system retains most of the functionalities of a desktop PC but moves the complexities of software and hardware maintenance and upgrade as well as data security to a central server elsewhere.
  ...
  The four-and-a-half year old company has done a turnover of Rs 50 crore. Novatium has a trademark on a technology they call Plug & Compute and this is enabled by 13 patents on the box, server side billing engine, protocol and others. It has also developed its own operating system.
6. Wong, Chin (2007-02-13). "Unenthusiastic about the Un-PC". Manila Standard. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  LIKE a bad penny that keeps turning up, the idea of a thin computing client refuses to die.
  Its latest reincarnation is the $100 "Un-PC" that Newsweek trumpets in its Feb. 12 issue as a replacement for the personal computer.
  A company in India called Novatium has begun selling the NetPC for only $100, but here's the catch: it has no hard disk, very little memory to speak of, and uses a cheap processor of undisclosed origin that's more typically found on mobile phones. The software? Zip. You'll have to subscribe to that, including the operating system, which will be rented out to you over the Internet. You can't save your files locally, either--you'll have to send them back to the server over the Internet.
7. "India may soon sell $75 home computers". United Press International. 2005-06-29. Archived from the original on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2016-12-30.
  The article notes:
  
  Novatium, an obscure Indian company, is just about three months away from offering a basic personal computer for about $75.
  With a new monitor the price goes to $150, CNET News reported Wednesday. Used monitors keep the price below $120, Novatium founder Rajesh Jain said.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Novatium to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the promotional material here. Although the article can be further improved, it now complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis :
{{Tq|(Hold for company CEO story and quote) .... Novatium already sells the NetPC for only $100--just within reach of India's growing middle class--and Jain believes he can soon drive the price down to $70....Started with only $2.5 million, Novatium has 60 employees, but it is attracting attention from many major players. (This is classic PR since it only started with CEO story, pricing information but ends with the fact of "looking for major players" thus instant signs it's not even a significant or established company if it needs funding support, something no company will have unless it's trivial, which this is)
A company in India called Novatium has begun selling the NetPC for only $100, but here's the catch (Itself a business report with the classic signs of PR costuming)
{{Tq|Novatium Solutions, the company started by Rajesh Jain of Netcore Solutions, Ray Stata of Analog Devices, Prof Ashok Jhunjhunwala of IIT-Madras and Alok Singh, former CEO of Cummins Auto Services, took a year to develop its first product called the Nova NetPC version 1....(Hold for funding and financials)
They grabbed international headlines when they launched their $100 (around Rs 4200) Net PC in January this year.

As it is, we've established at all recent AfDs that we can never confide in Indian publications because of their blatancy of republishing advertising so actually suggesting "But it's sourcing" is not solving the actual concern, and itself, I emphasized my nomination shows this to be clear company-involved advertising, therefore it violates policies, and it's a non-negotiable policy not open to questioning. There's no compromises since it's clear the company's only attention is company announcements and financial quotes, classic signs of a money-seeking company, not an established one. The fact the links are conveniently placed whenever the company needed funding, shows exactly that. When we started Wikipedia, we explicitly made policies against advertising and it's these cases in which we use it. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe CNN or Newsweek are advertising for Novatium. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cunard's good work. The deletion nominator's suggestion that all Indian sources should be dismissed, because they are Indian, is preposterous? Racist? --do ncr am 02:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doncram (talk · contribs). I agree that the nominator's comment dismissing all Indian sources is unacceptable. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck does saying that Indian publications cannot be trusted make it racist? Or is this some kind of Western political correctness? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck do you mean, Lemongirl942? Are you trying to defend the statement? If you do not condemn it, i don't know what to think about you. Nitpicking about how to categorize it exactly is probably silly: call it ignorant, stupid, offensive, perhaps xenophobic, perhaps racist, what is your choice? It is possibly racist, though technically if the utterer is Indian then perhaps not. This should be condemned strongly, is the main thing, this is not what Wikipedia is about. You have got to be kidding if you think it is legitimate to dismiss all Indian sources.

If you want to nitpick rather than condemn what should be condemned...okay some characteristics of that person would have to be determined to figure out if they are literally racist vs. being ignorant/obnoxious for some other reason. Okay, I will assume "good faith" on Lemongirl942's part, and i will assume that was a real question, i.e. that Lemongirl942 does not see Indians as being a different race than Western-European-descent. I believe surveys show that most editors here are Western-European descent, and I would guess that the utterer is, else they would not have said what they did. Well in my life experience I have it on personal authority of an extremely well-educated (in most elite Indian and American schools, with impeccable British-accent English) Indian from Mumbai, who is proudly Brahmin, that a Western European descent American is of different race than they. It's a point of view and seemed not to be a matter of ignorance on their part; I don't know if they were technically correct by the most current academic definitions but it is a point of view I assume held by more than just theirself, and as such then I think if some people think they are a different race then they are. I don't know if the utterer here considers Indians to be a different race, although some do, hence I left a question mark. If the utterer wants to clarify whether they are in fact racist or whether their stupid statement was similar to the stupidity of Americans who commit hate crimes against Sikhs because they think they are Muslim, well, that would be just peachy. --do ncr am 19:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. I think both SwisterTwister and Lemongirl942 didn´t want to offend anynone. As far as I understand, they voiced concern about rather permissive publishing policy of some sources. However, there are far more sources and at least article/opinion piece by Om Malik on CNN Money looks really good. We should judge available sources, not throw harsh words on other editors. Pavlor (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is too kind. The statement, complete with malapropism was "As it is, we've established at all recent AfDs that we can never confide in Indian publications...." It should be condemned clearly, not glossed over. --do ncr am 20:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SwisterTwister´s record on AfD shows he judges nearly any source too hard - be it "western" or "indian" one. He may be extreme deletionist editor, but he certainly doesn´t deserve accusation of racism. This is wrong forum for such discussion anyway. Pavlor (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: Although there is a part of your view that is valid for the charged word, what about the source of the contention? "...we've established at all recent AfDs that we can never confide in Indian publications..." The statement presented false attribution, of a "we" (that includes you) who has condemned the media quality-control of a subcontinent with 1 billion people.
What about the statement, "quit [sic] close signs to paid advertising...and it's clear this was never planned for anything else but advertising". This statement provides no evidence of paid COI, yet proceeds to disparage a content contributor's planning. Nor does an absence of evidence logically lead to things being clear.
Do you agree that in each case, the nominator should provide evidence or strike the comment? Unscintillating (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: Do you remember any instance when SwisterTwister judged available sources as subject independend and reliable? I sometimes feel as if he condemned the media quality-control not of a mere subcontinent with 1 billion people, but entire planet with 7+ billion people. Sorry for such harsh joke (I hope SwisterTwister doesn´t mind, sorry again), but accusation of racism is in this case baseless. There are good indian sources and there are bad (same for european, or american etc.). As I see it, more and more online media portals simply re-publish company press releases and there are editors (like SwisterTwister), who find these sources unacceptable even when published by respected webpage. To be fair, in many AfDs are such flawed sources presented as really good base for an article and (if my memory serves me right) one of recent company AfDs was full of indian sources of variable quality with heated argument about them. SwisterTwister´s dislike for indian sources may have originated right there. To your question, any claim should be based on evidence. If such evidence is inadequate, other editors have their own mind and can decide for themselves. Enough talking about fellow Wikipedia editor. Pavlor (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a source review. Promotional tone in the article has been addressed by User:Cunard, who copy edited it (diff). In addition to the sources provided above, here's a book source: link (snippet view), another news source: link (bylined article), and a product review from ZDNet: link. Additional sources are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG, WP:NCORP - Sufficient reliable secundary sources. Though I do not like the fact that I could not find their revenue. -- Taketa (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taketa: Privately-held companies often do not directly disclose revenue figures to the public. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. - Taketa (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Hyam[edit]

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

This autobiography appears to have been written more for the joke value than as a serious Wikipedia article. No evidence that Hyam meets inclusion criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:34, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Memestar Chronicles[edit]

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

Obvious hoax. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KATMAKROFAN: If it's an 'obvious hoax' then why haven't you applied WP:CSD#G3 (or possibly A11, depending on what you find)? In any case:
Delete Notwithstanding that, it's clearly non-notable- nothing more than the original YouTube vid and various blogs and zines exist. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the original version created by an apparent COI SPA, looks much less like a hoax, and there's been a bit of vandalism. But I can't find really anything at all about this other than an IMDB likely created by the same person for all we should expect. If it's a hoax, it's not completely obvious, but it should be deleted nonetheless. TimothyJosephWood 16:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:HOAX, have tagged article as such. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Awards won by Leonardo DiCaprio[edit]

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

Unnecessary list of one item Atlantic306 (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reditect to List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Leonardo_DiCaprio#Academy_Awards, Darthbunk Pakt Dunft (message) 01:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Darthbunk. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, who is going to search for List of Academy Awards won by Leonardo DiCaprio that this needs a redirect? It's linked to only from WP or user space.

And a wag of the fish toward User:Vejvančický for not deleting this as an obvious joke, which it is. TimothyJosephWood 13:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with TimothyJosephWood The award info can easily be found from his main article in the List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio section. I think it sets a bad precedent to redirect every possible combination of words. Other well meaning editors might see it and think they need to create redirects for everyone else's awards. Better to have editors focused on making more useful and productive additions to the encyclopedia.Timtempleton (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preethi Kumar[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Non-notable actress, fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NACTOR Spiderone 07:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above rationale. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments for keeping haven't been the strongest but there's clearly no consensus for any other result. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knots in My Yo-Yo String[edit]

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

Off-topic content Delsquare31 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep not a valid reason for deletion. it needs sources, but those can be added. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Delete. Off-topic content is a reason to remove the off-topic content, as I have just done. The nominator hasn't given any policy-compliant reason for deletion, so I will. The article subject does not meet the standards of the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for books. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is astonishing that this article has existed for over six years in such a state: no references at all, most of its content not about the ostensible topic of the article, and no evidence of notability. As the editor at IP address 86.17.222.157 rightly points out, the reason given by the nominator is not a reason for deletion, but the lack of evidence of notability (either in the article or anywhere else that I can find) is. As for ThePlatypusofDoom's comment, merely stating that sources "can be added" without saying what or where those sources are is of no value: see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "It is astonishing that this article has existed for over six years in such a state", not really as its talkpage doesn't have any wikiprojects on it, btw it is notable, has been reviewed by Publisher's Weekly, Booklist, School Library Journal, Horn Book Magazine, Book Links, here is the EBSCO list of the reviews and its held in over 1200 libraries, pretty good for a kids book that was written nearly twenty years ago. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, charming and has a lot of potential. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not tear it down. It is now:
- referenced with good sources
- I can't get the infobox coding to work with the deletion template on the top of the page.
- Lots of content yet to add from the sources. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources and references added have helped to establish notability. Pauciloquence (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jerry Spinelli. Aspect of his biography. Can be spun out once there is more content. Sandstein 07:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: looks like an overhaul happened in the meantime slakr^\ talk / 02:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No rationale for deletion. 2600:100F:B020:6870:5408:1605:FE77:B8E7 (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References are provided.700yuster (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic is clearly notable, with more than enough reliable sources. It looks a really good, sensitive and intelligent book about childhood, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it passes WP:NB. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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