Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 July	15 July >

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 speedy keep. The nomination seemed to be created before a redirect was created. The acceptable according to WP:POFR. If you would like to refile, see WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chicón[edit]

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

No content Prof TPMS (talk) 23:07, 14 July 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 Exile to Lower Slobbovia. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of North Sudan[edit]

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

I deleted this once before as a hoax. It's not a hoax based on the sources. It's a piece of garbage that doesn't bring credit to this project. You can think of it as failing notability guidelines if that makes you happier, but the real question is how low can we sink? Let the argument begin. Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I must have caught Bbb on an off-day, a day with no bacon or free-range eggs for breakfast. This is something, a little stunt, which made the newspapers. A little bit, for a little while. If Disney makes a movie based on the story of the guy who just up and planted a flag there that's fine, but that doesn't add reality to the nationhood claim. These kinds of things apparently get notable via decent, in-depth coverage, which we don't have here--we just have a colonialist ca. 2015 with a homemade flag, and a few chatty news articles of the Man Bites Dog variety. Besides (come to think of it), it's a claim. There is no micronation, there certainly is not a geographical place with automatic notability, since it's not recognized by anyone of importance. Delete. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That last bit you added is the core of my reasoning for deleting the article as a hoax. This is no such thing as the kingdom of north sudan. It was made up by a fellow who then got some publicity for doing it. I have just declared my backyard as the kingdom of Bbb23 with me as king. I'm going to go out now and collect taxes and find some serfs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Came via Africa links, so unaffiliated editor. As per my typical response to contemporary AfD's, I go to LexisNexis and look at everything on the topic. Lexis has 41 hits (one is a false positive, so only really 40). Of those 25 are from July 2014 and all are as described by Bbb23 (without sufficient coverage). Coverage since then is either referring to the one event, which fails to pass WP:1E or it has substance related to other issues: the Terra nullius concept in international law, the Disney green lit project, other micronations like Liberland with the kingdom only mentioned in passing, or Bir Tawil. This (cool) guardian article is the most substantive hit and mostly just uses the flag planting as a hook to set up a larger conversation about the area (and by the way completely debunks any notability claim of the kingdom in doing so--"Heaton was not the first well-intentioned, starry-eyed eccentric to travel all the way to Bir Tawil and plant a flag. Someone else got there first, and that someone was me"). Hence: Coverage is dependent on a single event, is not substantive, and any actual substance in the articles is not about the Kingdom but other issues. The coverage on the Bir Tawil page is sufficient and this article should be deleted. Not notable. If Disney makes a film, then the film should have a page but even that wouldn't make this notable. I think this quote from a Washington Post article in 2014 makes the hoax clear: "Experts say that simply planting a flag in the sand isn't how countries are born these days, even if land sits apparently unclaimed. Heaton is not a state, nor is he acting on behalf of any nation. And he is not occupying the land, instead living more than 6,600 miles away in southwestern Virginia." AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is covered sufficiently here. The rest is non-notable, per WP:1E. While 1E is about BLP's, it applies here because everything in the article stems from Heaton's activity in planting the flag and the brief burst of coverage that his flag-planting elicited.David in DC (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Lidakevičius[edit]

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

As with the last afd, Lidakevičius has still not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Six years later and still does not meet WP:NFOOTY. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Seasider91 (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing has changed about the concerns over notability from the first AfD. Page still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:FOOTY, sources for notability not found.Coolabahapple (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Texas fire departments. Redirect is always preffered over deletion so am redirecting (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conroe Fire Department[edit]

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

As with most public safety groups, this one fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:ORGDEPTH, and as usual, WP:ENN. I'd redirect, but the FD isn't even mentioned in the article, nor is there really an appropriate place to put it. This is minutiae in the grand scheme of city articles, and there's nothing that makes this particularly notable. MSJapan (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing making this fire department significantly notable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note from author - I've had quite a few articles deleted over the years. If you would, please view my created articles page and scrub the one that don't meet notability guidelines.--WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Texas fire departments Definitely not notable for its own article (with hardly any content as well). I think redirecting to this list is an acceptable solution. The list mentions the article subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Piperis[edit]

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

Notability not established. No refs added since Notability tag added in 2010. Nick Number (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article on Greek Wikipedia was deleted twice because of copyright infringement. It was copy-pasted from www.nikospiperis.com which is now down. Here you can find the text that another website took from the Greek Wikipedia when the article there wasn't deleted yet, as it gives attribute to the Greek wp. The article here is an English translation of that text bound by copyright infringement. Furhermore, I searched Greek sources through Google and didn't find any third party and reliable sources mentioning this person. ~~ ∫_uℂρЭ ℝ0υĜe 21:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, have been unable to find anything to show that he meets any of the 12 criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, ie. gsearch just brings up youtube and facebook entries. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 22 July 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. Fails subject specific guideline and GNG. Creator accepts rationale. Fenix down (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rasmussen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on speculation as to future appearances, which is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But he has played a number of times for the Danish youth teams, which marks him out as a hot prospect and likely first team player for FC St. Pauli. TRoode87 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly rules out youth football as a source of notability, and claims to notability based on potential future appearances have been consistently rejected in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Pochanski (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomislav Turčin, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baoringdao Bodo for recent examples). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Since FC St. Pauli is not going to play any competitive match before August 6, 2016, it is a WP:TOOSOON case now. Fails at WP:GNG at the moment. Hitro talk 20:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has yet to play in a WP:FPL Seasider91 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Article can be easily restored if he passes a notability guideline in the next few months, but we don't create articles in anticipation of notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fine. I will restore the article when Rasmussen has played his first senior match. TRoode87 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines and seems to be NOTNEWS and for me doesn't pass encyclopedic muster. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclosure: article creator). This PAC has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources. In addition to the links that appear within the article, there are others posted on the article's talk page. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, but notability is not the problem here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might have received lots of coverage but that doesn't make it a notable organization under the guidelines. Not every company/org makes it to Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but as Rockypedia says below, the organization is the subject of several articles and not just mentioned in passing. There is plenty of material for expanding this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say deletion is an overreaction at this point. There's a lot of coverage in a lot of reliable secondary sources. The PAC is the subject of many of the articles, and not just mentioned in passing. As such, I believe it passes notability guidelines. Rockypedia (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable sources suffices to establish notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sourced do cover it, so it must be notable. Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I has received coverage in various sources at different times which meets the minimal threshold of notability. TFD (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Sir Joseph that this article should be deleted, but for slightly different reasons. A quick Google search shows coverage for this organization, but almost all the coverage is from mid-June, in which the organization made a video discussing Trump's "tiny hands". Six of the sources listed in the article are from that timeframe. As for the other three sources, two are regarding a name change (with the Washington Post mention trivial in nature) and the last one meets our guidelines for "significant coverage". But from the looks of it, the coverage of the video is not news and the rest of the sources available doesn't quite state that this organization meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't predict any lasting notability as all coverage that it is getting is because of all the media hype surrounding Trump. Prevan (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see sources from March, June and July in the article itself.--TMCk (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article easily passes WP:GNG. It's received coverage from The Guardian, The Washington Post, USA Today and many other sources. Those websites have always been considered reliable sources which help to show notability. As for Prevan's point, notability is not temporary. Whether or not the organization is still receiving coverage is irrelevant, because once it's been shown to meet the notability guidelines, it will always meet the notability guidelines. Omni Flames (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass notability guidelines as an organization. At the very least, the article on this PAC should describe the organization as satire or a prank, as that is how most NPOV sources describe it, e.g. Best Political Pranksters. Also, the article would need to disclose the PAC's objective, which is merely for Donald Trump to reveal the measurements of his hands.--FeralOink (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC) (Afterthought: Why is this article tagged as a BLP (Category: BLP)? I just noticed that on the talk page for the article!)[reply]

Comment I believe you have it backwards - Best Political Pranksters is hardly what I'd call a WP:RS, while most reliable sources describe the PAC as a PAC. In fact, another reliable source here treats the subject quite seriously and notes that the PAC has begun to run anti-Trump ads on television. If they're taking donations and running ads on TV, I'd say that's a real PAC that goes beyond a prank, regardless of how it may have started. Rockypedia (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though very reluctantly. This article is a BLP violation waiting to happen, and I don't really believe it to be very encyclopedic, but notability according to our guidelines has been firmly established. I'm WP:INVOLVED in American Politics, but I strongly encourage other admins to keep an eye on this one assuming it is kept. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic.CFredkin (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic but related to an American presidential candidate and covered by numerous reliable sources? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being covered in the news doesn't make it notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) Rockypedia (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to a sourced sentence at Stop Trump. Reason is that this political equivalent of a BLP1E is, as Nom states, not encyclopedic. Yes, it happened, but even the sources cited describe it as a "prank." Granted, it's clever prank, the video isn't LOL funny, but it is clever. But there is just not enough here to warrant keeping. Except possibly as a redirect/merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that inclusion in the Stop Trump movement article is a good compromise, in order to preserve documenting the existence of the organization without devoting an entire article to it.--FeralOink (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Omni Flames. This has enough reliable sources for it to be considered notable. Henry ^TALK 21:34, 21 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endive Software Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

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

Completely NN company - most of the article is a hoax supported by completely unreliable whatech.com PR sources. Claims to be in top 10 salesforce development companies of the world yet theire salesforce page says they've completed no projects. Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WhaTech is marketing, not news, and that's the only place this company seems to be mentioned. Endive Software was speedied as advertising, also. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources to indicate attained notability for this firm. AllyD (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax per WP:CSD#G3. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz najim[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Article is nothing more an than infobox. Google searches do not turn up any hits for any sources outside social media links. CSD tag removed, bringing to AfD RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. This article is an autobiography, and it failed notability. Ayub407^talk 18:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. The assertion of significance is that he claims to have signed with three different labels (and he's only 17!). If a source is provided for this, then I'll reconsider. Conversely, if it's disproven, go ahead and speedy delete under A7, since there will be no other assertions of importance. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Well, I gave the article a chance, but my searches found nothing. Adam9007 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: The assertion of significance fails the two part test at Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance - it is not credible. CSD#A7 decline was in error. It is also a Hoax - WP:CSD#G3 Toddst1 (talk) 19:02, 14 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Wolfe[edit]

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

Fails GNG and MUSIC. Speedy declined by Adam9007. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Where is any sort of notability claimed? Being married to someone notable doesn't impart notability, and any musical notability is local at best. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not A7. Consensus was that a strong association to a notable subject can constitute a credible claim of significance. Both working with and being married to a notable subject is a particularly strong association. Despite that, not notable, as noted above; notability can't be inherited, even if a credible claim of significance can be. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I don't think speedy applies. He's not notable, but it's not some gross attack page or ad. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article has been improved to the point where it survives A7, but clearly still fails any notability test you want to throw at it. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability, almost no sources seem to cover this person. Also, I am not seeing that his music made the charts. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A CCS might be based on association, but notability is not inherited; and in this case, I can see no other claim to notability either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable, ie. youtube and facebook (and then a whole lot of genealogical records of deceased wolfes:) Coolabahapple (talk) 19:20, 21 July 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Albu[edit]

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

We're dealing with a very determined self-promoter - single-purpose account Ionmihaialbu was apparently not enough, so he's come back with single-purpose account AdaOpait after this article was speedily deleted - one who informs us that "it is very important for Mihai Albu to be on Wikipedia". Well, I would think that's for the community to decide, and I hope we'll decide he isn't notable due to failing WP:BIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Albu is notable, if at all, solely for having created the highest heeled shoe ever. Given that the shoe is more sculpture than fashion, this is a very thin claim to fame at all. Certainly not sufficient notability for Wikipedia purposes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly fails Wikipedia:BLP1E. The article should be speedy-died under CSD G11. Drikulaeri talk 17:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is only notable for his shoe designs. Meatsgains (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied this once, and explained why it was not acceptable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, interesting the tone of some of the editor's comments above ie. "is notable, if at all, solely for having created the highest heeled shoe ever", "only notable for his shoe designs", the same could be said about 1000s of sportspeople articles ie. "x is only notable for playing (insert name of sport here)", with that little rant out of the way:), cnsnews and Daily Mail refs probably aren't enough, could there be some Romanian sources? Coolabahapple (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:09, 21 July 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 18:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Jhaveri[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Article incorrectly de-prod'd by Dennis Bratland, who said failing notability is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. That's correct, but PROD is for deletions that don't meet speedy criteria, as this one, where no objections are expected. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I added several sources to the bottom of the stub. This isn't an obvious case where the subject clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:PROF, but the ongoing coverage over a span of time, from at least 1992 to the present, in several fields including politics, engineering, and climate change activism adds up to meet WP:GNG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You cited two Seattle Times pieces, which are legit. India-West is legit too. His peer reviewed article in Energy & Ecology Business does not establish notability. (If peer reviewed publications contributed to notability, I'd deserve a Wikipage.) Same with SciTech Book News. I doubt that one page of "The Almanac Of Women And Minorities In American Politics" establishes much more than that he exists. His appearance in a debate shouldn't (I don't think) contribute to notability. So you're right that we should be having this discussion rather than PROD, but I don't think those three sources establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Burien, WA is not a large enough city to hand its mayors an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, and the sourcing that's been added is not strong enough to grant him WP:GNG instead. Of the eight sources here, four of them contribute nothing toward the notability sweepstakes at all (inclusion in a directory doesn't count, an organization that he's directly involved in self-publishing its own press release about his involvement doesn't count, etc.) — and of the four that do count as reliable sources, two are just WP:ROUTINE coverage of his candidacy in the primary race for a congressional seat (which is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia in and of itself either), while the other two are routine coverage of his election as mayor in a local media outlet that would be expected to run coverage of local mayoral elections (by not nationalizing outside his own local media market, they fail to demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm for a smalltown mayor.) And as written, the body of the article consists solely of a single sentence asserting that he exists. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the congressional seat, but none of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance, gets him into Wikipedia as things stand today. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You said it better than I could. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Engleham (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing actually suggestive confirming his own independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable mayor of a minor city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 23 July 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. Article has been speedied as G11 by Boing! said Zebedee. (non-admin closure) Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 20:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ant.com (website)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources in the article are primary sources, which cannot be used to determine notability. A Google search fails to bring up any reliable, secondary sources; most of them being either primary, unreliable, or unrelated. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete as promotional. Not actually notable. ubiquity (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howard W. Peak[edit]

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

NN politician. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". This article does not. MSJapan (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was the mayor of a city of more than 1 million people. Google and HighBeam searches make it apparent that there are ample sources to expand this article. Among his accomplishments was the development of a system of greenway trails, and after his term the city named the trail system after him.[1][2] Obviously notable; article improvement, not deletion, is called for here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extensive coverage available in WP:RS. There must be a thousand SA Express News articles alone. While this may not have been the most exciting mayor ever, there's more than enough information available to construct a viable BLP. No need to delete the stub. Kuru (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of WP:RS available, easily enough to meet WP:GNG. There are hundreds and hundreds of news articles out there about the trail system which was named after him, such as [3]. Some expansion would be useful here, but deletion is unnecessary. Omni Flames (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. San Antonio is a large enough city to give all of its mayors an automatic pass of WP:NPOL #3; small towns don't get that, but major metropolitan cities do. This needs work, I grant, but the sourceability does exist to improve it with — this is a matter for the cleanup brigade, not for AFD. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 18 July 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. Passes WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Daingerfield[edit]

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

This is basically a pared down summary of the source used for the article, and doesn't really demonstrate notability of the subject. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville" , and as he was only mayor for less than a year, for circumstances not given) there's really not much about him at that level of office, or at all. MSJapan (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Leaving aside his various other accomplishments and the availability of sources about this historical figure, a clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the Texas legislature. [4]--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Was mayor of San Antonio. The essay WP:OUTCOMES is a hornets nest of self-contradicting opinions and even that doesn't advocate the deletion of this article, just "should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'" which, even if that was the case (not the case here) it would be a matter of WP:ATD and WP:SOFIXIT, not deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NPOL point #1. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". According to this source, he was a member of the Texas legislature. Omni Flames (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William E. "Bill" Thornton[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. WP:POLOUTCOMES states Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". In this case, that is precisely what we have, as the subject only served one term (two years) as mayor. Most of the sources given are trivial mentions of employment, residence, to unnecessarily source mayoral succession, etc. Despite the use of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here, I'm not seeing the sort of WP:BIODEPTH that I see with other articles on other mayors of San Antonio, who by and large had longer political careers to be written about overall. There is also no non-local coverage of the subject, there's one primary source used, and I'm not even sure the Business Journal is an appropriate source. Therefore, I believe this falls well below the bar on notability. MSJapan (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has had a problematic editing history, but thanks to Cordless Larry's efforts it is now an acceptable stub, and there are plenty of sources available (and I've added a few) about this former mayor of the 7th largest city in the United States. The subject is notable; improvement, not deletion, is what's called for here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I initially felt that this person did not meet the notability guidelines for politicians and was about to nominate for deletion myself, but when I investigated further, I found enough coverage to suggest that WP:GNG could be met. I would also support the reinstatement of the material removed from the article in this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it's essentially defamatory towards the other party, I don't think so. Per WP:UNDUE, we're not going to pull one incident where nothing was proven, and call it out as 2/3 of the article just because there's a source for it. There were absolutely no ramifications on either side as a result. MSJapan (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not defamatory. I made clear that "the police found no basis for the charge", and indeed quoted the other party's view on what the incident said about Thornton. Given that the article is short, any detail is likely to take up a significant proportion of the article, but we have to start somewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't address WP:UNDUE - why is that detail important to a biography of the subject? Thi sis not an article about the election, and this speaks to my point - if the subject is notable, a minor item like this should not be a sizable of the article, but in fact, it is. The guy was mayor for two years, he's currently 72 years old, and this one event is a major part of his "available" biography? The struggle to make this article not a collection of trivia is precisely why "not every municipal politician is notable by default." MSJapan (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth including because it gives an insight into his behavior and actions as a politician. Making what turned out to be an unfounded allegation against a rival in an election is a fairly significant event, otherwise newspapers wouldn't have been writing about it nine years later. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guidelines also state Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Given San Antonio's size, a mayor's notability is pretty well assured, and it doesn't take much more than a few reliable sources for this to clear the bar. The interview that's archived at the University of Texas, which was already part of the linked content, is kind of a clincher. Though the article's subject has been advised not to use it as a resume-posting. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there were certainly some problems here, they're for the cleanup brigade to fix and not for AFD — San Antonio is one of the largest cities in the United States, and thus its mayors have a clean pass of WP:NPOL #3 as soon as any significant RSability exists. Mayors of small towns need nationalized coverage to clear the bar — but mayors of major metropolitan cities, where the local media outlets are the higher class of sourcing that we would seek to help establish notability for anybody else, do not. Problematic content, like BLP issues and/or advertorial/PR spin, can be dealt with through the normal editing process. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now demonstrates sufficient sourcing; kudos to CordlessLarry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, E.M.Gregory. Arxiloxos deserves part of that credit. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N-iX[edit]

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

All the references in the article are either merely brief mentions, press releases, or otherwise affiliated sources. I could not find enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are specifically about the company itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Self-promotional and non-notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are inadequate. Just corporate PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice The closing admin may also want do delete spamboxes of thyis indef blocked user: User:N-iX LLC/sandbox & User:N-iX LLC/sandbox/N-iX (I emptied them already). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, also WP:NOTADVERTISING.Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AWS Truepower[edit]

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

Renominating as I still question this article since it was first nominated in 2013 by JMHamo. My original PROD: "None of the listed sources are the needed substantial significant coverage and my own searches have found nothing better at all than press releases and trivial mentions.". I am still not convinced by the listed sources at the 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Corporate PR. Inadequate notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sorting through search results and omitting press releases, which are numerous, enough coverage exists to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples are listed below. Note that the sources below are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on various websites. Full disclosure: I closed the first AfD discussion as an uninvolved user, but this does not preclude me from participating in this new AfD discussion.

The company also meets WP:AUD in that it has received coverage outside of its local area, such as in Spain and Iowa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Con el viento al Magreb". El Periódico de Catalunya. (in Spanish) – Based in Barcelona, Spain
"The art of building utility-scale wind farms". Cherokee Chronicle Times. – Based in Cherokee, Iowa
"Change in wind hurts future". Times Union.
"Wind energy company to model L.I. coast area". Times Union.
"AWS Truepower works to predict the future of wind to site turbines". Times Union. (subscription required)
"Software acquisition broadens AWS Truepower analytical services". Albany Business Review. (Note that searching for this article's title in Google only provides a link to this article at Albany Business Review, so this is not a press release).

Comment - Examining the source above found 1 only containing a few sentences because it then says to buy that Sunday's news selection, the BizJournals is notorious for containing information for starting local new companies and is notorious for containing press release-like information, examining the Cherokee Times news, it only actually mentions this specific company twice. Finally the El Periodico (I'm a native Spanish speaker) is the only source that mentions them the highest number of times, but this is still not enough considering the sources overall. As mentioned, the PR clearly outweights here and, again, like with companies seeking attention, the Bizjournals was an example of that. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you're incorrect. The two non-paywalled Times Union articles provide significant coverage, and it's likely the third paywalled one does as well, seeing how the headline ("AWS Truepower works to predict the future of wind to site turbines") is entirely about the company. It's obvious the articles are about the company, and news articles don't have to state the name of the company in every sentence for readers to understand what the content pertains to. The Albany Business Review article is a bylined news article written by staff reporter Megan Rogers, and is not a press release whatsoever. To qualify my statement, when performing a search using the article's title (here), only the Albany Business Review article appears, and no others. As stated above, press releases are typically published verbatim by many various websites, which is not the case here at all. Stating that sources are "PR" by assertion alone without any proof for the claims holds no water. The following provides more proof for the other sources I listed above, using searches for the article titles. Notice how only the websites that published the articles are showing up in these searches:

Title search
Title search
Title search
Title search
Title search

The proof is in the pudding that these are independently written articles, and are not from the company, are not press releases and are not public relations content. These are all bylined news article written by staff reporters and published by reliable sources. Regarding the Cherokee Chronicle Times article, sure, the company name is only stated twice in the article, but again, it's clear that subsequent content is about the company and matters that the company is involved in. There is a total of four paragraphs pertaining to the company in this article. Again, a news article does not have to repeatedly state the company's name over and over again. Even if omitting the Cherokee Chronicle Times article, the company still meets WP:CORPDEPTH and satisfies WP:AUD. As such, my keep !vote stands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per this source the company's formal name is "AWS Truewind". Below is another source that provides significant coverage about the company and matters it has been involved with. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

"America’s Wind Energy Potential Triples in New Estimate". Wired'.

Although the Wired article may mention it a few times, it would still be thin considering it's the closest there is to both non-PR or non-significant coverage; as such, with such questionability, it's best deleted until better is actually available. Also, about the comment about its apparent "significant coverage in Spain and Iowa" is only because of its local offices, thus there's no inherited notability for such local businesses expectedly being mention by local news of course. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources enumerated in this and previous AfD discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 17:46, 15 July 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 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Sayers[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but I think being CEO of a major company qualifies as an assertion. Ten seconds Googling suggests there may be sources about him. No opinion on the merits for now. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with PricewaterhouseCoopers. I think he can have a namecheck in the encyclopedia, and his name is a valid search term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and as WP:INVALIDBIO says, "person A may be included in the related article on B" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this CEO inherits notability any more than any others Member Firm CEO. Merely one CEO of one part of PwC: no indication there's any particularly noteworthy about this individual. WP:Notable Speedy delete. MvjsTalking 12:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all confirming his own independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO simply being CEO of an Australian arm of a multinational has no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Tiles 2[edit]

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

On 25 June 2016 I redirected this as an unnotable video game and no signs of notability have risen since that date. No Metacritic ratings, and I found these two sources (148Apps, PocketGamer) sources, but they're not that in-depth and just talk about Google ratings. If more sources are uncovered then this may be notable, but at the moment I can't find anything that meets WP:N (video games). Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No non-trivial sources are found. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are also plans to delete Piano Tiles as well a redirect to the oringal games' article should be considered.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is another discussion, but feel free to nominate it, though. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, not a notable game. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:17, 15 July 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Bateman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Created by Alex17b (probably the subject) who removed a proposed deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC) PrimeHunter (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Promotional article likely by a promo only account - CSD tagged as such. The article does not make a claim of significant notability ie nothing which would pass WP:NACTOR and the sources are not there to pass GNG. The tone is entirely promotional and if you remove the unsourced and promo parts there is no there there. Jbh ^Talk 12:13, 14 July 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. Nose-count is pretty much split down the middle. I'm tempted to call this a clean keep for a couple of reasons. First, the nominator changed their own opinion to keep. Second, there was substantial cleanup during the course of the AfD, and last bunch of comments are to keep, which would hint at the post-cleanup version being acceptable. Still, for all that, I see enough uncertainty and disagreement here to call this NC. In general, I don't fret much about NC/Keep distinctions (since they both result in the article staying around). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military globalization[edit]

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

100% WP:SYNTH original essay in support of an invented definition. While the term does exist it is defined not at all in this way. The article is impossible to clean-up simply because the very first definition is invented and the rest follows it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Opinion changed because artcicle changed: sourced correct def provided & I removed the rest as WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a non-invented definition. The article seems to fit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxaxax (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with David Held or NATO. Superficially an improvement, but can it be expanded to article length and quality? Irondome (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I agree with the reservations as to the article's possible POV issues as put forward by Aoziwe (talk below. Irondome (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the recent radical edit, the article is now suitable for expansion imo. I note World War is also linked in see also, eliminating one of my major objections with this article in it' formerr incarnation. Irondome (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Prune~~ -- If a serious academic has coined this term, we should keep an article on it, as a philosophical or historiographical concept. However, the article then becomes an essay on the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - not an invented definition and clearly notable. E.g. see: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. If you have a problem with the article edit it instead of deleting it. For instance add "citation needed" tags and/or create a subsection for the whole current article if it's entirely just one definition if multiple exist etc. In the worst case – if both the used references and the unused ones (e.g. the ones I linked above) require it – prune it to a single sentence. --Fixuture (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You joined this discussion after the lede was edited. OF course, the article is in a different state now. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep, after changing the lede, based on the sources. (I deleted the rest, which is still WP:SYNTH.@K.e.coffman: @Irondome: @Peterkingiron: Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stand alone or merge the term information with World War, otherwise still has synth problems as a stand alone article and reads like an incomplete essay. Kierzek (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- not yet convincing as a stand-alone article, but there are some valid arguments for keeping it and it's reasonably well sourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. As currently written, what this is all about? I do not understand. Is it about NATO? Then redirect to NATO. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is because all the contents simply suggest a journal article, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into David Held as a section under his works, with redirect from current title to the section. A very brief search shows many references to globalisation of / and war, globalisation of military activity / industry, etc. While this article seems AGF, it is very possibly very single POV on the broader concept. Wikipedia would benefit from an article on the globalisation of war / military, but the current article seems to fall very very misleadingly short of the mark. (Keep if someone spends many hours researching and adding a lot more multi POV on the concept.) Aoziwe (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stub article, needing much further development, but a potentially important one. Disservice to both the topic and Held to merge into the latter. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Since I last looked at the article, a lot of ESSAY material has been pruned off it. The article has now been pared down to one on the concept. If that is how reputable historians are analysing the subject, we ought to have articles on the subject. I do not think this is properly classified as a stub: it is a complete (though brief) article. It may be useful to provide it with a "see also" section for what have been suggested as merge targets. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much of the essay quality has been pruned out of it, and the remainder is thoroughly sourced. I don't think this content can reasonably be covered at Globalization, so a separate, even if permanently short, article is appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kampung Datuk Keramat. OUTCOMES misinterpreted by nominator Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Datuk Keramat 1[edit]

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

Does not pass the notability guidelines for organisations/companies or general notability guideline. Confirmed by a google search. Really short articles and no sources cited. Please also refer WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. NgYShung (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The She Spot[edit]

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

Probably non notable book, part of an obvious promotional campaign for the author , See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Witter The book is in a large number of libraries, but this doesn't matter--it's more important to avoid promotionalism -- accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google results show notabity, especially that source from google books. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 12:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, the only thing close to a reliable source in Google and Google News searches is the Salon.com article in the references. Hence, this fails notability. Second, the fact that this book can be found on Google Books does not demonstrate notability. What is needed is other books, or book chapters in other books, that discuss this one. Third, as the nom has indicated - this appears a book promotional campaign on Wikipedia - please see comment below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kudos to DGG for noticing this as a promotional campaign on Wikipedia. I only wish DGG had placed both articles in the AfD. I am referring to the separate AfD linked above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Witter. That AfD is an important component to this AfD. Both articles pertaining to these AfD's were started by the same red-linked account, which appears to me to be single purpose account (see contributions here: [14]) This first SPA only edited for the "She Spot" and the author biography "Lisa Witter".

Additionally, when viewing the edit history of the author biography, it can be seen that article was earlier edited by three SPAs; the first SPA has already been mentioned.

The other two red-linked SPAs have only edited the author bio --- [15] (June-July 2008), - and - [16] (January 2010-August 2011). Also, upon viewing the talk page of the spa Hailey 113 - - User talk:Haley113 -- it can be seen that this person attempted articles on this book's co-author Lisa Chen (which was deleted), and his or her user page was deleted because "User page is utilized inappropriately for promotion of book - see - - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Haley113.

So, all of this presents the appearance of a campaign to promote this book some years ago. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lisa Witter. Combined, there is enough to meet GNG. Not tons, but enough. Montanabw ^(talk) 10:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NBOOK criteria. Article was expanded and cleaned up since original publishing per first AFD nom and article history. Hmlarson (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK as one can check by looking at sources retrieved through the Google links provided on the top of the page. The sources do not just mention the book, but discuss it. Probably should not be merged to Lisa Witter because this book has two authors. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - it's notable enough but it could be merged with the Witter BLP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 1st afd found article to be notable and a 'keep', notability is not temporary, although articles may be reassessed, not sure about nom's reasoning of promotionalism, although agree that author article definitely needs a cleanup if kept, DGG, as an experienced editor, has WP:NBOOK tightened up since 2012 (time of 1st afd) or are you concerned about the borderline nature of this article? thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NBOOK standard is rather vague and the interpretation is very variable. I'm looking at such articles more closely because quite a few of them are inserted for promotional purposes, either for promotion of the author or the ideas in the book. . As I said in my nomination, I'm concerned primarily on account of this being part of a promotional campaign. Inevitable variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage, and destroy NPOV and NOT ADVOCACY. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks DGG for the explanation, much appreciated, but i just found a Library Journal review - "If readers can look past the gratuitous puns (as in the title, a play on the "G spot") and the section on the "bloghersphere," they will uncover a serious work that aims to fill a void in resources on marketing to women by providing a concise handbook specifically aimed at nonprofit organizations. .. For libraries serving nonprofit practitioners or academic programs in nonprofit management."[17] (probably why, as you acknowledged, it is held by so many libraries, over 1300 according to WorldCat [18], pretty good for a business/marketing book that was 1st published in 2008:)), so with the other reviews it meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain more clearly, the problem is not notability, but promotionalism. I would not challenge a book with this many holdings and even the initial reviews for notability. even if I thought the notability borderline. The problem is promotionalism . Although most of the discussions here are about notability , not all of them are. It is not the only reason for deletion. It is not even the most urgent reason for deletion. We all know copyvio and BLPvio take priority, but in my view, so does promotionalism./ If we have an article about a book that isnt actually notable, it does very little harm; If we don't have one about a somewhat notable book, ditto. We'll never be complete. But if we do have an article that was inserted for the purpose of advertising, it does real harm. It violates the basic principle of NOT ADVOCACY, which take priority over any guideline on notability. It encourages other potential advertisers. It encourages the people who would like to write advertising. It encourages COI editing. It encourages violation of the TOU, tho this article was written before the current TOU. Promotionalism is a reason to delete. If kept, I will try to neutralize it to the extent I can, be removing the cherry-picked quotations, but it would be much bette not be here at all, because it is advertising . DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cool, so we npov it, not delete it? because if is deleted an editor can just create it again with the sources found meeting gng. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:44, 21 July 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. The sense of the discussion is that the author has sufficient notability to warrant an article, and that the promotion, while inappropriate, can be addressed by other means. I do think there is consensus that inappropriate promotion has occurred; if it is not addressed a future renomination is likely. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Witter[edit]

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

promotional article,almost entirely written by obvious COI editors in 2008-2012. I would like to think we would not accept this sort of puffery nowadays. See also the AfD for her book The She Spot DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kudos to DGG for noticing this as a promotional campaign on Wikipedia. I only wish DGG had placed both articles in the AfD. I am referring to the separate AfD for the article linked above -

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The She Spot (2nd nomination). That AfD is an important component to this AfD. Both articles pertaining to these AfD's were started by the same red-linked account, which appears to me to be single purpose account (see contributions here: [19]) This first SPA only edited the "She Spot" and the author biography "Lisa Witter".

Additionally, when viewing the edit history of the author biography, it can be seen that article was earlier edited by three SPAs; the first SPA has already been mentioned.

The other two red-linked SPAs have only edited the author bio --- [20] (June-July 2008), - and - [21] (January 2010-August 2011). Also, upon viewing the talk page of the spa Hailey 113 - - User talk:Haley113 -- :

it can be seen that this person attempted an article on this book's co-author Lisa Chen (which was deleted), and his or her user page was deleted because the "User page is utilized inappropriately for promotion of book" -

see - - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Haley113. So, all of this presents the appearance of a campaign to promote this book some years ago. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep (updated !vote per additional information) the two articles, doesn't matter to me which way. Combined there looks to be enough to meet GNG. Barely, but enough. Montanabw ^(talk) 10:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been trying to nail down the career of Lisa Witter and have so far come up with some bits and pieces. Apparently she is a journalist, and she has written articles for the Huffington Post [22], and Newsday (scroll to middle of page) [23]. She has co-founded "Apolitical.com" [24] and in the short bio there it says "Lisa co-founded Assemblyfor, applying behavioural science to policy and social change. Previously she was COO of Fenton, the largest public interest communications firm in the US. She has been a commentator and moderator for outlets including NPR, MSNBC, CBS and the Clinton Global Initiative. She has worked in government for the Seattle City Council. She is a WEF Young Global Leader and sits on the Global Agenda Council on Behaviour". She was also somehow professionally involved with two Nobel Prize winners [25], although she calls it "spending personal time with...them". Also, see article references for further gleanings. I don't have the time to look at all of them right now. Any comments on this comment as an indication of notability. or not, are welcome. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability guidelines for a person, as one can see by looking at sources retrieved through Google links provided on the top of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ^{Took the time to research this BLP and she is clearly notable, see my comment below dated 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)} Keep ^{Convinced by Cunard argument. 21:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)}~~Keep & Merge~~ ^{withdrawn as I try to better understand "promotional aspects" that led to this AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)} - keep per the info posted above by Steve and merge book & bio. She's an author, and also notable as a "first" [26], the first partner in the 30-year history of Fenton. There's also an article about her in Glamour, [27], the University of California-Santa Cruz alumni bio [28], and she wrote an article for Stanford [29]. Another article about her here, and there are more, so she's clearly notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain more clearly, the problem is not notability, but promotionalism. I would not challenge the notability of an author of a moderately notable book, even if it were ethe only thing they had done that was notable The problem is promotionalism . Although most of the discussions here are about notability , not all of them are. It is not the only reason for deletion. It is not even the most urgent reason for deletion. We all know copyvio and BLPvio take priority, but in my view, so does promotionalism./ If we have an article about a author that isnt actually notable, it does very little harm; If we don't have one about a somewhat notable author, ditto. We'll never be complete. But if we do have an article that was inserted for the purpose of advertising, it does real harm. It violates the basic principle of NOT ADVOCACY, which take priority over any guideline on notability. It encourages other potential advertisers. It encourages the people who would like to write advertising. It encourages COI editing. It encourages violation of the TOU, tho this article was written before the current TOU. Promotionalism is a reason to delete. If kept, I will try to neutralize it to the extent I can, be removing the cherry-picked quotations, but it would be much bette not be here at all, because it is advertising . DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, is there a way for editors to specifically review prior AfDs for similar book - author promotions? In other words, are they somehow categorized? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not that I can think of. The type this represents is where an author notable for a single books has an article about the books also. Sometimes they are listed in the same AfD, sometimes in two adjacent or linked AfDs, and sometimes separately--they are not necessarily listed at the same time, and the relationship will be mentioned in the discussion, not the AfD title. In general, when there is a book of some notability by an author of a single book, I've usually advocated keeping the article on the author: the author article has the prospect of growth, since the writer of a successful book often writes further ones. The book article, on the other hand, is rarely capable of expansion. There can however be cases where for some reason the book is much more notable., and of course for books that become actually famous, both the book and the author can be notable, e.g. Margaret Mitchell, the author of Gone with the wind.-- though such cases are fairly rare.

But these arguments have usually hinged on the notability issue. This pair of nomination does not: the question here is promotionalism. Nowadays, when a COI editor tries to write both a book and an author article at the same time, it's just like writing simultaneously an article on a company and its chief executive. The COI stands out, and we are sensitive to it, so it's fairly rare for the pair to even get a far as AfD. These articles were written in 2008, by an editor who has written nothing else. In 2008,we rarely spotted these--I was here at the time, and I probably would not have immediately recognized this as advertising or given it a high priority. In 2008, I was dealing at AfD with questions of clearly notable subjects to which people raised technical objections, and also , of course to clearly non-notable subjects. Promotionalism was recognized as a problem, but not the biggest problem: the emphasis in the discussions were always on whereto draw the line for notability, which was much less clear then than it has become by now for most types of articles. We do make progress: afd results are considerably less erratic.

This is I think the first pair of book-author articles where I have nominated for deletion based primarily upon promotionalism , though I have frequently nominated organizations/executive pairs on grounds of promotionalism primarily. Nor can I remember an exactly similar nomination by anyone else.My focus on promotionalism is recent; I think I am not uniques--our general concern about it is growing,with more and more rings of promotional paid editors being detected--as well and more of the background of editors promoting one particular thing or group of things only in which they have a conflict of interest. When we detect promotional editors, they usually complain: but you have articles X, Y, and Z, which are no better than mine. Sometimes the argument is absurd, because X Y & Z are truly famous, while they are at best not yet notable. Sometimes the argument is not absurd at all, and X, Y,and Z, all should be deleted. Even a good faith editor can be misled by the predominance of promotional articles in some fields into copying their style--and this has led to an increasing number of very unfortunate incorrect accusations of COI and paid editing.

For all these reasons, we need to not only stop the new promotional articles as they try to enter (which we are learning how to do), but remove the ones that managed to get into WP when we had not yet realized the extent of the danger.

Being part of a clearly promotional campaign is a grounds for deletion. It violates WP:NOT, and any possible notability is irrelevant. It's just as irrelevant as saying that notability is a defense to copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not a copyright violation. Is not it the case when WP:IAR (one of the "five pillars") should override WP:COI which is only a guideline? I assume that content of the page is valid and sufficiently well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, it probably should be deleted due to COI, and it's very poorly written, but I'd like to keep as many BLPS of notable females as we can. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here are our reasons for deletion, and they tell about removing pages that belong to "advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content". I think this is not the case here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so would I, but the way is to encourage volunteers to write them, and help them select the ones that are most notable . There have been a unfortunate number of deletions from recent editathons in the field, due to selecting those with relatively minor notability. It's the responsibility of those sponsoring such events to help the new users by screen topics--a new user should be directed to something that is reasonably certain to pass. Only after successful experience is it good idea to try testing the limits, by seeing if people are willing to be liberal on the criteria. But all this is not the issue here. I wouldn't oppose rewriting here after the deletion, but it seems from experience that the way to discourage promotional editors is to remove the promotion, not rescue it. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The extent of the promotionalism problem in this article is enormous, and the material not based on reliable secondary sources needs to be drastically cut back. (Maybe I'll feel bold here shortly and do it myself.) Further, I don't think it's anybody's obligation to go back and fill in what will then be a nearly empty entry with neutral, properly sourced material, unless some editor really want to. But all that said. I do not believe COI is sufficient reason to delete an entry if reliable sources could validate notability: I'll note that for instance, WP:AUTOBIO warns if you put up a post about yourself--a clear conflict--and "you do turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay." Seems pretty clear that COI does not automatically override notability. And on the notability front, I think this subject meets WP:AUTHOR #3, possibly WP:BASIC as well (I didn't look super closely because I was satisfied with AUTHOR).

I'll also note that the AfD on the book was closed as keep, which affirms my sense of community consensus that an entry can be legitimate as notable even with promotionalism concerns. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is an article about the subject:
- McFarland, Melanie (2004-07-30). "Everett woman running for 'president' on 'American Candidate'". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Archived from the original on 2016-07-25. Retrieved 2016-07-25.
  The article notes:
  If Showtime's "American Candidate," premiering at 9 p.m. Sunday, were running its faux presidential campaign by the book, Everett's Lisa Witter wouldn't qualify. Witter, executive vice president of the public relations firm Fenton Communications, meets the majority of the checklist outlined in the Constitution: she's a natural-born citizen and has been a U.S. resident for 14 years. But she also happens to be 31 years old, four years shy of the minimum age requirement.
  That doesn't matter to the series producers, though. What got Witter on their ballot was her dedication to the highest ideals of our democracy, her history of public service and a fire in her belly. As she and her fellow "candidates" stumped throughout the country, she did what any savvy politico would -- she talked about this election's top issues and tried her best to win hearts and minds.
  ...
  Witter has a fair shot, and experience to boot. Now living in New York City, our candidate spent the 1990s effecting change around Seattle, particularly in her capacity as a legislative assistant to Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck. Washington state Democrats named her a Rising Star in 1997 for co-founding the Institute for a Democratic Future and EMERGE: Women Leaders for a Democratic Future. Her father is a Vietnam veteran and a diesel mechanic, and her mother works at a paper mill. She sounds like political gold.
I don't consider the promotional issues to be significant enough to warrant deletion.
Cunard (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due both to promotionalism (which this article is full of) and to lack of sources. The independent sources, including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer mention her only in passing and do not provide significant coverage of her. The fact that her work has appeared somewhere does not mean that she's notable unless others are talking about where her work has appeared, and I don't see evidence of that. Ca2james (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For more sources talking about her work (beyond what's already cited here in the AfD or in the entry):

Publishers Weekly
Advertising Age
Reference & Research Book News
ForeWord

Happy editing-- Innisfree987 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those sources. Each of them is focused on the book and mentions her only in passing, so can't be used to establish her notability. They could be added to the book article, though. Ca2james (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're drawn from the book's entry. It seems rather inconsistent, though, to say the problem is not enough sources with "others talking about where her work has appeared" and then discount four sources because they focus on her work. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about her book but her writings in Huffington Post, AlterNet, etc, which are promoted in the article on her. Sorry for the confusion. Even if I was talking about the book, I'd be looking for sources that aren't reviews to talk about her work. Ca2james (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I guess I just disagree which what kind of secondary sources on her work "count" (I'm a little perplexed by the idea of wanting sources that aren't reviews but talk about her work--is there a guideline you can point me to that explains this?), but I agree with you that citations to things she wrote herself are primary sources so per WP:NOR I've gone through and removed a bunch--of course please dive in and remove any others you consider flawed. I've also put up two more secondary sources (again, in addition to what's already cited up to this point) tracking her job changes. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: me wanting secondary sources for her book that aren't reviews that talk about her work makes no sense and is wrong; my apologies for perplexing you. Ca2james (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying--glad to know there's not some distinction that I've overlooked entirely! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Witter appeared as a political strategist on the Fox Business Channel in 2008. She also appeared as a member of an expert panel on the CBS Early Show in 2008 discussing double standards. There's a chapter in the book Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries published by Simon & Schuster that includes a chapter about an interview with her titled "How To Write A Press Release", starting on pg 222. She was honored as one of the Young Global Leaders which is governed by a Board that Jimmy Wales serves on for the World Economic Forum. She is the Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Apolitical and there's a lot more available with proper research. Don't delete this article because too few content creators have taken an interest in it or invested any time in expanding and improving it. This BLP has a lot of potential to become a very interesting DYK/GA candidate with a little effort exerted into research and expansion. She is clearly notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article may very well need to be completely re-written, maybe just turned into a stub with only a few sentences, but I still believe that Witter is notable. Appearances by her on the likes of the CBS Early Show and discussions of her viewpoints by the likes of Advertising Age and Publishers Weekly aren't nothing. I agree with the important concerns about promotionalism, but AFD discussions are not an article clean up mechanism. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:42, 29 July 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. czar 23:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Regen[edit]

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

Non-notable company; promotion by affiliated churches (or callouts from unaffiliated blogs and such) does not substitute for significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched [30], [31], [32] and cannot find sources. Not even sufficient sources to suggest recirect/merge to sponsoring Church's web page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 July 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. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Elmhurst, Illinois[edit]

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

This page was created by a user as part of a series of questionable edits creating pages for non-existent locations in Illinois. The ZIP code allegedly corresponding with this place is actually for South Elgin, in a completely different county. PRODed as hoax a few months ago, but PROD was removed by another editor. Delete as hoax. Smartyllama (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried really hard to assume good faith, but this appears to be a demi-hoax. GNIS notes the subject as a "populated place" but at different coordinates. It is not a CDP and it has no relation to the cited Boulder Hill CDB, which is in a different part of the state. An independent search only gets real estate listings. Not 100% false but essentially a hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only use of "South Elmhurst" seems to be as a description: the southern portion of Elmhurst. Hoaxilicious. Delete the article, ~~block the editor for disruptive editing.~~ Edison (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? The USGS recognizes the place as official, methinks you didn't look too hard so your delete !vote is based on incomplete information and a false assumption. Hopefully, the closing admin will assess that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that the "Census Designated Place" referenced is "Boulder Hill," a different name than this hoax place, and that it is in Kendall County, a different county from the county this place is supposed to be in? This was pointed out above by Gene93k.Edison (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the USGS recognizes South Elmhurst as a populated place (see U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 14). As the rest of the article could be bogus, it should be pared back but not deleted per WP:BEFORE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carlossuarez46--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Elmhurst, Illinois or Delete — No evidence at all of WP:GNG; plenty of evidence that this is an occasionally-used neighborhood/directional name, not a separate place. Even when I look for "South Elmhurst" history on Google, about half the time it shows up with a lower-case "s" instead of "S" in "south". My guess is that it probably has a USGS GNIS entry because it had a railroad stop at some point: "Elmhurst" in DuPage Roots says "The coming of the Chicago Great Western Railroad in 1887 and the Illinois Central in 1888 stimulated commercial and residential development in south Elmhurst." (Note lower-case "s".) I also found the name as a cutoff point for a section of rail line in Past History and Future Prospects of the Great Chicago Western Railway Company (1900), p. 84. A USGS GNIS entry is not recognition as a legal, or even statistical, entity. Methinks Carlossuarez46 (to use his own words) didn't look too hard into what USGS GNIS classes indicate, and criticizes based on incomplete information and a false assumption. (Boilerplate I'm using for all these nominations: This is a series of WP:HOAX articles by Bnnnperdue (talk · contribs), each one using a USGS GNIS entry, then copy-pasted claims from other towns or patently-false claims about being incorporated or otherwise a legally-autonomous entity or having some other significant history, so that it appears to the casual viewer that WP:GEOLAND applies or otherwise gives the façade of meeting WP:GNG, and a mess like this deletion discussion ensues. In each case, the bulk of the article has been fantasy, often provably false, sometimes with alleged locator maps, also invented by Bnnnperdue. USGS GNIS populated place entries only mean that a place with that name was once on a map or reported to exist at some point; lots of USGS GNIS entries have no significant cultural history and don't meet WP:GNG; for example, many were mere train stops or intersections with few buildings or other activity. Given the creator's hoax history over the last few months, there's no reason to presume that a subject is/was notable; go look at User talk:Bnnnperdue and User:Closeapple/issues/User:Bnnnperdue and you'll see what's going on here.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elmhurst since, even if it is a real place, all that exists is a one sentence substub. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:10, 17 July 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. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innisbrook, Florida[edit]

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

Created as part of a series of questionable edits by a user creating probably non-existent places, and editing other articles so they corresponded. Tarpon Springs is directly north of Palm Harbor. There is nothing in between. This Innisbrook Resort is In Palm Harbor, which is what the page said before this user messed with it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article is bogus, but the USGS says there really is a U6 unincorporated community called Innisbrook at another location in the Palm Harbor, Florida area. GNIS entry: 295375. Otherwise, the article is unverifiable in its current state. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, my comment above and other similar articles by the same creator. The place may be real but the article one in a series of hoaxes. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place as shown by USGS, just removed the unverifiable crap and now it's fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fake stuff is gone now, so now that we have a properly sourced article with correct information, there's no reason to delete it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator or Merge to Pinellas County, Florida unless actual sources demonstrating separate notability for this specific spot are shown; entry in USGS GNIS is not legal recognition and doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND, and it being "verifiable" just means WP:ITEXISTS, not WP:GNG. (Boilerplate I'm using for all these nominations: This is a series of WP:HOAX articles by Bnnnperdue (talk · contribs), each one using a USGS GNIS entry, then copy-pasted claims from other towns or patently-false claims about being incorporated or otherwise a legally-autonomous entity or having some other significant history, so that it appears to the casual viewer that WP:GEOLAND applies or otherwise gives the façade of meeting WP:GNG, and a mess like this deletion discussion ensues. In each case, the bulk of the article has been fantasy, often provably false, sometimes with alleged locator maps, also invented by Bnnnperdue. USGS GNIS populated place entries only mean that a place with that name was once on a map or reported to exist at some point; lots of USGS GNIS entries have no significant cultural history and don't meet WP:GNG; for example, many were mere train stops or intersections with few buildings or other activity. Given the creator's hoax history over the last few months, there's no reason to presume that a subject is/was notable; go look at User talk:Bnnnperdue and User:Closeapple/issues/User:Bnnnperdue and you'll see what's going on here.) --Closeapple (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 14 July 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 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Hasan Khan[edit]

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

Mostly unreferenced article about a young musician not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. He comes from a family of notable musicians, but WP:Notability is not inherited, and I'm just not seeing substantial coverage online in English from WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions of his performances in the press. As one of the external links added by the article creator puts it, he's an "upcoming" musician, and this article is WP:TOOSOON. OnionRing (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article on the father of this musician, who does not WP:MUSICBIO for the same reasons as Ghulam Hasan Khan above. I have cleared out the promotional language used in both, and little remains:

Ghulam Abbas Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a reminder that two articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a reminder that two articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nomination, neither pass WP:MUSIC.Karst (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely as there's still nothing suggesting the needed convincing substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 23 July 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. czar 23:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Delmas[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NHOCKEY and not finding significant, independent coverage. Rlendog (talk) 19:50, 18 July 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 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turk Beezy (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMG. No reliable, independent coverage. Sources are primary profiles or superficial press releases. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this might qualify for WP:G4, as this has been discusses at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turk beezy, and the article has been recreated multiple times at Turk Beezy (which is WP:SALTed) and Turk beezy. Grayfell (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What is considered an artificial/superficial press release? Most websites are independent third party publication that also cover large name artists along with major New York based radio personalities. From Thisis50 to Dj Enuff website, ThatsEnuff.com along with The Source Magazine. These are all created by independent editors. Don't be bias because it's not a larger considered 'creditable' publication such as TMZ or CNN/Fox. Also on terms of the previous articles they had very little verifiable information and many less publications covering the topics in which they should have been deleted. Now however the article has been significantly improved and simple research will find easily verifiable information. — HipHopWikiPolice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC).

Most of the sources used are about Trickin. All but two use the exact same promotional wording, which is only a single paragraph. The other two are even less substantial. Being covered by The Source would be useful, but this isn't coverage in The Source, this is just a PR blurb republished on their web domain. Many outlets repeating the same PR isn't the same as many sources, they're all the same source, and it's both very weak, and not at all independent of the artist.

The MTVArtists bio, the Facebook page, and the Vevo video are User submitted content, and are not reliable for establishing notability.

What is Digital Record Tracker? It doesn't look like one that's used by Wikipedia, and many of the artists on those charts are obscure. I don't see it at Wikipedia:Record charts, so I don't think it's usable for notability. I'm also not sure it's reliable. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple Independent sources, along with third parties not in anyway connected to the band. Also fairly popular artist in the the Central Florida Area with local radio airtime on local iheartmedia run 104.5 the beat. — Jamesthompson1978 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

See above for the sources. Local radio airtime is not enough to establish notability by itself, per WP:BAND. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well from what you just listed #6 under recordings from music notability states rotation under any major radio airwaves which makes it notable, and also your statement is contradictory because above you state that multiple sources have covered it, so the radio airwaves would not be a lone indicator of notabilit, but would be complimented by the blog publications. For more info on what digital radio fracker is simply go to digitalradiotracker.com and research under the about section. It follows a wide range of radio station air plays along with digital radio air plays in order to give a time gap of specific stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HipHopWikiPolice (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean #11, but yes, I already did that, and I still don't think Digital Radio Tracker is reliable or significant. A company isn't reliable just because they say they are, because they all say they are. The chart doesn't say that this was put in rotation by a major network, either. If you want to show that it charted, use Billboard or some other well-known company. If you want to claim this was in national rotation, you need to be able to point to the network that put it in rotation. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Multiple reproductions of of PR are not independent. Claimed airplay is not rotation, digital radio tracker is not a good chart. Not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G4 This article appears to be a copycat of Turk Beezy, failing to address the concerns raised at the previous AFD discussion about this topic area. Hx7 13:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was already addressed above as to the improvements and differences in the article. Do some research before making a proposal.

I'm still going to stick with my delete vote, per all the opinions raised by other trusted editors. The sources that you added just doesn't cut it - they are not independent reliable sources but PR releases. Hx7 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G4, salt and nuke from orbit It's a promotional piece for a non-notable rap artist. As stated above the sources are not independent of the subject, they are PR releases. Digital Radio Tracker is not consider a reliable chart as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Fairly popular" is subjective and certainly does not establish notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Badly-written promotional piece (redundant, I know) whose citations are either small niche sources or link directly to his music. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources lack significance and/or third part independence. All are self-promotional. Editors who are arguing for keep have failed so far to provide convincing, independent evidence that these sources have merit. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everything the article lists says it all, nothing at all actually suggestive of both the needed substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 23 July 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. The references that have came up during this discussion have shown notability. It needs a cleanup, but WP:AFD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carla DeSola[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are really no reliable independent sources here. —swpb^T 16:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of indepedent, 3rd party sources to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a different tone and removal of dead links, but DeSola has quite a bit of coverage in independent sources: the NYTimes and elsewhere. This 1978 NYT piece is fairly substantial. She's also discussed in various books on Google Books - for example Creative Spirituality: The Way of the Artist ps191-195. She seems to be talked about enough to have basic bio notability. She may also pass WP:ARTIST #2, as she is often described as the founder of liturgical dance, and/or a pioneer - like here, p83. Other serious, independent refs:[33], [34], [35], p82-100 I'll try to incorporate some of this in the article over the next couple of days. Lelijg (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I've done some rewriting and looked at sources more carefully, I'm even more convinced that there's plenty of reliable coverage to pass GNG. Lelijg (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from what Lelijg found, this article in the NYT has significant coverage of her work and studio in the article. This 1976 article from the NYT devotes significant coverage to DeSola. In this NYT article, she is called "one of the country's foremost practictioners of liturgical dancing." Passes GNG easily with significant coverage in RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly adequate indicia of notability, plenty of independent coverage. Article IS a mess and needs cleanup, but that is different from notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:08, 17 July 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. czar 23:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Deegan (meteorologist)[edit]

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

Non-notable local television personality. I've looked for substantial coverage to see if he meets the criteria listed in WP:GNG and WP:BIO but the only coverage is localized and very negative (DUI, alleged affair with coworker, and a defamation suit on a rival television station). Nothing at all on his weather career. Meinnaples (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a non-notable local television personality. We have a lot of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable and a good portion of the article is devoted to his arrest. Plus, "he was 22 years old with blond hair and he loved to surf"? Seriously? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 01:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snap, Crackle and Pop[edit]

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

No indication that these breakfast cereal mascots are notable per WP:GNG. All citations are to sources associated with the cereal maker and are therefore not independent. Parts of the article could conceivably be merged to their product, Rice Krispies, but the mascots are already adequately covered there, so that's not really necessary. There's also a second, quite obscure meaning of these names in physics, but as I've argued elsewhere, an article about breakfast cereal mascots is not the place for it. Sandstein 07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rice Krispies. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least merge (keeping the edit history and adding some of this content) to Rice Krispies. These famous product mascots, more than 80 years old and last year included by the Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago on a list of 10 "Advertising’s Greatest Icons"[36], have enough history, coverage and significance to warrant their own article. Some additional potential sources: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rice Krispies. DanielPenfield (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Keep. Sorry, some things you just need to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are looking for something more policy-based than IAR:

About the characters themselves (distinct from the cereal):

Smithsonian Magazine
Chicago Tribune

Mainstream media using the name in a generic cereal context, not specifically with Rice Crispies.

New York Times
Reuters
Scientific American

Sources which have picked up on the character's names to describe joint sounds in the medical world:

Science Daily
Cleveland Clinic
ABC News

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These breakfast cereal mascots are notable per WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RoySmith. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worksoft[edit]

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

Company with no evidence of independent coverage by reliable sources. The sources given in the article are press releases or documentation not constituting WP:SIGCOV as required by WP:CORP. Article was prodded and deleted, and recently a company representative requested restoration at WP:REFUND. I restored it as a contested prod, but felt that it should go to AFD for proper review and deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm this being deletion material altogether, still nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources just the usual PR produced material. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. The referenced PR material can be removed, but the question of notability should be proven based on the fact that the company was ranked first in Gartner, Inc. quality assurance platform for Packaged Applications in 2016^[1] - and was ranked as a leader in the Magic Quadrant for Software Test Automation in 2015^[2]^[3]. Additionally, the referenced Forbes article^[4] about the partnership between Worksoft and Accenture shows the advances in automation being driven by the company. I do work for the company, but am not the original creator. The original article from 2013 had issues, but since then, the company has had notable mentions outside of typical PR. Please help improve the article rather than deleting it - the company is recognized in the software test automation industry. Gregrws (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Critical Capabilities for Software Test Automation". Gartner, Inc. Retrieved April 7, 2016.
^ "Highlights from the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Software Test Automation". Tech Beacon. Retrieved December 15, 2015.
^ "Magic Quadrant for Software Test Automation". Gartner, Inc. Retrieved December 10, 2015.
^ "Accenture's New Software Machinery: Automated Artificial Intelligence, Inside". forbes.com. Retrieved June 15, 2015.

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The 2 links from Gartner do not prove notability - there is no information about why Gartner decided to look at 12 companies and on what basis they were selected. The tech beacon references the same Gartner sources. The forbes article is actually not by a forbes staff but rather by a contributor - I wouldn't want to use it for CORPDEPTH. I found more references but they were all press releases or business journals - none of which is used for CORPDEPTH. Overall, the company is non-notable and not suitable for inclusion at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Gartner’s selection criteria^[1] for Magic Quadrant inclusion “cover(s) market share, revenue, number of clients, types of products or services, target market and other defining characteristics.” Gartner only includes those companies it “considers to be the most important or best suited to the evolving needs of the majority of buyers.” The other leaders in the Magic Quadrant for Software Test Automation are Hewlett Packard Enterprise, IBM, and Tricentis. Worksoft was ranked ahead of competitors^[2] such as Oracle, Borland, Ranorex, and TestPlant – all with Wikipedia entries.
  
  Forbes is an independent source(WP:INDY) with a significant audience. The referenced article meets WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. An author’s employment status is not listed as a factor for consideration when evaluating potentially trivial coverage. Coverage of the Accenture - Worksoft partnership can also be found in other independent sources.^[3]^[4]
  
  A quick Google search for “Worksoft” or “Worksoft Certify” yields references to major partnerships with companies such as: Accenture^[5]^[6], IBM^[7], SAP SE^[8], Tata Consultancy Services^[9], Keynote Systems^[10]^[11], etc.; references in several books^[12]^[13]^[14]; references to job postings that list knowledge of Worksoft software as a requirement^[15]^[16]^[17]; and references to numerous discussions involving test automation tools^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22].
  
  Please help improve the article rather than deleting it. Gregrws (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "How Gartner Evaluates Vendors and Markets in Magic Quadrants and MarketScopes". Gartner, Inc. Retrieved July 26, 2013.
^ "Highlights from the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Software Test Automation". Tech Beacon. Retrieved December 15, 2015.
^ "Accenture and Worksoft's new alliance". SD Times. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ "Accenture's New device machinery: automated artificial Intelligence". IoE Business. Retrieved July 15, 2015.
^ "Intelligent Automation: Connecting the Pieces to Achieve Bigger Possibilities". Accenture. Retrieved March 2, 2016.
^ "Accenture and Worksoft to Accelerate Use of Intelligent Automation for Application Development and Testing". Accenture. Retrieved July 13, 2015.
^ "Results for worksoft". IBM. Retrieved July 21, 2016.
^ "Dow Chemical - Driving SAP Business Process Quality and Efficiency through Test Automation". SAP. Retrieved September 3, 2015.
^ "Global logistics major boosts agility and efficiency with automated testing for SAP Rollout" (PDF). Tata Consultancy Services. Retrieved January 1, 2015.
^ "Integration with Worksoft Certify". Keynote. Retrieved July 1, 2015.
^ "DeviceAnywhere Enterprise for Worksoft Certify" (PDF). Keynote. Retrieved July 1, 2015.
^ Manage Software Testing. Retrieved July 21, 2016. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
^ Testing SAP R/3: A Manager's Step-by-Step Guide. Retrieved July 21, 2016. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
^ Software Testing and Continuous Quality Improvement, Third Edition. Retrieved July 21, 2016. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
^ "SAP Automation/Worksoft Test Consultant". Dice.com. Retrieved July 20, 2016.
^ "Automation Lead Worksoft Certify". Dice.com. Retrieved April 7, 2016.
^ "Worksoft Certify jobs". indeed.com. Retrieved July 21, 2016.
^ "Worksoft's Certify". sqaforums.com. Retrieved April 11, 2005.
^ "Worksoft Certify vs. Mercury QTP". sqaforums.com. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
^ "Which tool is better in automation testing: QTP or Selenium IDE, for the future?". quora.com. Retrieved January 31, 2015.
^ "I'm looking at different testing tools; one is Worksoft. How does Worksoft automate web-based applications? Is there a third party tool required for that?". quora.com. Retrieved April 28, 2015.
^ "Suitable Automated Testing tools for POS Systems". stackexchange.com. Retrieved November 13, 2014.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 ^talk 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abacoa, Florida[edit]

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

Another article with the vast majority of content by a user who has created numerous articles on mostly non-existent pages, many, including this one, with USGS links to other places claiming to be links to this place. He didn't create this one, unlike the others, but he's the main contributor. Smartyllama (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a neighborhood or development in Jupiter, Florida. It had a USGS reference, which was false and I removed it. A GNIS search for "Abacoa" shows a Golf Course so named, but nothing by way of a populated place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article predates the user who introduced the bad USGS links, and it appears to be a major neighborhood of Jupiter; see here, for instance. At the least it should probably be merged to the Jupiter article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly not a hoax, based upon THIS, and thus an automatically notable populated place unless the case is made that this is an isolated, artificially contrived neighborhood and thus unworthy of coverage. That is not the case being made here. Consider my Keep opinion being provisional upon resolution of that issue. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 07:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a populated place. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This town meets WP:NPLACE. "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source". This and a few other reliable sources already cited in the article confirm that this place actually exists in Florida and isn't a hoax. Omni Flames (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MyBioSource[edit]

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

Alleged to be G11, but may be salvageable. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the nom - this is probably salvageable. It seems to be covered in two peer reviewed journal articles per references of this article already. I will see if I can find more. Hopefully these are peer reviewed journals - it appears that they are. So far, nice looking out to the nom ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this appears to be a good and reputable company, whose products appear in many peer-reviewed papers. In other departments, the company is reported to offer scholarships for high school students in STEM. For a company that was founded in 2007, it seems to be making a rather definite name for itself in its field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 07:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over 2200 hits on Google Scholar. That just proves that this article clearly meets WP:GNG. The article itself is slightly promotional, but that can be easily fixed. Omni Flames (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does it prove that? Its usual to state from were one purchased key reagents. As there are many tens of thousands of biological articles a year, a few hundred a year that use something from this company is not necessarily significant. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 17 July 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 18:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur Asset Management[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Overly promotional but declined PROD to allow for wider audience of AfD to assess the notability of the references. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't gone through the sources yet, but worth noting that this article was created and initially edited by two different sock-farms: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kunstmolch. Both farms also contributed to Draft:Centaur Asset Management, which was declined and then improperly copy/pasted, which is an attribution issue. This will need a histmerg (if it survives). Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had tagged with PROD because it was created by a bunch of now-blocked promotional sock puppets. (and still think it should be deleted). The draft version of this article failed AfC multiple times before this one was created. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:CORP notability (none of the "awards" listed appear to be notable). Heavy-handed socking from paid COI accounts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I frankly consider this G11 material, should be deleted entirely as there's nothing minimally actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 23 July 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. Editors should continue to discuss through normal channels how best to resolve or develop this in relation to other related lists. postdlf (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of the Philippines[edit]

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

Per WP:OR The article is misleading the readers that there had been a state named Philippines before 1521 or the rulers of those small ancient kingdoms governed the whole territory that is now the Philippines. Moreover, the Heads of state and government of the Philippines already provides the accurate list of rulers of the Philippines since its establishment only in 1565. The leaders of individual historical states and polities prior to its establishment meanwhile are at List of recorded Datus in the Philippines. RioHondo (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RioHondo (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RioHondo (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.I really don't care actually. I am just watching these two people fight. One of them is a bit too much though. Talk:List of rulers of the Philippines#Requested move 14 July 2016. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOREASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and OR. Parts of it could be split up to make smaller lists, ~~e.g. List of sultans of Sulu.~~ There are already lists in Tondo (historical state)#Notable monarchs of Tondo and Sultanate of Maguindanao#List of Maguindanao Sultans. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I believe their respective articles contain their own lists of rulers already.--RioHondo (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment i don't think theirs a WP:OR violation here since its sources had a free copyright issue since it had a elements of copy edit and not confusing since it had a indicating time header (Pre-colonial) , (Revolutionary) (up to the Contemporary Era which is up to president) ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Yes i read the sources, and they do not say that those datus, sultans etc had ruled the Philippines. And like most of your other contributions, you just deliberately implied them to fit your own version of Philippine history. Per WP:OR, original research includes analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.--RioHondo (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' no it has sources and does not violates the non-free content policy (NFCC) theirs no vandalism and hoaxes on this article and theirs nothing to be eager Its Should NOT to be called "My own" ! since i just reading it i don't own history, And Wikipedia Should be a good Ideals for new Information that's why it grows as a wikipedian our duty is to add new information as a free Encyclopedia As long we have reliable references and Sources to be site, if we doing some Ultra -mainstream here then we should be renamed this Wikipedia the "Republished" encyclopedia. And You just still not getting my point yet. I No hoax no Vandalism, no reason to be eager to Be a Deletionist jihad. ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, this is the "republished Wikipedia" not the wikipedia for new and revolutionary ideas.--RioHondo (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Whoah Watch your mout! theirs no violation the non-free content policy (NFCC), And this is a Free Encyclopedia - (And sounds like you edited my comments here)? ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reduce duplication with other lists and probably rename. Sorry, but while I accept that we probably don't need the almost complete duplication of List of Presidents of the Philippines (a "See also" link would do as well), lists are accepted as useful navigational aids, and I am rather failing to see any insurmountable problems with the rest of this list (which then effectively reduces to the pre-colonial states, the Moro sultanates that remained independent for much of the Spanish period, and the short-lived but effectively independent states during the transition from Spanish to American rule). The title can be read, as the nominator does, as a claim that the people listed ruled over a state effectively identical with the present-day Philippines - but it can equally be read just as claiming to be (as it is) a list of rulers of states which were historically within what we now know as the Philippines archipelago (and don't seem to have an alternative name for, but no doubt would have one if the Spanish had never arrived). And while a change of title would be advisable (particularly if we remove the presidents from this list), we do have a number of articles with similar inclusion criteria that never seem to have been questioned - List of Indian monarchs or List of rulers of Wales, for example. PWilkinson (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, a complete duplication of Heads of state and government of the Philippines as pointed out above, which already includes all the rulers of the Philippines, except those "pre-colonial rulers" which ruled only in their respective small kingdoms before the archipelago had been united. And the short-lived state is also there, as the first republic is officially recognized. The sultans continue to this day but not even the present one is considered a "ruler of the Philippines" so this is WP:OR. Its all listed at List of sultans of Sulu, and the rest at List of recorded Datus in the Philippines and their respective polity articles where they belong. E.g. the "rulers" of the Kingdom of Tondo are at Tondo (historical state) not under Tondo the incorporated area.--RioHondo (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is misleading the readers that there had been a state named Philippines before 1521 or the rulers of those small ancient kingdoms governed the whole territory that is now the Philippines. Moreover, the Heads of state and government of the Philippines already provides the accurate list of rulers of the Philippines since its establishment only in 1565.

We all know that the Philippines was formed by your ancestor in 1521, as you stated, You cannot say its accurate but incomplete list,

here s the point

Kingdoms and City-states, Are formed by The Ancestors of the Modern filipino itself since they are native in the philippines, and living in the philippine archipelago, they deserve to be called Filipinos or Pre colonial Filipinos or Early filipinos in some books, this is the topic you start , Rullers are not monarch itself it can be apply to any High officials who's Ruling a Country, Kingdom or a Polity,

So i propose the Renaming of the Article instead of deleting since i think the title is the more confusing .

And Dont do a table turn for Wiki policies since your complains are The article is misleading the readers that there had been a state named Philippines before 1521 it clarifies on you my point Since then Complete table of history none other that Philippines exist during early modern as you stated

and it has an element of Wikipedia:Basic copyediting with free form of Copyrights on references so its not violated. ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Ps And I think you Pointing the countries Philippines (By name) not by People who already live in the archipelago which is the point.and if you pointing out by name, then the Philippines article or the history of the philippines should be remove the Pre-colonial /Classical history itself since you pointing out the naming of the Philippines in 1521 and and As you said Mindanao was Formed in 1560's or something Your e WRONG it was named after Maguindanao (which is the largest sultanate in covers the Mindanao and the Visayas or Bisaya was comes In precolonial word in sanskrit Sri- Vijaya itself its no not on your statement that it was named by spanish authorities. ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
also , you just trying to tell that the Rulers of the Philippines are the Governor generals during the spanish era it will contradict again to the Pre colonial part. ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I am certainly not as interested as you in the storytelling of this period. I am only after RS-based writing and mainstream historiography from widely accepted sources and versions as discussed in the Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. I suggest you just improve the List of recorded Datus in the Philippines because this article as it stands is OR and contradictory to Heads of state and government of the Philippines.--RioHondo (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have transferred all the relevant pre-colonial lists to List of recorded Datus in the Philippines where they belong, in order to avoid duplication, confusion and contradiction with Heads of state and government of the Philippines--RioHondo (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of rulers of the Philippines#Requested move 14 July 2016. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a compromise, let's follow a format of List of Burmese leaders where dedicated articles are listed instead. Something like this.

This is a list of rulers and office-holders in the history of Philippines.

Heads of state

Presidents

Deputy heads of state

Vice Presidents

Historical

Prime Ministers
Governor-General (colonial)
Leaders of Revolutionary states (consolidated list of presidents/rulers of revolutionary states of the Philippine Revolution such as Negros Republic, Zamboanga Republic, etc.)
Rajahs, Datus, and Sultans
- Sulu Sultanate

In short, I find the article duplicates content already found in other articles.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This would actually mean merging it to Heads of state and government of the Philippines. Im okay with redirecting it to that article too, and add the historical individual state leaders in that article, but make clear also that they are not 'rulers of the Philippines'.--RioHondo (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune. I suspect that List of rulers in the Philippines would be more accurate, since many of the people were rulers of dependent states during the colonial era (and subsequently). The List should have a narrative section that makes clear that the Philippines became a Spanish colony, rules by a governor under the King of Spain (with cross-reference to the relevant list. Presidents and Prime Ministers, since the 1890s, of the whole country should similarly be in separate cross-referenced lists. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As i observing the both article List of recorded Datus in the Philippines and this article we discuss, I find a Flow Because of a thing , the name it self ... In all Archipelago in the philippines, the Datus are considered a leader but only a small Polity (villages) But their are many titles held for a Monarchs in the hilippines,Which is ...Lakan , Hari , Huangs and Raha (rajah)'s so it will contradict from the list of datus since these are the SO many titles not Only Datus so i stated on as Rulers of the Philippines, (since there are Philippine archipelago) i pointing the people of philippines not by the name as i told previously. so in short they are not only Datus of a Small polity as a sterotypist stated Not a Mainstream but another form of Misconception

Suggestion renaming or revising the Article. the User RioHondo just rushed the copy paste the Article to make a Contradictions so the deletions are applied , but take a considerations and it was also based on the sources from the Philippine history itself WP:STICKTOSOURCE ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Keep even if not confidently, but at least attempt to improve and, if not, we can talk about this again. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Which article do we keep, this or Heads of state and government of the Philippines? The problem here is duplication of content as pointed out in the nom, aside from wrong article title.--RioHondo (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" makes an assumption of inherent notability not referenced to any policy or guideline. Sandstein 17:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chattagram Biggan College[edit]

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

Non notable private institution. Can not find a single source about this institution in google search. Mar11 (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears to be a secondary school, but the website (which is in Bengali) doesn't make it clear. If it is then we should keep it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a higher secondary college, totally non notable in its locality. They don't even have their own campus/building, they are running their classes in rented classrooms. I can't even find any news source about them. The google search results include their own website and some yellow pages. - Mar11 (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We assume that all secondary schools are notable. It has a website, we keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES requires a bit more than their own website. The school has to be degree granting, and there must be an independent source to prove existence. If it were degree granting, it should appear on one of the Ministry of Education's lists of institutions [45], but I can't find it under any plausible variation of name. These news sources may prove existence: [46], [47], [48], but I'll leave it to someone fluent in Bengali to say whether they prove "degree granting". --Worldbruce (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't have to be degree-granting. It has to be a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it could be read as "Most (independently accredited degree-awarding institutions) and high schools". Instead I've always parsed it as "Most independently accredited degree-awarding (institutions and high schools)", but I'm accustomed to degree being used in the broadest sense of "A stage of proficiency of qualification in a course of study ... (can include secondary schools)", in other words for something that might be better called a diploma, higher secondary school certificate, or O-Level. Mar11's translation indicates that it was HSC-awarding at one time (I don't draw a distinction between "awarded by the institution" and "awarded by the board that accredited the institution and under which it operated"). So for me it fits the conditions of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. In which case it comes down to whether this is "most" or not, and how people weigh SCHOOLOUTCOMES vis-à-vis WP:GNG and WP:ORG. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Degree" is here actually being used in its usual English-language sense (when relating to education) of a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree. I don't know where you're from, but that's how it's almost invariably used and understood in the native English-speaking world. So a "degree-awarding institution" is a university or tertiary college that awards such qualifications. It isn't a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [49] This is a list of 20 colleges where it is placed at 18. [50] This source says, the registration of this institution to run as a Higher Secondary college expired in 2012, but they are still running their business. [51] This is an advertisement or press release, a very promotional article. Moreover this institution is not degree granting. Students have to sit for Higher Secondary Examination under Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Chittagong after two years of study in this college and get certificate from the board. - Mar11 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - past practice has been to keep verified articles about secondary schools, but this has no sources and the institution is not listed on the Ministry of Education's list of secondary schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nordic Games (company). czar 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grimlore Games[edit]

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

I sent this to CSD-A7, it seems it was deleted, then recreated the same day. Not notable. Farmer Brown (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last time the CSD was removed - there's discussion about deletion on the page's talk page. I would argue that this page is now more significant than before because the release date of their game is approaching. If you google "SpellForce 3", Google's infobox will find a hotlink labeled Grimlore Games, whose target page aggregates information from this page. Adding to the notability aspect - the company is the first ever in-house development studio of Nordic Games, a major publisher. - Rctngl (talk - contributions) 05:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is meaningless. What makes them notable is coverage in reliable sources. That this is the their first inhouse studio isn't a sign of notability, as notability isn't WP:INHERITED, and being new at something isn't a sign of notability. Quite the opposite, actually. Farmer Brown (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nordic Games (company). Primary sources suggest that Grimlore is part of Nordic Games, a more known company. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a good option, I agree. Rctngl (talk - contributions) 16:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Winter Hill Gang. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Neil (gangster)[edit]

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

Still questionable for any applicable notability such as WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME as he was only best known as connected to Whitey Bulgar and my own searches have simply found expected mentions as part of this; still nothing convincing for enough substance for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Winter Hill Gang. Ravenswing 06:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to Winter Hill Gang as the standard WP practice in such cases. The same deletion rationale ("best known as connected to Whitey Bulgar... still nothing convincing for enough substance for his own article") suggests a merge/redirect outcome. Cavarrone 08:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Triplebyte[edit]

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

Still borderline if at all, at best, my searches and examinations have found sources but it's still all both advertorial and minimal still; my searches simply found mere mentions, like what I'm saying at Harjeet Taggar's AfD. "Companies that have used" is clearly not quite acceptable as it only suggests what likely clients would want to know and all of this suggests, at best, it's at funding accumulation stages, and that's not surprising for a barely 1-year-old company. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plausible sources not there. WP:Too soon . Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. not notable, and apparently promotional . DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 14 July 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 18:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harjeet Taggar[edit]

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

(See related AfD, Triplebyte). Non-notable businessman best known for one thing, Y Combinator, of which both the listed sources and my News searches found, nothing actually substantial for his own notability and a large number of them simply merely mention him. I see no explanations to merge if he himself is not independently notable and this would simply be vulnerable to restarting. At best, the Forbes 30 under 30 could be something but it simply lists minimal information and still bases with the fact he's best known for Y Combinator. Inviting DGG as he has a long history of these articles. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the article on the firm list twenty-six key people, very few of whom are notable otherwise. There is not really anything else. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Engleham (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet[edit]

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

The article fails to explain why he is notable, beyond holding a minor (inherited) aristocratic title. If someone is ennobled based on their own merits, they are probably notable. But just having inherited the title "Sir" makes him no more notable than a e.g. someone from the European continent who has the particle von, de or di in their name on account of some ancestor's ennoblement. We don't even automatically assume that counts and other holders of far higher aristocratic titles are notable if they are from the European continent. Tataral (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. MLA (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the above Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Of the refs, one is dead and two of the other three relate to his son, George Osborne and not to the article subject. Neiltonks (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability claimed, can be redirected to Osborne baronets instead. --Emphrase 15:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parametric innovation[edit]

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

Not notable. The two refs, one is on tables (as in furniture) in the classroom, the other is a password protected blog, so either not reliable or not on the topic (or possibly both). Reads like something someone made up themselves, possibly the same author as the hidden blog. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability very questionable, content so vague as to be useless, insufficient sources.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:COATRACK. One source being password-protected is not really an issue (as long as it is published to a relatively large audience, like paywalled research papers are), but the original url of the ref is at *.wordpress.com which strongly implies that the end url is a WP:SPS. The "table" ref is hardly well-written, as well as not mentioning "parametric innovation" even once.

The term does return some hits: [52], [53]. But even if these were enough for a standalone article (I think not), the current article has a whole other definition (those hits say it is basically synonymous with "incremental innovation"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 it is. A list of their investments is a prospectus, not aWP article. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Midwest Fund[edit]

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

I actually frankly nearly speedied as G11, nothing actually convincing as the information is still advertorial with my searches simply finding mere amounts of news, nothing substantially convincing though, and searches particularly only found this, this, this, this and this. Yes, there are some notable sources there but subsequent searches there at NYTImes and Inc. found no other news. Inviting DGG who has a long history of these subject articles. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources inadequate, verbose corporate puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:37, 14 July 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. "social media personality" is not conceivably a claim of significance. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haley Sobieski[edit]

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

Non-notable subject of what is probably an autobiography; no sources; references to Facebook page to another person. Probably should be deleted under A7, but some may view the claim of "social media personality" ( as a claim of significance. — Esquivalience (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 03:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 03:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no credible claim of significance. "Social media personality" does not imply significance unto itself. Google returning 0 hits. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 03:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Posting a lot on facebook does not confer notability (even if she has, which is far from certain!). Article has a speedy tag, so might be deleted via that route anyway. Neiltonks (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Self-promotional nonsense. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 13:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoella[edit]

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

Page is not notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoul flesh (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. I have completed the nomination by adding it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 14. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep eminently notable. Unfortunately. MLA (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of viable third-party sources. Still, it's sad that being a YouTube "celebrity" can earn a subject an article nowadays. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly and undeniably notable as per the widespread coverage in reliable sources. Nik thestunned 09:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I believe that this is a bad faith nomination. Article is definitely notable, there are lots of reliable sources on the subject. Nominator, if you find problems with the article, fix them on the spot instead of taking the article to AFD. Hx7 12:41, 14 July 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. No good argument for keeping the article is presented. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boin (visual novel)[edit]

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

I can not find any notability in terms of sources for this article. Looking at the Ja: Wiki page it also appears to have the same problem. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Title search turned up mostly porn links. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common term in JAV titles so that doesn't surprise me, especially as this is an eroge. That makes it hard to find pages about this work but does not necessarily reflect a lack of notability.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If kept it should be moved to Boin (video game).--174.91.187.80 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - keep, redirect, merge, draftify, userfy, whatever. We should generally err on the side of caution with this imo because eroge/visual novels are predominantly made for the Japanese market by Japanese companies so the usual trouble applies when English-speakers go look for English coverage. Searching the Japanese name seems to bring about mostly irrelevant results as "ボイン" is a very popular term. Nevertheless, coverage should exist out there for a game that debuted as the third best selling of its week. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage should exist but it doesn't, not any that I could find anyways. If you want to userfy the article to work on it then feel free to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can't be established if sources can't be found. If there are Japanese sources, fine, but this is about the English version of the article, and a vague statistic like being the "third best-selling game of its week" is an incredibly weak argument for establishing notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy. No noticeable coverage in ANN. Even the Milky production or the studios listed in the article are redlinked. Can someone check the Anime Encyclopedia? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the "Yellow Book of Doom" (I have the 1100pg hard copy of the 3rd edition), it is mentioned. I'm not sure it's useful for proving notability. There is no commentary offered, just confirmation it exists and a brief plot, which for a book aimed at cataloguing every title, isn't enough to give context. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was a place to redirect the title but I couldn't find any good target. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just saved the most recent version of the article to the Manga wikia. Going to do that for all the things up for deletion right now. http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Boin Dream Focus 21:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus, such moves should attribute the source per the Creative Commons license (otherwise it's a copyright issue) czar 00:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I have information on the main page that all articles come from Wikipedia, so that counts. Don't know how to stick it on every single page. Since its going to be deleted anyway, so no one here should care. The manga wikia is just to preserve articles like this. Dream Focus 01:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Critical Capabilities for Software Test Automation". Gartner, Inc. Retrieved April 7, 2016.

[2] "Highlights from the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Software Test Automation". Tech Beacon. Retrieved December 15, 2015.

[3] "Magic Quadrant for Software Test Automation". Gartner, Inc. Retrieved December 10, 2015.

[4] "Accenture's New Software Machinery: Automated Artificial Intelligence, Inside". forbes.com. Retrieved June 15, 2015.

[5] "How Gartner Evaluates Vendors and Markets in Magic Quadrants and MarketScopes". Gartner, Inc. Retrieved July 26, 2013.

[6] "Highlights from the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Software Test Automation". Tech Beacon. Retrieved December 15, 2015.

[7] "Accenture and Worksoft's new alliance". SD Times. Retrieved July 17, 2015.

[8] "Accenture's New device machinery: automated artificial Intelligence". IoE Business. Retrieved July 15, 2015.

[9] "Intelligent Automation: Connecting the Pieces to Achieve Bigger Possibilities". Accenture. Retrieved March 2, 2016.

[10] "Accenture and Worksoft to Accelerate Use of Intelligent Automation for Application Development and Testing". Accenture. Retrieved July 13, 2015.

[11] "Results for worksoft". IBM. Retrieved July 21, 2016.

[12] "Dow Chemical - Driving SAP Business Process Quality and Efficiency through Test Automation". SAP. Retrieved September 3, 2015.

[13] "Global logistics major boosts agility and efficiency with automated testing for SAP Rollout" (PDF). Tata Consultancy Services. Retrieved January 1, 2015.

[14] "Integration with Worksoft Certify". Keynote. Retrieved July 1, 2015.

[15] "DeviceAnywhere Enterprise for Worksoft Certify" (PDF). Keynote. Retrieved July 1, 2015.

[16] Manage Software Testing. Retrieved July 21, 2016. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

[17] Testing SAP R/3: A Manager's Step-by-Step Guide. Retrieved July 21, 2016. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

[18] Software Testing and Continuous Quality Improvement, Third Edition. Retrieved July 21, 2016. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

[19] "SAP Automation/Worksoft Test Consultant". Dice.com. Retrieved July 20, 2016.

[20] "Automation Lead Worksoft Certify". Dice.com. Retrieved April 7, 2016.

[21] "Worksoft Certify jobs". indeed.com. Retrieved July 21, 2016.

[22] "Worksoft's Certify". sqaforums.com. Retrieved April 11, 2005.

[23] "Worksoft Certify vs. Mercury QTP". sqaforums.com. Retrieved October 25, 2015.

[24] "Which tool is better in automation testing: QTP or Selenium IDE, for the future?". quora.com. Retrieved January 31, 2015.

[25] "I'm looking at different testing tools; one is Worksoft. How does Worksoft automate web-based applications? Is there a third party tool required for that?". quora.com. Retrieved April 28, 2015.

[26] "Suitable Automated Testing tools for POS Systems". stackexchange.com. Retrieved November 13, 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]