Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 November	16 November >

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 redirect to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools#Zoned middle schools. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School[edit]

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

There is debate as to whether this meets notability standards HedgeHogPower (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School[reply]

Redirect to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools#Zoned middle schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. —teb728 t c 23:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be discussed on the Talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HedgeHogPower (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it should be discussed here. —teb728 t c 23:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will move my comment over from the talk page.

Keep I have submitted this article for deletion only because it kept getting blanked out and redirected. I feel it has enough information to warrant standing on its own. I have modeled this page on other LAUSD schools, such as Le Conte Middle School, that have less information and yet I still don't seem to be satisfying the critics. If this is to be deleted, I would like to know what is missing...it has notable alumni. Does it need a reference to the original architect? HedgeHogPower (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't need notable alumni or a reference to the architect. What it needs is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See WP:GNG. —teb728 t c 00:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect just like my last edit to the article. There is no indication that this is a notable middle school. I provided my review of the article on the talk page, will not restate it here. The nominator doesn't even want the article deleted. They are advocating keeping the article but only say it is no worse than other LA school articles. The current state of other articles should have no bearing on the fate of this article. -- GB fan 00:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Also note that if it helps you settle this in your mind, I'll be redirecting Le Conte as soon as I finish this. HedgeHogPower, thank you for your concern about school articles but your efforts are misplaced. Except in exceptional cases, schools that do not grant diplomas do not get articles. John from Idegon (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John. I appreciate the clarity of your last sentence. The only other school on the LAUSD page that had an article I was modeling after was John Burroughs Middle School (Los Angeles). Its only claim to fame is that the facade has been used for a number of film location shoots. But that does not make it notable, correct? And there is no reason why it has remained and Cochran got removed. (I keep looking a logic, and I am afraid there isn't any!)

And on a humorous side note, when I was looking for a template to work from , I saw that Virgil Middle School lists Marilyn Monroe as an alumni, but when you click on the link it takes you to the Virgil Middle school site, where it says it got the Marilyn Monroe information from...Wikipedia.HedgeHogPower (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected John Burroughs Middle School (Los Angeles) also as it is no better than this one. -- GB fan 02:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the norm for non-notable elementary or middle schools this should be redirected to the school board page List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools#Zoned middle schools. WP:OSE is not a reason to keep an article. Yes there are sources that mention this school (the current content creator has done a good job of finding material), but none of them show the notability of the school. Some of the material might be worth including if the school were notable, but that's not the same as showing that the school is notable. It was built, it looked like Mt. Vernon, it was named, it was damaged and rebuilt, a new name was proposed, and a different name was chosen. Mount Vernon, Earp, and Cochran are notable, but that does not make schools named after them notable. Being built, damaged, and rebuilt are not notable. The direct quote from documentary cannot be evaluated since the links are dead. They have been in the article since the original version was created in 2009. So far I have found only one other source that refers to this documentary, and it is useless to us as it is verbatim copy of that part of this Wikipedia article. The defunct marleyklaus.com ref was probably not a reliable source since she was probably the producer of the piece (Klaus was a west coast news producer and blogger). The Marion Parker case is notable, but the school's minor involvement does not seem to be enough to make the school notable. Meters (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 17 November 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 02:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Charles[edit]

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

Mr. Charles, in my extremely humble opinion, doesn't appear to meet the specific notability requirements for entertainers, college athletes, or for NFL players. Dolotta (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to this source, his NFL career lasted but a week. Kablammo (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is a former football player who seems to have never actually played in a professional game, who went into acting where he has acted in commercials. He might eventually become notable, but at present he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I concur, was never an actual major team player, only having been offered to play as one, so there's literally nothing else but the simple claims of "planned to be major". SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 18 November 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. Arguments suggest that this artist is simply too new to have proper notability at the moment.. Joyous! | Talk 03:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon (Rapper)[edit]

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

Only one even semi appropriate reference (Mafia Magazine). Doesn't seem to meet GNG or musician notability. Moreover, the article itself is written in an incredibly biased manner, and even if we decide that this person is notable, the article should be WP:TNTed and started over. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Yet another WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM article from a repeat offender. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vineetpl7 (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC) As the person is notable as the references is listed in the Mafia Magazine and if you think the content is itself an incredibly biased. I can rewrite the article one again and update this page.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Musician who just released his first album which does not seem to have performed well enough to cause him to pass notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I would not call it spam or promotional material (it's well-written and neutral) I can only find the one source in Mafia magazine that appears to be enough to point toward notability. But I would say that in this case that one article is not enough to pass the general notability guideline for inclusion. It might happen in the future though, but that's later and not now. Until then, try another wiki. If, however, more third party articles are found I'd be willing to reconsider and possibly change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not because it is promotional (which it is, at least partly - for instance Though KD is the same perfectionist he ever was, he feels quite adamant about the songs on this album which is both promotional and difficult to parse) but because there are no signs of it meeting WP:NMUSIC. One source is not enough. WP:TOOSOON. --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 20 November 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 02:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Collinge[edit]

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

Non notable actress, She played a notable character on Coronation Street from 1990-1999 however that's the only acting career she's had, There's tons of mentions of her being in Corrie however there's nothing substantial so should probably be redirected to Rosie Webster however I'll let the community decide, Anyway fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur she is a non-notable actress. Maybe TOO DARNED SOON. Quis separabit? 23:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 17 November 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 02:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Andre' Sawyer Jr[edit]

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

Non-notable cleric who doesn't meet any of the general criteria of WP:CLERGY, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Article is largely promotional in tone, and the main claim to notability seems to be that he is a young preacher. Being the youngest something doesn't necessarily make one notable, and the coverage received here is pretty much WP:BLP1E. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO, Young preacher. Search on gNews came up blank [1]. And the clues are in the article. It links to a moviethat does not link back to him, but the claim in the aritcle reads: "debuted as a gospel artist," so perhaps he sang but was not credited. Grand claims about writing a bestseller, "his first book which spiked to the top 40 percent of Amazon sales," but, honestly, your Great-Uncle Jim could self-publish his Memoirs, and if all his nephews bought it on the same week it would "spike" to "the top 40 percent of Amazon sales." There is one solid source on the page, a profile of him in The Christian Post; this may indicate that it is merely WP:TOOSOON. However, one source does not notability confer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per E.M.Gregory. Amazon sales are inherently unreliable. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster[edit]

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

Contested prod: contested on the grounds that This page refers to a very new Committee that become highly important over the coming years, a huge budget will be potentially earmarked for works to the Palace of Westminster. I have created this page but much further information will follow. This seems to me the very embodiment of WP:CRYSTAL, quite aside from the fact that this article is completely redundant to Relocation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and Palace of Westminster (the sole purpose of this committee is to determine whether it will be more cost-effective to renovate the PoW, or to move Parliament to an new building). ‑ Iridescent 10:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - by the page creator: I have to say that I am at a loss to understand why this page is being considered for deletion, most if not all UK parliamentary committees have a presence on Wikipedia and this one is the bases for some huge decisions that are in the process of being worked into. As the forthcoming works to the Palace of Westminster gain higher public awareness this page will provide an excellent resource for those wanting to understand who is formulating the currently fluid plan to overhaul the Palace.

My intention is to further detail the committee members and link to previous key development stages. THIS PAGE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulverton (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hard to see the above as a policy reason for deletion. The committee has been mentioned in British national media, I think it is fair to say that it is therefore seen as notable. JMWt (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentioned in the media" doesn't count for anything; I've been mentioned in the national media of multiple countries on multiple occasions, but nobody is going to write a biography of me. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the criterion which determines whether something is potentially appropriate for a Wikipedia article; however, in this case since the committee has a single-purpose remit and that remit is already covered in detail elsewhere, there's no need for a separate stand-alone article. Wikipedia is written in summary style and isn't a directory; we're not really the best place if you're looking for somewhere to host a list of members of a committee, particularly in this case when anyone wanting to know the composition of the committee can just go to their own website. (Plus, not wanting to state the obvious but the article as it stands doesn't have a single non-primary source.) ‑ Iridescent 18:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The committee might be notable in future but it hasn't done anything yet and there is no certainty that it will even continue. As such, this article has been created WP:TOOSOON and is WP:CRYSTAL. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are adequate RS sources, the decisions the committee will be making are important and both it and the restoration issue has been media notable, nor is there any other article this content can be merged to. However, I can see in the future, if there was an article on the restoration project, a case to merge this article with it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is an administrator able to look at this request for deletion, I feel it has run long enough. The page should as I outlined earlier be kept and not be labeled with a deletion strapping any longer - many thanks.Bulverton (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable committee working on notable project. RS news articles came up on my search [2]. But, Hey, this renovation is gonna cost £4 billion, let's cut the committee some slack on getting it budgeted and underway.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important government body of a major nation spending real money. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 17 November 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 12:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel at the EuroBasket 1953[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSTATS as a mere collection of standings and roster, as well as WP:GNG receiving only routine coverage like match summaries. Article was kept once as a procedural keep after I screwed up the nomination. Nominating it the right way this time. Smartyllama (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG is met and they qualified for the main tournament, which consensus seems to be at the other current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination) indicates would be notable. - Galatz ^Talk 20:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see two sources in this article, one of which is a primary source and the other seems to just be a collection of stats, which is also not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Also, the FIFA World Cup is a more significant tournament than EuroBasket. Consensus at that AfD seems to be that if they qualified for a top-level tournament, like the World Cup, then that makes it notable. But this isn't a top-level tournament. If this were the FIBA World Championships, I could see notability if they qualified for the main tournament, but not a continental tournament, especially one which had no qualification process at the time, or at least not one that's mentioned in the article. Smartyllama (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that was the case then why didn't Israel at the 1964 AFC Asian Cup or any other year get nominated? - Galatz ^Talk 21:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not a valid argument. Now, if they were nominated and closed as keep, that would be a valid argument to keep this and vice versa, but that's not what happened. Smartyllama (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - But what you are saying happened didn't happen either. No one said because its the top level tournament. You are trying to pick and chose what you want to make it work for your argument. - Galatz ^Talk 21:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The AfD only dealt with top-level tournaments. It didn't say anything about continental tournaments one way or the other. My opinion is that if it's just a continental tournament, then this kind of article isn't notable, especially in an article where there's no prose and only one independent source. If the article were fleshed out a bit, like Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic, then in my mind it would be acceptable. But right now it's just stats, and per WP:NOTSTATS it should be deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You said above "Consensus at that AfD seems to be that if they qualified for a top-level tournament" but now you are saying something different. - Galatz ^Talk 16:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Consnesus at that page is that if they qualified for a top-level tournament, it's notable. If they failed to qualify for a top-level tournament, it's not notable. That's all the consensus is. It doesn't say anything one way or the other about what happens if it's not a top-level tournament, either that it is notable if they qualify, or that it's not. I think in that case, you have to look at the quality of the article, and in this case it's just a collection of stats. For continental-level tournaments, especially older ones like this, there often aren't enough sources to move the article beyond WP:NOTSTATS, even if the team qualified. Compare this article to Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic, which is very well-written and high-quality. That's the kind of article that should be kept. It doesn't have to be as in-depth as that, but there has to be something more than stats and a roster. If you could find some additional sources and add some prose, I would reconsider my vote. But for now, it fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:CFORK, and, judging by the lack of sources, WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT as well. But you're oversimplifying the consensus as well. It really depends on the notability of the event - the FIFA World Cup is more significant than, say the Sepaktakraw World Championship, and therefore articles related to it are more likely to be notable. In the same way, top-level tournaments are, in general, more significant than non-top-level tournaments, and articles relating to certain aspects of them are more likely to be notable. We don't even have articles for individual tournaments of the latter, yet alone individual countries at individual tournaments. But again, this is just a general guideline, it depends on what specifically we have for that particular article, and right now, this fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:CFORK. That could change if additional information were provided, so if you want to keep the page, try to find some sources and improve the article, since it's not notable in its current form. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:CFORK, and WP:SPORTSEVENT, "for a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page." Information is copied off of EuroBasket 1953, and doesn't provide any further insight. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination) and related articles have been closed as delete after they were properly nominated. Smartyllama (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say Keep. This doesn't fail NSTATS because it provides explanation for the tables which the reader can view at his or her leisure. It's a bit of a stretch for GNG but I'm going to say that it does meet those guidelines because it's a systematic page which is part of a greater whole (EuroBasket championships) that uses the modicum of individual pages to hash out all its details that would be too bulky to put in a single page. A comment on the AfD itself-- why nominate only one page for deletion, when there is the entire

table which has a couple dozen of pages like this one? I imagine you're trying to get a precedent so the rest can be nominated; if that's the case, then this AfD should be including those additional pages in concept, because this decision would affect the rest. That needs to be considered as part of the consensus.Icebob99 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ROUTINE, read that and had a change of heart. Icebob99 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it is an international tournament, WP:NOTROUTINE, which would provide an argument for keep, only mentions Super Bowl or Olympics, which should probably be the standard for tournaments. Icebob99 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. This article is just stats and it's not clear to me how it could be anything more than a simple recap of the event. If it could be demonstrated (with references) that there was something significant about this, I would be willing to "keep" a prose article. Matt Deres (talk) 03:43, 28 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jack | ^{talk page} 10:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International cricket in 2003[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the same criteria:

Delete all. Breach of WP:IINFO, especially WP:NOTSTATS and WP:DIRECTORY. All of this information belongs in the respective season or tour reviews in suitably summary form. An annual collection of bare statistics is what people look for on specialist sites like CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo. Articles on WP must have narrative to explain both concept and context. These stats are of no use to anyone who is unfamiliar with cricket and of little if any interest to cricket followers too. A complete waste of space and, unfortunately, something we in WP:CRIC are finding all too often. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 20:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe these are acceptable under WP:NSEASONS as they contain descriptive prose (or links to "See Also"s with prose). These aren't statistics, they're logs, which are a little different. I try not to stick my grubby mitts into sports stuff here, but I'm a sucker for data scrounging and summary like this. Take my input with a grain of salt. Jergling (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Useful summaries of results. These are not individual team seasons, but more akin to league seasons - e.g. 2016 NFL season. The fact that they don't currently contain much prose is irrelevant per WP:NOTFINISHED. St Anselm (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep all per StAnselm and Jergling. These are essentially a table of contents for all the fixtures in a given season, aiding navigation for the reader in conjunction with the categories and templates. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nomination to be withdrawn as a snow keep. Thanks, all. I'll keep a watch on these and maybe add some narrative when I have time for them. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:02, 16 November 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 02:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twice filmography[edit]

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

This is not a filmography, it's a list of TV appearances--variety shows, co-hosting things, etc. I'd redirect this back into the article, but there's really nothing to merge back into the article. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it appears to be fancruft. If not, Rename to TWICE Videography, to match the category. I'm suspicious of the WP:REFBOMB here, it's possible that this is notable, but it's more likely that it's being overcited by fans. Jergling (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this stupid variety shows are not notable and pray that some fans will not add them back to Twice (band), unless the article will again look like this with gigantic variety show table which no one cares about and adds nothing to the article 86.58.36.145 (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another huge hot mess created by a fan. I remind the gentle readers that we are a private American charity not a free web host for K-pop fans. Filling a page with unreliable sources does not make it any more notable. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 17 November 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.

(non-admin closure) The result was speedy deleted per G11 by Vanamonde93 agtx 21:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Willie Lora[edit]

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

Nearly entirely promotional and WP:SPAM. What isn't promotional text is WP:NOTCV. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I removed the text that was 100% violation of WP:NOTCV. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is clearly a promotional article right now. I was holding off on nominating it for deletion because in the copyvioed content that I removed from it, the claim was made to two Peabody Awards and the Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award. If this is true, I would consider an argument that could be made for WP:ANYBIO. Currently I can't verify it, and don't know what year the reference is to in order to search the winners for those to see if he was on multiple teams that won awards. Unless the claim can be verified, the article should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 15 November 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. SNOW keep. And I say this without having been hacked. For which you'll have to take my word. SRSLY Drmies (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OurMine[edit]

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

Article is irrelevant Whitetiger401 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this Afd has not been properly templated yet, a Gnews search reveals sufficient notability, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Pinguinn 🐧 19:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that they've recently, and successfully, attacked the security of prominent WP editors and admins has been used firstly as a reason to blank content, now seemingly to delete the whole article. That is pique, not policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. plenty of good sources that covers this. BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They just made a very strong point for notability.....(and lol)--Ste moc 02:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's notability and references. I don't see a good reason for deletion of this article. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - This is a notable group, no valid reason to delete the article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:54, 16 November 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 as a neologism, and under the arguments of WP:TOOSOON.. Joyous! | Talk 01:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Revolution of 2016[edit]

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

A PROD tag was removed by the article's creator. I stand by my original rationale for the PROD:

Neologism. The article brings nothing that isn't already covered in articles about the US 2016 election cycle.

I guess I could also point to our policy on original research. Pichpich (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not that it's implausible that we will come over time to refer to this election by this neologism; we may. However, I searched, and very few sources call it that as yet. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Triumphalism aside, a Gnews search for this exact term yields absolutely nothing. A Gnews search for the term without "of 2016" does yield some passing mentions as a metaphor, but no more so than any article on "[name of politician/party] landslide" merits an article on such a landslide as a real thing, in addition to the election or politician in question. The Trump/GOP successes are well documented in the appropriate articles. Even Reagan revolution is a redirect. If someone wants to repurpose as a redirect, I've no objection. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: Did you mean, "Trumphalism?" GAB^gab 01:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NEO and really WP:MADEUP. I don't think it's a plausible redirect. ansh 666 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete until sources actually refer to it as such, like the 94 Republican Revolution. ValarianB (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above arguments re WP:NEO. This is not notable enough to warrant its own stand-alone article. The article basically summarizes the results of the election, which are already adequately covered in the main article. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not even a neologism - that would imply that someone has used it! It's the author's own WP:MADEUP term. Apparently, they were just itching to create an article. Jergling (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far too soon. A more plausible redirect might be Whig Party (United States), Revolution of 1848. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, with no media coverage using the term. WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO apply here AusLondonder (talk) 21:30, 17 November 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 Info preserved in the article's history, and can be added to Aliah University by any interested party.. Joyous! | Talk 21:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Aliah University Protest[edit]

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

The article borders on promotion of the protests, and is mostly sourced to social media of the protesters (Facebook and YouTube). At best, the protest deserves a mention (a paragraph or two) on the main Aliah University page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a platform for activism. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it is true that an occassional student protest movement attains enduring and encyclopedic notability, it is rare. With regard to this particular protest, sources now available are too paltry, too local and it is far WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A news story of quite local interest only, no national/international scope, I think WP:GEOSCOPE is the bit it fails to meet. ValarianB (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as theres nothing here but the information and attention for this event, there's literally nothing else beyond that especially for its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Aliah University. At this rate, I think there will be enough for an article eventually, but as E.M Gregory noted, not yet. South Nashua (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aliah University: Large chunk of article is not suitable for merge. Redirect it to target article and anyone interested can do the selective merge or re-write content. Anup [Talk] 15:46, 16 November 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 Bomberman video games. Does not seem to have much relation to the "first" Saturn Bomberman. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn Bomberman Fight!![edit]

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

Contested prod. No reason was given by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy and paste the rationale used in the prod: Fails to meet WP:Notability (games). Article subject was never released in English-speaking countries. Article has no references. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the linguistic competence to look for Japanese sources, but would point out that "never released in English-speaking countries" is not a valid reason for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not by itself, but it is exceptionally hard for a product that is never released to meet notability requirements. Foreign language sources are acceptable when no English alternative exists, but if Japanese sources are the only ones available then the subject clearly does not meet notability requirements for the English Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two halves of your second sentence contradict each other. The first is the one that is true. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lack of language knowledge on editors' parts is not an argument for deletion. The total lack of coverage, however, is. Even searching its native name (which I added to the article) I can't find a single reliable source reviewing it or mentioning it as relevant. All of the refs are dead, as well. Jergling (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Reference links being dead is irrelevant. Per WP:AGF, we assume the sources were valid at the time they were added. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bomberman video games as a valid search term, as long as the game exists. (Try to redirect before coming to AfD.) No reviews listed at MobyGames → very unlikely that print sourcing/reviews exist, especially in English. czar 19:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would Saturn Bomberman be a better redirect target? Not questioning you, just an honest question: I'm not familiar with this game, and the article is pretty bad, so its hard to tell how closely they're connected. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the list better as a target because at least it's mentioned there—whereas the other Saturn game doesn't mention the Fight sequel czar 17:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 19:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either List of Bomberman video games or Saturn Bomberman, whichever is determined to be the best target. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:55, 18 November 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 Gundam video games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Suit Gundam (1993 fighting game)[edit]

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

Contested prod. No reason was given by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy and paste the rationale used in the prod: Fails to meet WP:Notability (games). Article subject was never released in English-speaking countries. Article has no references. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to get it out of the way, not being related in English language regions is not a deletion rationale. There may be an Animerica import review of this, I'll need to check.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although being an arcade game it isn't going to be in there. However to me this makes it even more of a reason why the lack of English release should be discounted, being a anime licensed game from the early 90s it's unfair to judge it on this. Ultimately being an arcade game is going to limit the availability of sources, but it's important to be basing a deletion on the reasons that matter (i.e. the sourcing and notability). SephyTheThird (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gundam video games. Very little content present in article. Quite frankly, a simple sentence after its entry there covering its name/year/companies related would cover about 90% of the article's content, so little would be lost. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gundam video games as a valid search term, as long as the game exists. (Try to redirect before coming to AfD.) No reviews listed at MobyGames → very unlikely that print sourcing/reviews exist, especially in English. czar 19:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As an early 90s licensed anime arcade game we will struggle for notability, at least without access to Japanese game mags of the time.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. If enough sources can eventually be found, it can be recreated using the previous information as a base. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Redirect to List of Gundam video games, I think we have a clear consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3-matic[edit]

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

This article has not demonstrated notability. Bfpage |leave a message 17:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incredibly hard to find references, although there is one independent magazine source that provided a review/recommendation[3]. Industry-specific software like this is hard to source, but this article was clearly created with promotional intent. It's otherwise unknown and its importance is not substantiated by third-party sources. Jergling (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Jergling on all his points. I couldn't find any secondary sources on this product and the author didn't provide any. It reads like a product flyer. Rogermx (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources include: [4] and [5] and [6]. Since Mimics has its own page on Wikipedia, it makes little sense that 3-matic, a linked software program, doesn't have any. I am however not very proficient yet as a wikipedia editor/author, this is the first page I have created. Please let me know how I can make it better. What content do you feel missing for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.251.79.195 (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mimics is part of the same software suite, thanks for the tip from the SPIP. That article has academic refs which use Mimics as an industry standard baseline. The same journal has also hosted articles which indicate that 3-Matic is used in the industry [7]. Specialist use does not mean notability, nor does it require an article for each piece of a software suite, but we should probably bring these sources and mentions back into the main Materialise NV article. Jergling (talk) 16:00, 17 November 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 Gundam video games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Kidō Senki Gundam Wing: Endless Duel[edit]

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

Contested prod. No reason was given by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy and paste the rationale used in the prod: Fails to meet WP:Notability (games). Article subject was never released in English-speaking countries. Article has no references. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even though it's just one of a bajillion anime tie-in games, it was likely reviewed by the magazines back in 96, and has seen a number of independent reviews from staff writers in the last couple of years. See [8][9][10]. I hate digging up game reviews like this, because there are such blurry lines between reviews, PR, routine cataloging, and personal blogs in this field. I would trust Nintendo Life and Screwattack; SomethingAwful is a gag review, but from a notable satire source. Are these good with you? Jergling (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NL could work but the others won't. See what makes a reliable source reliable at WP:VG/RS. czar 19:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gundam video games - The references included above only provide one reliable secondary source in somethingawful.com, sorry but this article is going to need more than that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like the other two were just blogs masquerading as articles on Nintendo Life and ScrewAttack. Curses! Foiled by the forces I swore to banish from Wikipedia! BLOOOOOGSPAAAAAAAAM!!! -Jergling (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Again, The lack of English language release is not a valid deletion rationale and this may her been reviewed in Animerica (or other magazines) as an import title.I'll try and check the relevant issues. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale was that it lacked sources and didn't meet any subject-specific notability guidelines. Not sure how you can possibly read it as being because there was no English-language release. Surely you know that Martin knows that too, as you've both been around. czar 19:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as such because that is how it came off. After all, it is between the points about notability and sources. It was also in the text for the prod, so I don't think I'm assuming something without cause. It's not a criticism of the nomination or nominator (who I'm not familiar with) but it is something to avoid if only to prevent possible misunderstandings. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that you take a more generous read in the future (assume good faith) as there is plenty of rationale there for anyone looking for it. I read that sole sentence clearly as an explanation for why few English-language sources exist, not as a deletion rationale. czar 17:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gundam video games as a valid search term, as long as the game exists. (Try to redirect before coming to AfD.) No print reviews listed at MobyGames → very unlikely that print sourcing/reviews exist, especially in English. czar 19:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. If enough reliable sources can be found in the future, it can be recreated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't have access to the issues of Animerica I was going to check so redirecting at this time seems the best outcome.SephyTheThird (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Type 4/5[edit]

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

Possibly GF article, on a fake topic. An invented claim for a WWII Japanese super-heavy tank, sourced to those unimpeachable paragons Reddit and World of Tanks.

As a technical concept, this makes no sense either. Japan didn't keep the major wartime projects, like Unit 731, secret long-term. It bears no commonality to Japanese tank design. The design is, if anything, a kid's doodle from reading too much about the German Maus. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At best, it could be something lifted from a Japanese engineer's notes but one among many paper sketches on which nothing actually progressed. Certainly in absence of any reliable source it ought to head to the bin.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's World of Tanks alternate universe fiction, based on the one ref. Can we Speedy this under G3, as it's fiction being presented as fact? Jergling (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found nothing RS to support this article and I removed one cite as it only linked to a blog. Kierzek (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've looked into it, and as far as I can tell this tank was created as a hoax for self explanatory reasons; May I just remind everyone that Wargaming has an official WorldOfTanks Wiki, where this information would be better suited. Also, I'll point out that the article has only been edited once since this deletion log was put up on 15 November 2016, despite the article needing significant improvements. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No basis in reality. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:53, 17 November 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 16:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Sokaris[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article, created by the drummer and thus a WP:COI, about a band with no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC: their only releases to date have been self-released material on Bandcamp, there's no indication of national touring shown here, and on and so forth. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a band is automatically entitled to an article just because they exist -- reliable source coverage in media, demonstrating that they actually pass one or more NMUSIC criteria, is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing I found even remotely resembling a WP:RS source was this, with a photo showing a crowd of dozens (at least two of whom are more interested in talking to each other than watching the band).

“It’s a long process. You have to be like three to six months ahead of time,” he said. “If anything, we get attention. That’s the part that takes a lot of time. Every day we’re always messaging people, we have ads running in places and we’re always hitting up local magazines along the route,” Mr. LaClair said.

Yeah, right, and let's not overlook Wiki while we're about it! Fails WP:NBAND. Narky Blert (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Pyramid[edit]

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

Delete. Article, written in an advertorial rather than encyclopedic tone, about a band who have a valid potential claim to passing WP:NMUSIC for touring, but which completely fails to reliably source that: right across the board, the referencing here is to primary sources and blogs, with zero evidence of real reliable source coverage in real media shown at all. A band does not get a free pass over NMUSIC #4 just because their tour can be confirmed in WP:ROUTINE concert listings and blogs; they get over NMUSIC #4 when their tour is the subject of substantive coverage by music journalists. Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find real coverage of the tour in real media and give this a major de-advertorial scrubdown, but this as currently written and sourced is not acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears that they only exist as the opening act for two specific Queen tours. No albums, no singles, no independent coverage outside of routine mentions on Queen-related news. Jergling (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally nothing convincing here since it all summarizes itself quite neatly, the information and sources are all trivial and unconvincing with there then nothing better being found. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 16 November 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 by User:RHaworth under criterion G7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 02:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jannik Giger[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unreferenced BLP of a composer and artist, written like a résumé and making no claim of actual notability above and beyond the fact that he and his work exist. As always, a person does not automatically become eligible for a Wikipedia article just because he exists; reliable source coverage, supporting a credible claim to passing WP:CREATIVE, must be present for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. (1) There's an interview from last September in TagesWoche (whose English article is pretty thin, but whose German article make them look pretty solid as a WP:RS). (2) He's associated with the Basel Sinfonietta - whose English and German Wiki articles are both pretty thin; but they have been going since 1980, and they have been invited to play at some VERY major music festivals, e.g. Lucerne and Salzburg; they are by no means to be sniffed at; they're mentioned on the city website of Basel. ((3) There are of course the usual non-WP:RS things around, some of which might support or add details; but none of which are relevant to an AfD discussion.)

IMO it might be worth searching for other German-language sources. Narky Blert (talk) 01:12, 16 November 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 considering, not only has the user been kicked for competence troubles, there's nothing to suggest genuine deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Delcheva[edit]

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

A:7 Unremarkable Person - Evan Daniel Collett 16:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep One of the best Bulgarian basketball players. She participated with her club Libertas Trogylos Basket in the hightest basketball league in Italy the Serie A1 (women's basketball). And adding the note that women's basketball in under represented (and not only a bit..) on the Enligh Wikipedia. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played on the national team. That satisfies the notability criteria. Smartyllama (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NHOOPS is silent on national team play. WP:NSPORTS addresses playing at the Olympics and I personally would accept the World Championships/World Cup as equivalent to that. However, from looking at the profiles provided, her national team play is limited to one appearance for a few minutes in a 2013 EuroBasket Women qualification match. There may be more, but the Bulgaria women's national basketball team page shows they have not qualified for Eurobasket Women since she was 2 years old. So even if one argues that EuroBasket Women is significant (a reasonable argument considering the worldwide appeal of basketball), I don't think it that applies for a qualification match (especially if its just a few minutes of one match). Since the sources are just profiles, nothing has been shown that she is notable. Therefore, delete. RonSigPi (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RonSigPi:, it's not only about the national team. She is notable by playing for an Italian team (where basketball is on a higher level than in Bulgary) in the highest division Serie A1 (women's basketball). And here a non-profile reference. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but WP:NHOOPS does not include the woman's Italian League either. WP:NHOOPS was recently modified to intentionally make the list of leagues closed - if a subject has not appeared in a game from one of those leagues, then sources have to be found and we do not presume that sources exist. The woman's Italian league may well be at a higher level than the Bulgarian league, but neither are leagues that generate enough coverage to presume notability. Also, regarding the eurobasket.com reference, it is an entry from a giant database. No different than basketball-reference.com. I have no problems accepting that what is included is true, but its basically raw data with a short intro. RonSigPi (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plays in top-tier leagues, national team. Hmlarson (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She has played in the top league with clubs where сhe played (Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Italy). Aleksandra is also played for the national team. — Nn94 14 (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion., North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swapan Purkait[edit]

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

Despite claims of notability, this autobiographical article by User:Spurkait fails WP:BIO. There is no independent coverage about the subject in either Gnews or Gbooks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising since it's all clearly company-motivated and something only they would be so keen to format and neatly start with such advertising as if it were their own "About" section, there's literally nothing beyond that so deletion is clear here. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobio that fails WP:BIO no independent coverage and looks like a vanity article. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Seems like an autobio or paid spam. Not a single source available about him in either language. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are one or two passing mentions which is not what Wikipedia seeks for a biographical article. Anup [Talk] 15:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete:Should have been speedied.Pure paid-spam.A next to complete absence of WP:RS.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DEFINITELY KEEP : The page of Swapan Purkait has proper information . Regarding citations, famous websites ike DataQuest has his quotes in their articles. Using basic Google search you will be able to find it in Gnews. The individual's identity can be easily verified through channels. I don't think there's any spam in this matter and I'd request others not to use strong words of disagreement before proper investigation.I've done investigation on my behalf and I find the information to be valid . Kindly do not write any kind of allegations such as "paid-spam" before doing proper looking into the web.--Tirtha04 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this has no notability. I was content not to pile in on this one as it seemed clear cut, but in the light of the preceding comment, I can confirm that I see no merit here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be resume and or curriculum vitae as drafted by advertising company of some sort. Sagecandor (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure WP:SPAM. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:34, 23 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pyrusca (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bikroy.com[edit]

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

Not that notable in alot of ways. Pyrusca (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be well sourced. What's necessary is attention to promotional bias--I removed a trove of such edits, and will request page protection if they're restored. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The third most recognized internet site (and a top-20 website by traffic) in a country of 160 million people not-notable? I don't think so. The article satisfies WP:GNG, citing multiple, reliable, independent sources containing significant coverage: [11], [12], and [13]. A quick search returns plenty more: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21], for example. Time would be better spent improving the article rather than trying to delete it. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per Worldbruce. Clean up, Yes must be cleaned up. Not notable? no it is easily notable per sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of third party news coverage can be found on Google news search. Specially in Bengali. - Mar11 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Pyrusca: Sometimes the nominator can save everyone time by reconsidering a nomination that was made without a thorough enough WP:BEFORE. Withdrawing it would make a speedy keep possible. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sometimes, someone else can do it as well. Pyrusca (talk) 17:42, 18 November 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 Speedied after I tagged it as blatant spam (NAC0. SwisterTwister talk 16:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evhacon (Video Game)[edit]

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

Prod removed (I assume by creator). Mobile game with no significant, in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Lots of brief mentions that shows game exists, but no real substance. The only [22] significant source I could find that is more than 3 lines, reads like an advertisement of the game. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 16:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unadulterated self-promo, blogspam sources. Appears to be an "asset pack" game made from free models, sounds, and entities. They couldn't even be assed to pose the character for the cover art! (Or more likely, they don't know how.) Jergling (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landing Darboe[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article 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... The rest of the original delete rationale was truncated in the deletion log. This remains valid. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:10, 15 November 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) 07:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet to debut in a match relevant to the criteria discussed Spiderone 18:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. MYS 77 ^✉ 17:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmytrainings[edit]

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

the article was recreated after it was G11 deleted through a tag from me. its not notable. Pyrusca (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no longer promotional, but inadequate evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Anup [Talk] 15:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game Drive (company)[edit]

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

Marketing company, possibly self-promoted (see website). Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 15:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 15:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar 15:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme irony The only editor is a WP:SPA dedicated to PR edits on many of the listed games. Game Drive succeeded in garnering coverage for their clients, but the company itself has never been independently covered. Jergling (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources and is only mentioned in passing in search results. Meatsgains (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's not even actual significance given what's listed is simply mentioning other subjects and games, nothing convincing in itself. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Significance of the subject was never established. gidonb (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure WP:SPAM. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:37, 23 November 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. Bad-faith nomination which isn't going to close any way other than keep, and there's no purpose keeping it open. If someone can make a policy-based case for deletion, feel free to re-nominate. ‑ Iridescent 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fenna Vanhoutte[edit]

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

A:7 Unremarkable Person... This Person Rides A Bike, Non-Professionally, Does That Make This Person Remarkable? Evan Daniel Collett 15:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy keep rider competes for a professional team (List of 2016 UCI Women's Teams and riders) and so meets WP:NCYC. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A666 : along with these other non-notable bike riders here and here No wait, Keep as there are plenty of news hits to improve the article, if only I could speak a bit more Dutch. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An awful lot of those look like passing references to me - in particular placings in races. There is at least one which looks as if it offers more in depth coverage but my Flemish and Dutch are non-existent. But the majority aren't exactly in depth coverage to meet the GNG per se. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ran some of them through Google Translate, which confirms taking part in major tournaments which would seem to qualify WP:NCYCLING, but I wouldn't use that to directly expand the article, it needs a native speaker. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt that she does meet WP:NCYCLING - the problem is that this, like all the sports criteria, is only indicative of someone who might meet the GNG, not, by itself, a qualification for an article is reliable sources can't be found. The FAQ at the top of WP:ATH makes this clear. In this case I have no doubt that the one (or possibly two) really in depth article(s) we have will probably suffice to do that - but if those didn't exist then it could be argued that the GNG isn't, at present, met. Sorry - it's no big deal at all: note that I have not registered any form of vote here and will not do so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject meets general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete?~~ Why Keep This Article? Can We Really Say That This Person Is Remarkable Because They Ride Their Bike With Friends? They May Be Part Of A "Professional" Team, But Who Decides If It's Really "Professional" And Is That Professional Cycling Team Famous? Does It Have Its OWn Wikipedia Page? Evan Daniel Collett 16:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- @EvanDanielCollett: Before I reply, can you please say it without using a capital letter for each single word. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom is being a right twat (see my talkpage) and is still upset that I made this AfD nom on his shitty article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$uicideBoy$. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've justed spotted they've been blocked too. BTW, the subject of this AfD passes WP:NCYC, as a female rider who rides for a professional team. Happy days. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:05, 15 November 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: G7. Vanamonde (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Array Based Queuing Lock[edit]

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

According to talk, "This article is created as part of an academic assignment for the Course of Architecture of Parallel Computers". This means it violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOR. There's no reason to have this sully Wikipedia for months with a multiple issues tag on it. Transwiki to Wikiversity. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move(?) Doesn't seem to be independently notable or even notable as a subset of ticket lock, but might be something to mention in ticket lock. I'll abstain from making a case for or against a move to Wikiversity, because I don't know their policy. Jergling (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pirmyrat Gazakov[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 on the grounds that he has played in international matches. This is inaccurate. Gazakov has not played for Turkmenistan at the senior level. Presumably, what was meant were the club matches in the AFC President's Cup and the CIS Cup. Since neither of these are fully pro, playing in them does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles on footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 18 November 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) 09:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms of Elizabeth II[edit]

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

This article is highly unsourced and will remain so as it is mostly original research. It is very difficult to find a source affirming that they are Elizabeth II's personal arms and not that of the state's. I understand that traditionally what is the arms of the monarch is that of the state's (hence "arms of dominion") as is the case with the United Kingdom but none of coats of arms on this article are described as such and in like manner by reliable sources. Only Canada explicitly states that they are the arms of "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada". Other countries don't. In fact, this piece of legislation from New Zealand: [23] clearly gives a distinction between the "coat of arms of New Zealand" and the "coat of arms of Her Majesty". Re5x (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This a gallery of un-related images and one unreferenced sentence of actual content on the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Most are probably national coats of arms, not royal ones. Coats of arms were originally what a soldier had painted on his shield. Arms are almost inevitably personal, though this has extended to cities and countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- belongs in Commons. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 23 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geit Prants[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced BLP as the only given source does not even mention her The Banner talk 14:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Meets WP:NFOOTY as played for the national team. There are external links with information about her. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- First, external links are not sources. Second: you effectively used a false source. The Banner talk 14:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Banner: I don't understand what you mean. The reference used of esbl.ee is a reliable source including many Estonian biographies. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - as the only given source does not even mention her. You pretended to give a source but in fact it is just hot air. No info in the given source about ms. Prants. The Banner talk 15:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't speek Estonian, but this is about her. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If you can find that now, why did you not add it to the original article? The Banner talk 15:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The reference was in the original article, but the part /biograafia/Geit_Prants was by accident not copied from the template. It happened with some more articles, I just fixed them all. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having played for Estonia, she meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: To save editors' time, you should Wikipedia:WDAFD. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And by that approve your sloppy work? No sir. The Banner talk 16:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: That is your opinion. It's a well sourced stub of a notable footballer meeting WP:NFOOTY. But if you say so, let's see what others think. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel more inclined to check your other work... The Banner talk 17:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NFOOTY - Played in several Tier 1 International Matches. - Taketa (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination but ask the attention of the community for the sloppy way the original author adds sources as this is not an isolated incident. The Banner talk 10:25, 17 November 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 00:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heleri Saar[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced BLP as the given source does not even mention her. The Banner talk 14:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Meets WP:NFOOTY as played for the national team. There are external links with information about her. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- External links are no sources. And the use of a false source is not good. The Banner talk 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Banner: I don't understand what you mean. The reference used of esbl.ee is a reliable source with many Estonian biographies. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk)
    - Which you added indiscriminately to all articles about Estonian football players you created, no matter if they had an entry in it or not. The way you used it made it a false source. You have to check that the sources you add are actually correct, have relevant information about the subject of the article. Instead, you simply added it to all articles. While you are lucky that for this one (Saar) there is an entry, many others didn't. (I listed some on your talk page already, so you should have been aware before your above reply) And linking to a website homepage (like you did) instead of to the individual page with the information is really not helpful in any case. Fram (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reference was not falce, but the part /biograafia/Heleri_Sar was by accident not copied from the template. It happened indeed with some more articles, and to more you listed on my talk page. I just fixed them all. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Nonsense. In many of those teh ESBL did not contain any info on the person. You didn't "forget" to copy a part, you never checked to see whether they were included or not. As happened with other articles (non-Estonian) as well, as discussed at your talk page. You just copy-paste creaye articles through a template without chexcking the sources. Fram (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        As I wrote to you earlier, I expected that those persons would be on this website. There was not broken link after creation (and I thought the specific link was made), so no need to change reference. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        So you create BLPs where you add one source which you haven't even read, but still use to reference the article? That's the same as creating an unsourced BLP. Just stop it. Either read the source before you create the article and make sure that it supports the article, or don't create articles at all. Fram (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having played for Estonia, she meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: To save editors' time, you should Wikipedia:WDAFD. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And by that approve your sloppy work? No sir. The Banner talk 16:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: That is your opinion. It's a well sourced stub of a notable footballer meeting WP:NFOOTY. But if you say so, let's see what others think. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly meets the notability guidelines. Number 5 7 16:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented her national side multiple times. Probably a good idea if the nom read WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - check the UEFA profile to start. Hmlarson (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the group fails WP:BAND. Notable that several of the KEEP comments are by very new users with few other edits. Joyous! | Talk 23:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$uicideBoy$[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:BAND. Seems to be a totally un-notable duo, with a few home-made releases between them. Not to mention that the whole article is unsourced and has massive WP:BLP issues (drug addiction claims, for one). This could be a speedy delete, as the same user created it before and it went through this AfD. Be grateful if someone could check the deleted copy. And a brand new donkey for whoever can tell me what the line "Once they joined forces, the result was a dark blend of horrorcore glitch-trap bubbling with booming bass, ominous atmospherics, and occultish, drugged-out rhymes" actually means. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Was Edited By Multiple Administrators, The Article Was Previously Deleted Because They Hadn't Toured Nor Did They Chart On The BillBoards. Now They Have Charted And Have Toured WorldWide Which In Prospective seems to be Notable. The Information On That Page Was From A Review Posted On Pandora which You Can Find Here, I Have Been Having Trouble Citing The Information Provided and would like some feedback... As Far As "A Few Home-Made Releases" Goes... They Have Released 30 Mixtapes and Ep's... Is That Really "Home-Made" Including Their Most Remarkable EP Radical $uicide Which Charted #13 On Billboards Rap Albums which you can find Here, Was Produced By A Semi-Famous EDM Producer (Getter), and Yes They do refference Drugs like most Rap Artist Out There, But To Do A Little Research They Actually Fall Into Different Sub-Genres Cloud rap Horrorcore Rapcore, And I Feel Its Acceptable To Talk About Past Drug Issues, No? I Would Much Rather Receive Feedback and Support On Improving This Article Than Hate and Deletion. EvanDanielCollett (talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you type that again without using the caps lock at the start of each new word? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha No, I Can Not. EvanDanielCollett (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:EvanDanielCollett has been blocked for socking. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm so distraught by EvanDanielCollett's use of capitalization that I want to start an XfD for this AfD! Evan, do not share your email for offsite discussion. If you're going to !vote keep, do it in a way that addresses the nominator's issues. Jergling (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I can only see two edits in this article from admins; one corrects a template error and one reverts an edit by EvanDanielCollett. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It appears as though EvanDanielCollett has been blocked. This should spare us from his aneurysm-inducing use of capitalization for at least a short time Asm20 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jergling Thank you for the feedback! I will try and improve the use of my capitalization, along with that my email has been removed. Evan Daniel Collett 16:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thank you for cleaning that up. I'll actually comment on the article now! Jergling (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability. Evan, please try to understand the policy here: Wikipedia is not judging $uicideBoy$, we're assessing the media surrounding them. No news outlets, professional reviewers, or industry groups have recognized the band, so we won't keep an article about them. The article itself also violates Neutral Point of View by using fluffy prose like "dark blend of horrorcore glitch-trap bubbling with booming bass, ominous atmospherics, and occultish, drugged-out rhymes". We don't allow self-published content like that. Jergling (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You know, I think that the notability of this is better than some articles on here. However, due to WP:BAND, it must be deleted, unless we use WP:IAR. Keep in mind Letter and Spirit of the Law. I vote to keep, while totally agreeing with Jergling on the fact that it does infringe upon NPOV quite a lot. It appears that a major edit is taking place, so perhaps the NPOV can be fixed? Dadofme (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nod, but could you explain your bid to keep? The article has no independent sources, at all, and my searches haven't turned up any. No one appears to have written about this band except the band themselves. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never an acceptable reason to keep. Jergling (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one reference, with nothing approaching a discussion of the subject. I note that the user undertaking the "major edit" has been blocked. Maproom (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the WP:CSD#G4, the deleted version of the article is similar to this one; however as that AfD did not close with a straight "delete" consensus, but was short-circuited via another admin speedying it, I can't in good conscience delete it under that criteria when somebody has !voted "keep". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and it's always useful to have a proper AfD close for future recreations. Note however that the article has been deleted in two previous AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$UICIDEBOY$ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$uicideboy$. $uicideboy$ was salted back in June because it was recreated so many times; $UICIDEBOY$ ditto, in July. --bonadea contributions talk 18:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NMUSIC at this time. I removed the "inuse" template since the user who placed it is blocked, and it's been a few hours without any edits to the article since it was put there anyway. --bonadea contributions talk 18:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this page has only been up briefly; more sources will be added soon. They're gaining attention and will be re-added to Wikipedia sooner or later. Keep $uicideboy$. --LetsBeKings 19:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC) — LetsBeKings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: LetsBeKings is a subject of an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EvanDanielCollett. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:TOOSOON. If and when they become notable, the page can be recreated. clpo13_(talk) 19:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No reason, per Wikipedia:But there must be sources! Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND at this time. Maybe when more reliable, non-self published sources become available, then the article can be recreated, but until then, delete. Also I should note that I closed an earlier AfD about the subject. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt given the damning 3 deletions before this and the current one is only a blatant worsening fact there's literally nothing but their own websites. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is new and is expanding2600:8800:1689:F700:81D7:88F6:987A:6074 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not answering for the blatant 3 times this has been deleted now or the fact there's literally nothing but their own websites as sources, that's far far from being an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not seem to fit WP:BAND standards. Failure to meet WP:N is arguable, however I do not believe that it meets that standard either. A quick read through the article also brings up NPOV issues. This article fails too many of Wikipedia's standards for there to be a good reason to keep it. Asm20 (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe The $uicideboy$ are remarkable, they have toured worldwide more than once, have charted, and are continuing to grow. In my opinion I think this article needs to be sourced and cited more, but overall deserves a page on The Wiki Unstoppable . Maniac (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To state the obvious, it wouldn't matter if they own their websites, because it's still their own "website" listed and their socials, that's not notability nor will it be mistaken as such. Also, simply because they have charted, is not alone convincing since we would need actual sources, not authored by themselves such as official websites, socials, advertising, etc. SwisterTwister talk 01:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The $uicideboy$ do not own the websites that are cited, they are obliviously public User:Swister Twister Unstoppable . Maniac (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swister Twister check here Unstoppable . Maniac (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Flickerd (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the above, if they were going to have an article we'd have to throw all of this one away anyway. The lead is pure bafflegab and the next section seems to consist about 2/3 of uncited "people in band interested in music" and 1/3 of some rather BLP-dubious uncited assertions about drugs. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They got there EP to chart here, which meets WP:MUSICBIO. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only have they toured, and charted but the article has been referenced and sourced better and is continuing to improve. If that's not enough we can use WP: IAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1689:F700:F968:B41D:7C8:527A (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would IAR be applicable here? That makes no sense at all. As for the sources, they are all similar to last.fm or soundcloud, as far as I can tell. None of the sources actually indicates notability. --bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they don't pass WP:BAND, and also being that I'm actually a fan and avid listener of these guys, I've yet to see them in any notable publication. The group going on some tours (as all at least semi successful internet rappers do) doesn't mean anything. They're a really popular internet rap group but that isn't saying much. Do you know how many SoundCloud rappers almost at $uicideboy$'s popularity level aren't on Wikipedia? Pouya (rapper), Fat Nick, Lil Peep, Killstation, ... where are these articles? $uicdeboy$ shouldn't be given some special treatment above them Second Skin (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: OH AND FOR THE RECORD, this article is actually blacklist evasion. Notice how the proper name $uicideboy$ is protected from being created. This page should be deleted solely for that reason alone. Second Skin (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mindil Beach Markets (Rock Band)[edit]

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

Delete. Band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no strong sourcing -- literally right across the board, the sourcing here is to blogs, university student newspapers (which NMUSIC makes a special point of deprecating as not able to carry a musician's or band's notability), their own website and/or their own hometown alt-weekly. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- but this is not the kind of sourcing it takes to build a WP:GNG case for a band who haven't passed any NMUSIC criterion. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Karp[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. Founded 1 charter school in Philadelphia. I support charters and what they provide students who would otherwise be in failing schools but Karp doesn't quite seem to fit the criteria for notability, per se. He could be mentioned in an article about the school, of course. Quis separabit? 13:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local school board member and charter school founder, not enough to make notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Possible redirect to Belmont School. Meatsgains (talk) 17:06, 15 November 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 16:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Sporrer[edit]

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

Delete and Salt, as not only considering the 2015 AfD which was Delete, but there's literally no substance from the listed filmography, see how the longest is only 4 episodes of 1 TV series; there's literally nothing to suggest better at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in a worse state than at the previous AFD. However it is different. Note there are no references there that show notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tentative keep per potential in-depth coverage found through due diligence which needs further researching suggesting that WP:BIO may be met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this article for deletion last time. The new article is no better than the first. Still fails WP:NACTOR. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine that you believe so and nominated it previously, and is is definitely sad that the new version has not benefited from possible editorial attention, but even for a poor article, guideline WP:NACTOR is not the final word nor the only means by which we may determine notability. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I should have written "fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG". Articles about Blake Shelton being seen with her while he was married to Miranda Lambert do not establish notability for a separate article.--Jersey92 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per policy and guideline a source needs not be solely about a topic being sourced just so long as the topic is being spoken of directly to support what an article shares. IMHO they need an open-minded look. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be "significant coverage" for this subject as described in WP:GNG.--Jersey92 (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for again repeating your stance, but per policy and guideline a source needs not be solely about a topic being sourced just so long as the topic is being spoken of directly to support what an article shares, and the GNG is not the "only" means we may use to determine inclusion. IMHO the available unused sources need an open-minded look. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Size Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Unable to find any reliable secondary sources to support this company's notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Sources are either not found, fleeting mentions, or YouTube videos. Nothing about SIZE itself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- No notability whatsoever. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinxtra[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP, the subject was created in 2015 - possibly WP:TOOSOON to tell whether or not it's impact is significant. Seems somewhat WP:PROMO in several sections (discussing low prices of services, areas in which service is provided, etc). Not sure if the short-lived company is relevant enough to meet WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ gnews reveals some sources. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
change to delete on second thoughts a number of gnews sources are just press releases. LibStar (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; this startup is not yet notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only started by 2 clear advertising-only accounts, there's literally advertising costumed as "information" and the sources themselves include this by simply being republished company quotes, that alone is sufficient for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that tone definitely appears to exist primarily for promotion. Sagecandor (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, WP:IAR. Nobody else wants the article kept. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Katopodis[edit]

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

No indication of notability. WP:MILL reporter. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable.--Aspro (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or second choice Merge to Eyewitness News (South Africa)~~ - she has been name checked as being a key player in Eye Witness News on South African TV, as an appointed member of SANEF, and championing the televising of the Trial of Oscar Pistorius. All that makes me think she's about as notable as Moira Stuart. I appreciate the many news hits are pieces written by her, not about her. @Aspro: please read WP:JNN. Ritchie333 ^(talk)^(cont) 16:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (1) The article appears to have been created by a single user account. (2) the image uploaded by that account appears to be a professional shot, within a studio, using a back drop. Yet the image (uploaded here) appears to be scanned - not something that a professional photographer would normally stoop to. At the very least he would insure that his copyright is in the EXIF of the image. It looks to me like a portfolio shot, that people in the media often have done to add to their portfolio. Yet the uploalder is claiming it for his own. Let him tell us what camera, ISO, f, speed, lens, and BD paper, spots and diffusers he used. Thus, this image is exceedingly suspect. (3) Does anyone that appears on TV or radio automatically become notable? WP would double or quadruple in size over-night if that were to be true. (4) No good refs. Yet, thanks for bring it up in order to double check the weight thereof. P.S. What is the diff between JNN and résumé?--Aspro (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: Subject fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. There are one or two (could be more) passing mentions as, Katy said this, Katy said that, and Katy said, blah, of no use. Anup [Talk] 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. All cited coverage is a passing mention or not by an independent reliable source. Sandstein 19:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:JOURNALIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icebob99 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG, at least so far as published accounts seem to show. Her career does make it tricky to search for third-party sources, however, so I would be willing to change my opinion if significant coverage came to light. Matt Deres (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:JOURNALIST -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A perfectly clear consensus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kenyan blogs[edit]

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

Doesn't fit the WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete Only one entry links to an article, and even that has been tagged to question its notability: no evidence for potential notability of any of the other entries: Noyster (talk), 10:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable thing to be a blogger from Kenya, has nothing to do wrt Kenya, don't wanna be accused of cultural bias. =) But the nationality of the writer is not a notable or interesting characteristic to justify a list. ValarianB (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE Jergling (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. TimothyJosephWood 20:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on this article gives even 1% of a chance this could possible pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears arbitrary and not encyclopedic at least in current scope and presentation. Sagecandor (talk) 02:51, 22 November 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.

Delete. WP:NONSTATS. This data is available on espncricinfo. Wikipedia is not cricinfo. Sdm2211

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

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

Delete. wikipedia is not espncricinfo. This data is available on www.espncricinfo.com Sdm2211

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Semi-trailer. Whether and what to merge is up to editors. Sandstein 20:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teardrop trailer (truck)[edit]

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

Unsourced trivia, made up to sound like a WP:ADVERT. Notability/history not asserted. Nordic Nightfury 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Semi-trailer. Needs to be cleaned-up in tone and properly sourced. A quick search found this [[24]] and [[25]] and with more time I expect better sources can be found. But the concept is worth mentioning in the Semi-trailer article if there is not enough info available to support a separate article. We have one on Trailer skirt and I would expect that a similar article on Teardrop trailer could be developed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) MB 05:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it doesn't sound terribly advertorial to me. It describes the product, it's usage and apparent advantages for fuel economy and such, but I wouldn't say ADVERT really and truly applies. And if it does, it wouldn't take much to fix it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ or ~~Merge~~. (EDIT: in theory, in the real world who will ever edit it?) Advertisement? No manufacturer's name (EDIT: It is only one company site, the other just points to it). Unsourced trivia? About truck fuel economy? Hardly trivia. It specifically talks about "commercial tractor units", and "commercial tractor-trailer" when talking about fuel economy, the reason the trailer exists at all. Should it go into Semi-trailer truck, not Semi-trailer (why are there two articles on one truck type?). Maybe hook up with Trailer skirt, something about truck aerodynamics? They would make a good section at least.Sammy D III (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Semi-trailer. When you look for "Tear-drop trailer truck" on the web the only hits are mostly promotional or semi-promotional article for Don-Bur. Otherwise tear-drop trailer is a small rather cute camper --Domdeparis (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting - further consensus. We need to make a definite decision here. Nordic Nightfury 09:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 09:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism not in common use. Article written like an advert. The Proffesor (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yumeko Aizome[edit]

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

Subject appears to have been in several films, but does not appear to have won any awards for her film performances. Her husband appears to be notable, but notability is not inherited. Unless she won some awards for her movie performances (I could find no evidence in English, at any rate— japanese sources would be welcome), I don't think we can justify retaining the article on her. Being an actress by itself does not equate to notability. KDS4444 (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I've said on the talk page of the article, there are no English biographies on her (as far as I can tell), therefore you won't find much information on her in English, which is the whole reason of why I translated and created the article: to make knowledge about her available in a language other than just Japanese. "Being an actress by itself does not equate to notability." Again, does being an actress who had a major role in 4 of the most popular Japanese movies of the 1930s not count for anything anymore? There are articles about actors on here, also Japanese and from the 1920s-1940s, that are 2 or 3 sentences long where the subjects are far less notable than her, yet those pages are up and running without anyone ever making a complaint. What is the problem? And re: awards, two things that I could find real quick: Tonari no Yae-chan, a movie in which she plays the lead title role, won second place at the 1934 Kinema Junpo awards, meaning it was voted by the most influental film magazine and critics of the time as the second best movie of the year, as part of Kinema Jumpo's annual "Best Ten" list and therefore was also awarded as such at the Kinema Junpo awards. Info here and here (in the relevant line it also adds how the movie made her a star). A Ball at the Anjo House, in which she plays a main character, the older sister in a movie about a family of four, won the award for best film (aka film of the year, as stated on the Japanese Wiki page of the movie) at the 1948 Kinema Junpos. The movie is a highly acclaimed work that has been placed on best of lists, and likely won many more awards in its time, but finding awards data for a lot of these old movies isn't easy/possible since not a lot of these things are online. Therefore this should show that yes, she has had notable roles in notable movies that were awarded, and just because records of these awards are scarce online doesn't mean that none were awarded. Sage X (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aizome was a prominent actress in the 1930s and was subject to considerable press at the time. She also has significant entries in the major film biographical encyclopedias, such as those published by Kinema Junpo (she gets a considerably long entry, for instance, in the KineJun actress encyclopedia from 1980). Passes both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per both comments above. She is definitely notable. In spades. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:52, 17 November 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" opinion is notably weak, consisting only of "but the character is in IMDB and appeared in...". The one "merge" opinion makes no argument and suggests no target, and the one "wrong forum" opinion makes no sense, given that this is indeed a deletion request, not a content dispute. On the other hand, the "delete" side's assertion that there are insufficient sources for these characters have not been rebutted by citing relevant sources. Sandstein 20:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Schoenfeld[edit]

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

Character from one episode, no evidence of any notability Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion are the following, all created by the same editor about one, two or three-episode characters from the same series, all lacking any further notability.

Albert Schoenfeld
Lord Charles Gilmour (Upstairs, Downstairs character)
- first reply: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --ColeB34 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- second reply Lord Charles Gilmour is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0076140/ --ColeB34 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Capt. Charles Hammond (Upstairs, Downstairs character)
- first reply: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --ColeB34 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- second reply: Captain Charles Hammond is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0265417/ --ColeB34 (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maria Schoenfeld
Mr. Arthur Forrest (Upstairs, Downstairs character)
- first reply: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --ColeB34 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- second reply: Mr. Arthur Forrest is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0121868/ --ColeB34 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Julius Karekin
- first reply: Julius Karekin appears in An Object of Value, A Special Mischief, The Fruits of Love, The Wages of Sin (Upstairs, Downstairs), A Family Gathering (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- second reply: Julius Karekin is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0076138/?ref_=fn_al_ch_1 --ColeB34 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- third reply: Julius Karekin is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0076138/quotes --ColeB34 (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kirbridge
- first reply: Lawrence Kirbridge isn't an "one, two or three-episode character". Lawrence Kirbridge appears in The Key of the Door, For Love of Love, The New Man (Upstairs, Downstairs), A Pair of Exiles, Married Love (Upstairs, Downstairs), Whom God Hath Joined..., Out of the Everywhere (Upstairs, Downstairs). (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- second reply: Lawrence Kirbridge is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/ --ColeB34 (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- third reply: Lawrence Kirbridge is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/quotes --ColeB34 (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill (Upstairs, Downstairs character)
Mrs. Peel (Upstairs, Downstairs character)
William (Upstairs, Downstairs character)
Baron Klaus von Rimmer (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- first reply: Baron Klaus von Rimmer is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0273720/?ref_=fn_al_ch_1 --ColeB34 (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- second reply: Baron Klaus von Rimmer is a very important character, see https://www.updown.org.uk/photos/pixld1.htm --ColeB34 (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- third reply: Baron Klaus von Rimmer is a very important character, see http://www.updown.org.uk/epguide/s1.htm#sum --ColeB34 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Axel Ryttsen
- Reply: Axel Ryttsen is a a dashing Swedish military officer, the most important fictional character in The Swedish Tiger. The Swedish military officer Axel Ryttsen is "The Swedish Tiger". --ColeB34 (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Second reply: http://www.updown.org.uk/epguide/s1.htm#mc --ColeB34 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)[reply]
Torkel Kraft
- Reply: Torkel Kraft is the valet of Axel Ryttsen. Torkel Kraft removes valuable household objects from the Bellamy house in order to pay off Ryttsen's gambling debts. A very important fictional character in The Swedish Tiger --ColeB34 (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Edwin Partridge
Mary Stokes (Upstairs, Downstairs character)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters; could they all be merged there? Or are they too minor to be included? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters images are not allowed. In articles about characters images are allowed. --ColeB34 (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment being listed in IMDb is not a claim to notability, IMDb is a database (and a wiki, not a reliable source) which goes for completeness, not significant coverage of notable examples only. Many of your statements above about the number of episodes are contradicted by the very IMDb sources you add, by the way, e.g. Julius Karekin is listed in only three episodes at IMDB[26]. Fram (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lawrence Kirbridge isn't an "one, two or three-episode character". Lawrence Kirbridge appears in The Key of the Door, For Love of Love, The New Man (Upstairs, Downstairs), A Pair of Exiles, Married Love (Upstairs, Downstairs), Whom God Hath Joined..., Out of the Everywhere (Upstairs, Downstairs). (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) see also http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/ and http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/quotes Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So, that's one character who appeared in 6 episodes (often as a very minor role, it seems), but still without notability. Fram (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the "nominate a load at once" approach is problematic for the reasons I'm seeing above. If there's a list article to merge them to, you could simply be bold and go ahead with the merge. If not, I think it's probably better to nominate one at a time. It's slower, but it ensures that each article can be assessed on its own merits. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the one character with 5 or 6 appearances has no notability. No sources indicating notability for any of these has been shown or found. Having the same discussion 10 times isn't useful. Fram (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is wrong. Please see:

1.) Richard Marson, "Inside UpDown - The Story of Upstairs, Downstairs", Kaleidoscope Publishing, 2005 2.) http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/ 3.) http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/quotes 4.) http://www.updown.org.uk/epguide/s1.htm#mc Updown.org.uk 5.) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0738024/?ref_=tt_ep_nx --ColeB34 (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Yes, these are the sources you use for every article in this AFD (and the other AFDs). IMDb is a wiki and basically a database, not a source that gives any notability. Updown org is a fan site, again not giving any notability. Which leaves you with one book where it is not clear how much attention is given to any character. But what can you say about a one-episode character, apart from his role in the episode and who played him or her? Nothing much, which is why we don't have articles on characters who have made no impact whatsoever outside their series and little within it. Fram (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor character, fails GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is going on here, there's no sign of notability, and not much of the concept of reliable sources. Wikis that anybody can edit are not reliable. An open and shut case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Lawrence Kirbridge isn't an "one, two or three-episode character". Lawrence Kirbridge appears in The Key of the Door, For Love of Love, The New Man (Upstairs, Downstairs), A Pair of Exiles, Married Love (Upstairs, Downstairs), Whom God Hath Joined..., Out of the Everywhere (Upstairs, Downstairs). (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

second reply: Lawrence Kirbridge is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/

third reply: Lawrence Kirbridge is in IMDB, see http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/quotes

Please see:

1.) Richard Marson, "Inside UpDown - The Story of Upstairs, Downstairs", Kaleidoscope Publishing, 2005

2.) http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/

3.) http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0067782/quotes

4.) http://www.updown.org.uk/epguide/s1.htm#mc Updown.org.uk

5.) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0738024/?ref_=tt_ep_nx

--ColeB34 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum Notability is not a deletion argument here, for the one article being considered in this discussion. The others should be procedurally closed. Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong twice. Notability is a deletion argument, no idea why you would think it isn't. And no reason to procedurally close the others as they all suffer from the same problem, and all have the same sources. This is exactly what mass nominations are for. Fram (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I said? But rather than answer that, let me repeat what I said, "Notability is not a deleteion argument here." I've added italics to the word "here", which should explain the confusion.
"Wrong forum" is the right close for nominations that show insufficient familiarity with WP:N and WP:Deletion policy including WP:ATD and WP:Editing policy and WP:Redirect, and at best would trap the closing administrator or NAC into adjudicating a content dispute with a non-binding AfD decision. Better to follow policy and get this to content decision makers, as well as clarify that there is no theoretical case here for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, I looked for notability for these, and couldn't find any. Please AGF that when people nominate articles for deletion, they have done their job. This is not a content dispute, this is a notability discussion (coupled with an editor hellbent on keeping these articles only because he can then add screenshots to them). I really don't get what you are trying to claim here or trying to achieve here. Do you actually claim that these characters are notable (evidence please), or that I have not looked for notability before nominating them? In any case, to go back to what you wrote, notability is the deletion argment here. I really have no idea why you would claim otherwise, or what other reason you think I have to start these AfDs. Fram (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the statement, "notability is the deletion argument here", what I wrote was, "Notability is not a deletion argument here." I've added emphasis to the word "a". Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a response to relevant content, specifically, I've directly cited 3 policies, a specific policy subsection, and an editing guideline for your attention. C.f. the WP:INSIGNIFICANCE essay cited in response to another !vote, as it extracts relevant quotes, such as "WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Since the premise of this thread (my !vote) is that notability is not a deletion argument for this AfD, questions about my opinion regarding notability seem misplaced. The point about these pictures keeps coming up, but the pictures are content, consistent with my !vote of "Wrong forum". From WP:Deletion policy#Content:

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

Again, a close here would at best trap the closing administrator or NAC into adjudicating a content dispute with a non-binding AfD decision. Better to follow policy and get this dispute to content decision makers, as well as clarify that there is no theoretical case here for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the others, editors aren't necessarily even bothering to respond, and it is not clear why they are here as the nomination has provided no WP:BEFORE D1 results and there are no Find sources templates. Deletion policy suggests that the alternate to a discussion on the talk page of the article is an RfC. Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are right user:Unscintillating : Lawrence Kirbridge isn't an "one, two or three-episode character". Lawrence Kirbridge appears in The Key of the Door, For Love of Love, The New Man (Upstairs, Downstairs), A Pair of Exiles, Married Love (Upstairs, Downstairs), Whom God Hath Joined..., Out of the Everywhere (Upstairs, Downstairs). (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Thank you, user:Unscintillating --ColeB34 (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur there's clear consensus this is not independently notable and quite honestly it's not even significant given it's about 1 unconvincing TV character. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reply to user:SwisterTwister : Lawrence Kirbridge isn't an "one, two or three-episode character". Lawrence Kirbridge appears in The Key of the Door, For Love of Love, The New Man (Upstairs, Downstairs), A Pair of Exiles, Married Love (Upstairs, Downstairs), Whom God Hath Joined..., Out of the Everywhere (Upstairs, Downstairs). (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic were insignificant, there would not be a redirect target. You want to delete in spite of the topic being significant, why?
And what is "1 unconvincing TV character"? Is that a claim that the character lacks WP:DUE weight in the target article? Again, such is a content argument. As per WP:Deletion policy, any uninvolved editor can move a content argument from AfD to the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are right user:Unscintillating , thank you user:Unscintillating --ColeB34 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all these to some kind of list article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Aoba47 reply: Lawrence Kirbridge isn't an "one, two or three-episode character". Lawrence Kirbridge appears in The Key of the Door, For Love of Love, The New Man (Upstairs, Downstairs), A Pair of Exiles, Married Love (Upstairs, Downstairs), Whom God Hath Joined..., Out of the Everywhere (Upstairs, Downstairs). (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Thank you --ColeB34 (talk)

@ColeB34: Rather tha copying-and-pasting the same reason over and over again, I would recommend devoting your attention to finding third-party, reliable sources to prove that these characters have notability outside of the show. I believe that the reason that these articles are nominated for deletion is that there is the lack of evidence that these characters have enough notability outside of the show to warrant an article. My delete vote stands, and I am not convinced by your argument. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 27 November 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. Maybe also redirect, but that's for subsequent discussions to determine. This is indeed a deletion request, not a content dispute, so "wrong forum" arguments make no sense. Sandstein 19:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Cartwright[edit]

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

Character in one episode of the series only. Lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability outside the TV show where she appeared.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Lady Cynthia. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ Josh Milburn Reply: List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Lady Cynthia doesn't exist any more. There were errors, sorry. Please see the image in Cynthia Cartwright (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Images aren't allowed in List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Please save the article Cynthia Cartwright (Upstairs, Downstairs character) and the image of Jessica Benton as Cynthia Cartwright (Upstairs, Downstairs character). --ColeB34 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge to Jessica Benton. This article's sources are miniscule in numbers but the few listed, provide a substantial enough amount of context to her notability. JenniferLance7 (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JenniferLance7 Reply: Images in the article Jessica Benton are not allowed. Please see the image in Cynthia Cartwright (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Images aren't allowed in Jessica Benton. Please save the article Cynthia Cartwright (Upstairs, Downstairs character) and the image of Jessica Benton as Cynthia Cartwright (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou Reply: Please also see: Richard Marson, "Inside UpDown - The Story of Upstairs, Downstairs", Kaleidoscope Publishing, 2005. Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum As per our WP:Deletion policy, content disputes such as this one belong elsewhere than AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you are right user:Unscintillating --ColeB34 (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is this a content dispute? Josh Milburn (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the merge comments themselves acknowledge this is not independently notable or convincing, hence it should not be kept, and I concur since the current article is literally only a few sentences about a TV character, nothing significant beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
reply to user:SwisterTwister : you are wrong user:SwisterTwister--ColeB34 (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not helpful. If you're going to say someone is wrong, explain why. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact that a non-free image would have to be deleted if this was merged is a terrible argument against merging. If the subject isn't notable, a merge is appropriate, and if that means deleting an image, so be it. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons behind that issue remain unclear, and whether or not that argument would stand, the issue is a content issue, for which WP:Deletion policy says that an uninvolved editor should move the discussion to the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom and above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Hotels in Australia[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and mirrored from http://www.royalhotel.net.au - self published page WP:OR. Topic with a very small audience. Ajf773 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, trivia. Then there will be List of Railway Hotels, List of Bridge Hotels etc. WWGB (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Big WP:DIRECTORY violation and not a chain; if we don't have this for Travelodge we shouldn't have it for a group of hotels only related by having the same name and containing rooms with beds (well, I hope on the last one at least). Nate • (chatter) 05:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all of the reasons above but... looking at Royal Hotel (a disambiguation page), I was very surprised that out of this very long list of hotels, only one (Royal Hotel, Maryborough) appears to be the subject of its own article. I would think many more of these hotels would have long histories, so this list could provide a good launching block for the folks at the Australian Wikiproject and the respective state projects to find individual hotels worth creating articles about. I wonder if there is a place, e.g. the Aus wikiproject space, where the list can be moved and examined for article candidates. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't have any problem with the dab Royal Hotel as a rule only entries with articles should appear on them.Ajf773 (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear. I meant to say that, of this long list of hotels, I was surprised that there was only one link to an article on a hotel. The rest of the links are to the suburbs/towns that the various hotels are in. So I had a look at the dab page, expecting to see many articles on hotels in Australia, but was surprised that there was just the same single article. Of course they should only appear on the dab page after an article has been created. I was just expecting there to be more already. Therefore, this list may be useful for people looking for articles to create. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising and there would be no hopes at all for actual improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Transwiki to Wikivoyage! https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page Michael Ten (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blogmint[edit]

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

Not only have searches simply found published-republished PR advertising, we have established as is that Indian news publications literally have a "pay-for" news therefore cannot be taken confidently as actual news, especially when such publications will sometimes literally list something suggesting it was republished company advertising; in this case, I'm literally finding only links that advertise the company and that's not surprising considering that's exactly what we have here listed, only contents that ever care to advertise what the company itself would say about itself.

Perhaps the worst damning part is the founder himself started an advertising-only account for this article and there's been nothing else since then, aside from some apparent IPs who were, what the contents suggest, company employees. There's literally nothing else to suggest since this all summarizes it, only perhaps the fact the founder also used his account to advertise another past company of his. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Standard PR spam. Spamblog sources. Disappointed that they left out "Funding rounds" and a detailed biography of the CEO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jergling (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO South Nashua (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the only apparent output of this company is press releases. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
″Keep″. Hi.. I am an employee of the company. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia which is supposed to be informative and exhaustive. What's wrong if the company employees have created this page? Is it informative - YES. Is it promotional - NO. Then why are you creating a ruckus over this? Am extremely disappointed by the person who marked it for deletion. He/She has blatantly said that Indian media is paid.. please note that majority of the links are from India's top business houses - Economic Times, Business Standard, The Hindu and these journalists meet the founders of the companies before printing stuffs. So, let's not be biased just coz it's Indian firm. Please google blogmint on your own and judge if others are talking about it or not.

Blogmint is leading Asia-based influencer marketing firm amongst the top 3 in at least two countries - India and Indonesia. Here's a link to a leading US based marketing research firm. Please see that Blogmint is listed amongst the top 50 platforms globally - https://lighthouse3.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-influencer-technology-and-trends-for-2017/. If that's no enough, Amazon owned alexa.com shows Blogmint website ranked at number 22,000 globally & in top 2,000 in India.

Finally, if you feel adding information on the founder helps.. please let us know and we will add it. It wasn't added coz it would be classified as promotional. Also, please feel free to remove anything that you feel is promotional. However, don't point finger that it's a fake company as then you are defeating the genesis of Wikipedia - a global open encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.142.229 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! While we very much appreciate your input and perspective, you should know that there are a number of guidelines that we use in order to judge as to whether or not an article is kept or deleted. Just speaking in regards to the articles for deletion process (where you're at right now), we typically use Wikipedia's verifiability policy and notability guidelines. Specifically, in this discussion here, we would cite and use Wikipedia's notability guidelines on organizations and companies to make a determination based off of what the community deems notable (minus other relevant guidelines as necessary, of course). I understand that you're new and that you really want to have an article on Wikipedia about the company you work for, but this process and the decisions made with the articles that go through this process - are made in reflection of these policies and guidelines. If you have any questions, please feel free to message me on my talk page by clicking here. Again, I welcome you to Wikipedia and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have - just follow the link if you need any help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It seems to be TOOSOON for this company. Contrary to claim made in article that it was founded in 2013, this article confirms that it was founded in January 2015.

Unrelated comment: I've stopped reading nomination rationale these days as they at times seem to be waste of time and totally unhelpful given the copy-paste nature. Please stop generalising and write subject-specific rationale and keep it as short and precise as possible. Anup [Talk] 00:27, 21 November 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 16:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Propeller[edit]

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

This Page Is Referring To An Album By An Artist That Does Not Have A Page On Wikipedia. Evan Daniel Collett 04:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Unvalid reason "An Album By An Artist That Does Not Have A Page On Wikipedia" is not a reason to delete the page. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Technically it's an invalid reason and technically this should be closed as Speedy Keep ... however the article is a song and the songs artist doesn't have an article, Plus there's no sources in the article and there's nothing online so we may aswell get rid of it. –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I have speedied A9, since there's basically no actual notability if no artist page, even though there's currently 1 review, but that's not nearly enough. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the CSD as it's rather late (and pointless) adding it now, May aswell let the AFD run its course. –Davey2010^Talk 01:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August Leskinen[edit]

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

A:7 Unremarkable Person; This Page Is Too Short, Is Lacking Any General Point, Is Lacking Information, Is Unsourced, Uncited, And Unremarkable. Evan Daniel Collett 04:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete Non-noteable government employee. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro
Keep passes WP:NPOL, as he was a member of the Parliament of Finland in 1919. The party he represented in 1919 won the most seats too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, members of parliament are notable. --bonadea contributions talk 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Nom apparently unaware that members of national legislatures are notable by definition under WP:NPOL. (These arcane rules are useful, but confuse the unfamiliar.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of national parliaments are default notable per our guidelines on politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Chigga[edit]

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

A:7 Unremarkable Person(s) Or Band. Evan Daniel Collett 04:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete The subjects music has been reviewed by well-known artists in a YouTube video that has been viewed over five million times. It may be WP:Too Soon but I think the subject needs a bit more scrutiny than a simply A7. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets criteria #2 of WP:NMUSIC by having a chart hit.^[1] Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Rich Chigga". Billboard Charts. Retrieved 15 November 2016.

Keep -- In addition to NMUSIC, there's a very good GNG case, too: Time Magazine, Complex, Fader, XXL, Daily Dot, The New York Observer, Jakarta Post, etc. etc. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreeing with Innisfree987. Also his song "Dat Stick" charted which meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Agreeing with JustDoItFettyg and Innisfree987. JayPe (talk) 02:16 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep- Agreeing with all supporters. Xboxmanwar (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Lucas (footballer, born 1921)[edit]

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

This Page Is Lacking Too Much Information And In My Opinion Needs To Be Revised Or Deleted. Evan Daniel Collett 04:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

strong keep: meets notability of WP:NAFL; just because there isn't a lot of information, doesn't mean he lacks notability. Flickerd (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAFL and as Flickerd said an article being a stub isn't a reason for deletion. Jevansen (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep no valid deletion rationale has been presented by the nom, and I suggest they read the relevant notability guides before making anymore AFDs. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets WP:NAFL and invalid rationale for deletion. Let's close this now. Smartyllama (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Keep I Made A Mistake, I Should Have Tagged The Article And Stated That It Needs More Information Rather Than Nominating For Deletion Evan Daniel Collett 16:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Close Discussion? Can We Have An Admin Close This Or Is More Discussion Needed? Evan Daniel Collett 16:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

If you stop edit conflicting with me, sure! ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 15 November 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. No clear agreement on the subjective question of whether the sources provided demonstrate notability, or just another run-of-the-mill company. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toptal[edit]

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

Advertising for a company whose actions and job environment of course involve such PR advertising, and it is a fact regardless of what publication name is listed in this article, and that's because even these publications themselves only either published the company's own PR in those articles, or simply casually mention them (the latter fittingly applies to the WallStreetJournal, which is apparently about the subject of financing and technology itself, and only casually mentions this company). Something else to note is the apparent fact this was accepted from AfC while there was literally paid advertising-only accounts involved, it first started with one account (still last active in April) followed by a few newere accounts who also then started adding advertising, that is self-explanatory.

Before anyone suggests sources, note how even this one search found everything there is to know: Sources either consisted of published-republished PR, interviews, first-person company words such as "The company says", "The company's founder says", etc. Even then, the major publications listed in the link above are then also only publishing the company's own PR and it even notes it by either saying "Information supplied by the company" or "Here's a repeat of what the company's website says". Finally, the sheer fact this article only cares to emphasize "What the company's clients are" or "Who is helping finance and support this company" is damning enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (obvious PR refs are used) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a whole lot of PR in the article, for sure. But there's a number of articles that I believe meet the criteria. This TechCrunch article by the editor-at-large does not use extensive quotes from Toptal and therefore meets the criteria in WP:RS. Also the Bloomberg story appears to be independent and does not rely on quotes from Toptal. I took a quick look through the other references and IMHO the rest of the references fail as either being primary sources or they are not independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge SkillBridge into it. Hard to tell if these are more than just "two kids and an app". Clearly about 90% of the article is promotional and needs to go, at any rate. The bit of material that is non-promotion is not sourced. I can also see a delete has some grounds, and then perhaps try another one later minus the obvious PR if the company stands the test of time. Borderline on the reliable independent sources. W Nowicki (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the asserted two reliable source for notability , the bloomberg article is a a few mentions in a long general article; the Telecrunch article is usable, but it is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam with sections on "Description, "News" etc. This material belongs on the company's web site, not in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten to remove promotional tone but the topic does appear to be notable. There are numerous independent references available such as this Huffington post interview with a female coder in Nepal, or this article about Toptal providing talent to develop an app for the Cleveland Cavaliers, or the Chicago Tribune interview with a freelance coder, or this interview with Evil Angel using Toptal. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and strip obvious PR. Clearly, there is too much praise on the company and the sources are weak. In the other side googling shows quite a few stories about people liking the nomad style of living and being successful on this with Toptal, so it's not that this is all fake. I would volunteer to clean it up, although will retain from any action to give everybody a fair chance to vote. --Pkuczynski (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed news about how people love the company and they use it is not in fact what makes notability here and we shouldn't mistake otherwise. Especially since such materials would only serve and hint as advertising and this alone, the next thing is that we would need caution from which websites, since the majority of them are either publishing first-hand or secondhand advertising, regardless of publication. Also, having said this, it therefore acknowledges the concerns and damns the article given it's existing only for advertising, we would never compromise with that. Also, as the Delete votes notr above, the sources (even the oned listed here above) are literally then only published and republished interviews and advertisements, therefore not showing this is all that exists, but it shows improvements would not in fact genuinely exist (nomination as it is began with: all sources found and existing are PR, case closed). SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that article in the current form should be deleted. But the company does exist�. They do run a legitimate business and I heard about them in many of software engineering networks. That's why I am voting for keep and rewrite, removing all the crap and leaving only neutral and well confirmed information. Pkuczynski (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point made that the materials "hint at advertising" could be made about *any* publication that talks positively about a company/product. The interviews are published in reliable sources and appear to be independent and therefore those sources appear to meet the criteria to establish notability. This criteria for deletion does state that an article may be deleted for Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content and I'm assuming this is the main reason for nominating this article for deletion so if Pkuczynski is happy to attempt to address those concerns, I say go for it! -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copytedit chainsaw engaged: I've made a start at cutting out a lot of unnecessary puffery that adds nothing to the encyclopedic content. Please feel free to continue the job. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tightened up the sourcing and content, and removed additional non-notable info. Timtempleton (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Sorry guys: the cleanup has indeed been massive, but what's left behind in a WP:MILL business with a very minor "controversy" attached to it. Still reads like a startup blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article isn't great. But the problem has moved. It no longer meets the criteria in WP:DEL4 for deletion (or any of the other criteria) and has sufficient references to establish notability according to WP:CORPDEPTH. So what reason is left to delete? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source. I missed in the existing sources that there was a co-founder. Info missing now is a more detailed synthesis of the virtual office situation, which is actually covered pretty well in the article I just added.Timtempleton (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources for WP:CORP notability, and the attention to the topic is WP:SUSTAINED. As per WP:5P3, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute." Unscintillating (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:CORP means nothing when this is a such blatant advertisement that WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, which are both policy, then apply, especially the fact the listed sources are literally only published and republished company-supplied information, regardless of publication name, because all that matters is the information, and so if the information is still PR, it means nothing. Once we start compromising about accepting such blatant advertising when it only damages us as an encyclopedia, we're damned.

For example, before anyone asks, this is when the article was first nominated and this is it now, literally the sources are all still there with PR, regardless of anything about them, and the controversy section is trivial, especially compared to the still existing focus of company PR. For example, even BusinessInsider is simply advertising facts about the company's own thoughts and actions, none of that is substance let alone independent coverage. Also, lastly, when it shows the sheer blatancy that the PR was still eminent in the article, it genuinely shows there's nothing actually at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, without digging too far into each site's business model, they seem to all be WP:RS and not PR. Can you specify which ones concern you, and I'll look them up in more detail? Thx. Timtempleton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechCrunch is notorious for simply republishing and piecing together company-supplied information for their own "articles" (and they will in fact will always specify, by either "Information by company website" or "see their website for this information") thus not a convincing source, as the same can be said for MarketWatch which is simply compiled financials and listings; next, HuffPost is clearly another listing with only company-iniatef and supplied information. Inc.com is another publication known for focusing with "not yet notable" companies hence their "Companies to Watch" lists. Simply none of this is genuinely substance, regardless of anything because it's the contents that matter and these noticeably emphasize PR advertising.

Nothing can suggest better than policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT which are in fact applicable here, hence suitable for article removal. SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to techcrunch.com's home page [[27]] and don't see any pr - just stories about Jill Stein's recount efforts, Salesforce as a pipeline for SaaS startup executives, Japan creating a deep learning supercomputer and Peter Thiel tapping someone from his fund to help with Trump's transition team. All notable stories. You can't say that the articles on the site for subjects you oppose are fluff, and the others are not - that's confirmation bias. Also, I've worked for tech companies, and know that press releases are issued specifically to get press coverage - anyone can post something to business wire or market wire, but not every piece issued by a company is chosen as the basis of an independent article. So even seeing articles that are similar to press releases doesn't disqualify them. Our careful distillation of the info into articles while ensuring that we've keep a neutral tone should eliminate any promotionalism - as I feel we have done here. I can't possibly claim that my efforts to create or save articles in any way match the volume of work you do to delete articles, but my instinct is usually pretty good, and I stand behind the defenses of the occasional articles I do try to save. As we stand now, there's no clear consensus, so as is usually done in such cases, hopefully someone will close this discussion.Timtempleton (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In cases like this, where the number or quality of sources is unclear, it's sometimes useful to ask: is WP more complete for having the article? Does it tell us something about the world? The answer here is a resounding "No." Just another tech company among countless others. Matt Deres (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this article meets notability requirements in WP:CORP and has received WP:SIGCOV in multiple sources that are undisputedly significant. Icebob99 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP are not significant compared to policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, both of which have been cited here specifically. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been significantly edited since the AfD was filed and the spam and promotional content deleted to meet the requirements of policy and WP:NOT (WP:SPAM is a guideline not a policy). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically listed my comparisons above about how the article has still consistently stayed the same, keeping the same PR tones and information. WP:NOT is one of the highest policies we can get and use to remove any article, regardless of anything, that and WP:IAR. SwisterTwister talk 00:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT was not listed in the nomination. Nor was WP:IAR. Nor was any WP:DEL-REASON. The nomination cast aspersions ("literally paid advertising-only accounts") on content contributors without providing evidence. Do you have evidence of WP:NOT problems? Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In SwisterTwister's defense, I can see the earlier draft that was deleted and it's not hard to tell which editors' body of work is limited to this article and a small handful of others. We can assume good faith, but nonetheless, the original article was chainsawed by HighKing (literally just as I was going to do the exact same thing) and I made some minor tweaks afterwards. If the original posters have a conflict of interest, and they had disclosed it, I think this article would have gone ahead very much like it is now.Timtempleton (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No longer promotional and meets inclusion guidelines (sources etc.). Hobit (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - I seem to be misunderstood since when I said above about the comparisons, I was exactly talking about the said changes above, and how it's still not enough. Regardless of the changes, it's still violating WP:NOT (policy) since this is still a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked elsewhere, but could you specify what exact part of WP:NOT you feel this violates? Hobit (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Curtis Burn[edit]

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

The article has no sources, nor could I find any relevant information about this person. Fails WP:BIO. JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like the wikiedithon-poor-supervision case. It's great to encourage people to create articles, but of course some will not listen carefully or bother to look at WP:NOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to article on his wife if we can find sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit Media[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Unnotable minor media publisher, WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur with the fact it's all simply advertising and before anyone suggests merging to the other company listed, that itself is listed for deletion and the explanation for deleting both is simply that there's (1) no actual claims of significance to convince an article and (2) it simply exists as an overall advertisement. Therefore there's nothing to suggest saving one or the other, not only because it would not be conceivable, but because they would not sustain themselves as substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Nothing there in terms of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holland & Hart[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. This is a pure promotional puff piece "organization that fosters volunteerism among lawyers, staff, alumni, friends and clients and builds a sense of community by supporting worthy causes across Holland & Hart’s footprint", sourced to its own webpages and few directory listings. I can see no coverage in press (and if someone digs up an article or two in marginal, local press, please remember that we require coverage by non-niche media, and that mentions in passing, such as "John Smith from Foo company said..." do not count). It's WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, put aside the unsurprising state of 2006 AfDs, there's literally nothing here to suggest actual independent substance especially for a genuinely convincing article, especially since everything is literally their own "About Us" section, complete with their own cited sources, I'm honestly not finding better than that, so it basically summarizes itself. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- self-cited corporate spam on an unremarkable law firm. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 19 November 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 15:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syagrus atricolor[edit]

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

There is no such beetle of this Genus and species name. Syagrus is Genus of palm trees. Hmm. What is going on here? Shirt58 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This genus does exist http://insectoid.info/insecta/pterygota/neoptera/holometabola/coleoptera/polyphaga/cucujiformia/chrysomeloidea/chrysomelidae/eumolpinae/syagrus/ Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this violate WP:NO#DICT? This is basically a dictionary entry with a redirect, apparently for no good reason. Is this particular species getting swamped with internet requests and in need of its own page with a redirect? If, for example, it is commonly confused with another species it might justify a one line entry with a redirect to some clarifying information. But the article gives no indication why it should be afforded special consideration in regard to Wiki's stated guidelines. A delete or merge seems the best solution. If you allow this for one species then you have millions more to deal with and for no good reason. So in the absence of any academic necessity it violates WP:NO#DICT in my newbie opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Species are generally considered notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. As such, species very rarely appear at AfD and deletions are often snowclosed after several people cite SPECIESOUTCOMES related rationales. I haven't seen much discussion about the fuzzy edges of notability for species, and this really looks like an edge case. I haven't seen any species come to AfD with as poor an internet presence as this one. The only Google results for "Syagrus atricolor" are related to Wikipedia and Stefano Zoia's chyrosmelidae.it (which is the source cited in the article). Chrysomelidae.it has the disclaimer that it is "under construction and may contain unpublished data in relation to progress in my researches". From chrysomelidae.it, the original description of the species is apparently in Opuscula martialis which I can't view in detail. Nobody has really mentioned this species again since it was first described in 1940, though Stefano Zoia includes it in his work in progress. Given the absence of recent sources accepting the species, I'd guess Zoia will probably end up synonymizing it with another species, but without an explicit statement of synonymy, there's nowhere to redirect. If you dig deep enough into the taxonomic literature, there are thousands of species names that haven't been mentioned again since they were first described. Zoia is digging up some obscure stuff and the question remains whether an unchallenged original description satisfies the assumptions of SPECIESOUTCOMES as well as whether Zoia's work in progress necromancy of obscure names is a reliable source. Plantdrew (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Please let me offer, I believe that's a misapplication of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, and not in the spirit of its meaning. Notice that it says "Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid." From that I wouldn't deduce that simply supplying such info in-and-of-itself justifies an article. What it says to me is, there must be species validation as the BASIS for any article. Is Wiki going to be a taxonomical dictionary for millions of species? (WikiSpecies already) Not trying to sound sarcastic, I'm really asking. Also, I would question the reliability of the source to begin with. Thanks. --J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm generally one of those who point to WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, and I don't see a problem with, eventually, having an article for every species ever recognized. However, just about any other case that has come up so far has had at least a few items of interest connected with the species; this one just seems randomly obscure (and as Plantdrew acutely notes above, may have surfaced from obscurity merely to be reclassified in the near future). As such it really is testing the boundaries of what is , after all, not a binding rule re notability. Rubbish computer, can you maybe comment on what prompted you to create the article in the first place?--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elmidae:, I assumed that a species would be notable enough in itself for an article. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 08:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably good that I'm not that bright, I can ask the dumb questions. If it's notable then why isn't that notable info in the article? It seems reasonable to assume any species would deserve its own article if sufficient information could justify it. If Maurice Pic described this beetle then do his sources provide any interesting or useful information about this species that could go on this page? If I thought I could help with it I would, but a cursory search found nothing to build from, no CC pics or previously written information on this species. If his works have been translated into English maybe they offer something. But in the absence of additional info on the article I don't understand why it exists. But I am new in here and accept I could be very wrong in my opinion.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J. M. Pearson: That's not a dumb question. Pic's book "Opuscula Martialis" isn't available in full text on the internet, and isn't available in most libraries. Without access to it, there's nothing to write beyond the very limited information on Zoia's website. Pic's book hasn't been translated into English, I can guarantee. Even if the book were available, it's likely that it would provide very little useful additional information. Here's an example of the full description of another beetle species (Lema rufohumeralis) described by Pic in the 1940s:

L[ema] rufohumeralis n. sp. Sat latus, niger, elytris ad humeros transverse rufo notatis; thorace breve, paulo strangulato; elytris latis et brevibus, paulo impressis, minute lineato-punctatis. L. 5 m. Brésil - A placer près de excavata Pic.

The Latin could be translated, but it doesn't make a lot of sense without a knowing what the genus as a whole usually looks like; descriptions of species only need to provide information to distinguish them from the other members of the genus. "Colored black with red markings" is the only worthwhile thing I'd take out of the Latin description. The French bits provide slightly more useful information; it's from Brazil and is similar to Lema excavata. This is pretty typical of the level of detail provided in species descriptions for most of taxonomic history (say 1820-1970), and there's no reason to think that the description of Syagrus atricolor would be any more informative if we had access to it. SPECIESOUTCOMES says that the scientific description of a species provides notability, but I think there's an assumption that there will be some ongoing scientific coverage that builds on the bare minimum of information in the description. With the exception of Zoia's website, ongoing coverage for Syagrus atricolor is entirely nonexistent. Plantdrew (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Right, thanks. Maybe I'm too new to be offering an opinion in the first place, I need to be more familiar with things in here before I go shootin' my mouth off. But let me say, there's already a WikiSpecies Directory, is this then the direction -pedia is meant to go? terse entries for every species, including this one with a dubious source? Hopefully I don't sound dumber than I feel, because I'm feeling quite dumb right now. ~~I mean, am I at all making sense? or am I making a complete *&^ of myself?~~ (stricken, don't like my own remark.)--J. M. Pearson (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - One has to wonder, if this is all it takes to satisfy the notability guidelines, a name with a dubious source, then why even have a guideline? Why not just say, "If you find a rock with a name on it, by all means, pin it up." Wouldn't it be better to stick it in a subfamily of the Leaf Beetle article with an asterisk? It can always be linked to credible material later if it can be found, as could any other species listed.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: A reasonable person might think that I seriously jumped the gun here by not first discussing this on the article's talk page, or first discussing this with the editor who started the article. Heck, I think that seriously I jumped the gun here by not first discussing this on the article's talk page, or first discussing this with the editor who started the article. (As for whether I am a reasonable person... well, if I was on Maury, I'd be quite worried that the DNA tests would prove that, in the matter of Syagrus atricolor, Shirt58... you... are... not a reasonable person!) Jokes aside, I haven't been able to find any mention of this species on the usual online reliable sources for entomology articles, such as this search of ITIS, and this search of GBIF. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really call GBIF a reliable source. One of their goals is to include any string of characters that has been used to refer to an organism. That includes misspellings and unpublished provisional names from the labels of museum specimens. GBIF is a great resource for determining whether a particular string of characters exists, but isn't so good for determining which scientific name is correct for a given organism. Of course, this makes it all the more troubling that GBIF doesn't include Syagrus atricolor. Plantdrew (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this really is a ~~Weak Keep~~ because all species are notable, then it's the weakest imaginable, given that we barely know it's actually a species at all. But I guess it can become a redirect if Pic and co eventually decide it isn't one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm all for WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES conclusions, and I've been known to bail terrible species sub-stubs out of AFD myself. However, in this case, it doesn't make the bar. Literally, without exaggeration, the only place this species has been listed in the published literature is in Pic's original description in the 1940 special issue of Opuscula martialis. That's made more problematic for the project's standards because Pic published the periodical in question; he described this (and a lot of other) beetles in his own journal. As noted above, a lot of Pic's descriptions are, um, sparse, and don't really serve to describe species sufficiently for modern taxonomy (bonus complication: a lot of these beetles are sexually dimorphic). Outside of that original publication (and Wikipedia mirrors), the only place poor Syagrus atricolor gets mentioned is at the cited website. But that's probably not an acceptable source for this for the project either. Stefano Zoia is unquestionably an expert in the field, but that website's listing of species is basically an online version of his in-progress research notes as he attempts a comprehensive revision of the relevant taxonomy; at this point, it's a self-published source. It's not even in super-low inclusion threshold databases like GBIF. If we had an article for Syargus (and we should), I'd have no problem including this on a list of species there (citing Pic), at least until someone publishes something—anything—clarifying the taxonomy. But we don't, and I don't think the available source-and-a-half clear the notability guidelines, WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES or no. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Squeamish Ossifrage is right, this really is a terribly weak candidate. While we correctly have a presumption in favour of keeping species articles, there simply isn't a proper amount of information in the world about this possibly-a-taxon for it to have its own article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 15 November 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. There's longstanding consensus that ambassadors are not inherently notable. Sandstein 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chimango Chirwa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO. the keep votes were far from convincing last AfD as there is no inherent notability in positions held . Those arguing keep would be best served actually showing sources. LibStar (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambassadors are not default notable, so unless people can show sources we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I used to argue that ambassadors should be notable by default, but I have since abandoned that approach, and there is nothing else here to suggest that person passes WP:NBIO. His name can be mentioned on a related list or lists, that's enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An ambassador is the official represent of one nation to another - It's hard for me to see a better argument for eligibility than that! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is no such thing as automatic notability simply because an individual is an ambassador - needs to be supported by evidence that the individual is notable. There is plenty of precedence for the deletion of articles on ambassadors where there is no evidence of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: you haven't actually !voted yet. LibStar (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm not as familiar with African politics as other editors however there are a number of recent news mentions of Chirwa's involvement into fraud investigations involving the Malawi embassy. It appears that Chirwa has strong ties to the President- I don't know if there is enough there to establish notability or not.

[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]

Dan arndt (talk) 01:47, 19 November 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 16:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Mchedlishvili[edit]

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

This player fails the WP:NRU as he has never played for his country in a major international competition and does not play for in a professional rugby union competition. Domdeparis (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU, WP:NATHLETE, WP:BIO, WP:GNG.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:59, 23 November 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 Rich Kids of Beverly Hills. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Wang[edit]

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

The article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the show. Mymis (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Fails WP:NACTOR (requirement of multiple roles). There is the expected celebrity coverage, which does amount to multiple sources, however. I'd suggest merging with the main show's article, or with a List of Rich Kids of Beverly Hills participants or such, since it can be argued she falls into WP:ONEEVENT - she is known for that single minor celebrity role, and that's a bit too little for stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not a Notable person. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity BLP on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 23 November 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 Ladies of London. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annabelle Neilson[edit]

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

The article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the show. Mymis (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's too soon for her to be included in our encyclopedia. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 15 November 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 15:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timberline Knolls Residential Treatment Center[edit]

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

No evidence that this gets close to notability. Sure "celebrities" book in and out of the centre but this all reads like an advertisement. This was a Draft until today when the author dumped it into main space without any review. This should still be a draft IMHO, as it fails WP:GNG and is outright promotional . Almost qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would seem to fail WP:CORP. While the celebrity rehab claims are sourced, that's info more appropriate for a red top tabloid than an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is in keeping with Wikipedia:List of guidelines WP:LGL. The page has notability because it was listed in three separate Wikipedia pages prior to its existence as its own page: "Daily Strength" "Demi Lovato" and "National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders" and garnered factual attention from the cites provided. This article also uses similar verbiage as other treatment centers who list their clientele and does not use the word "celebrity" in order to claim notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickQuad (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— RickQuad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - it was not listed on three separate pages, it has passing mentions as a place where minor celebrities visited , presumably for their own good. The wiki-linking of those mentions was done by the author of the current article, presumambly to avoid it being listed as an orphan. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appear it was included previously on the three separate pages above. Only the Demi Lovato page mentions it as a visited place. Daily Strength and National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders included it on their pages. RickQuad ^{RickQuad Talk}

Delete as clear advertising and nothing else, no one would ever start such an article without such obvious business listing advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 23 November 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. No consensus for a particular action is evident in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Airlines Flight 84[edit]

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

This is not such a straightforward case. This newly-created article is largely an improperly-done copy-and-paste of the content in the Frankie Housley article, complete with old access dates for references, some of which are now dead links. It is also the wrong name (possibly deliberately but in good faith, considering the inexperience of the article's creator), with National Airlines Flight 83 (the correct flight number) existing as a redirect for several years. It seems to me that any notability rests with the flight attendant Frankie Housley and her actions during the aftermath of the crash, rather than the crash itself; and the crash is adequately covered in the article about her. Even if the crash itself is judged to be notable and worth a stand-alone article, I can't help thinking that it is better to start again by expanding from the redirect with new prose and newly-accessed sources than to persist with renaming this article over the top of the redirect and cleaning it up. YSSYguy (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Of course, a commercial airline plane crash that killed seven people and destroyed the plane is notable and deserves an article. Frankie Housley is also notable, and two related articles are appropriate in this case. Every problem identified by the nominator can be fixed easily through normal editing and a move over the redirect to the correct title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why "of course"? If one article adequately covers a subject, why would we have another one about the same subject? YSSYguy (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@YSSYguy: The crash article should have more detail about the causes of the crash, the pilot and co-pilot, other casualties, rescue efforts, the investigation, any safety changes made as a result. The Housely article should have more biographical details about her life.

Comment: WP:ONEEVENT indicates that we should not have two articles on the same subject, a biography Frankie Housley and an event article. Normally in these circumstances, where the person is famous for just one event, we would keep the event article and redirect the bio article to the event. Editors need to think carefully about which of the two articles should be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt: A quote from WP:ONEEVENT: " The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, that is what it does say, but it doesn't apply here. It was a single event that involves the person and the event itself. There is little justification in this case for two articles on the same subject. I say we pick one and redirect the other. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Frankie Housley. While tragic, this is just a news event and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Rpclod (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both the accident and person are notable. It is perfectly reasonable to have articles on both - e.g. Neerja Bhanot / Pan Am Flight 73 and Barbara Jane Harrison / BOAC Flight 712. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The event is notable in its own right, but the person would NOT have been notable without the event. So the event article should lead and the person article should be merged into it with a re-direct!!--Petebutt (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The significant ongoing coverage about this event is about Frankie Housley, not the crash itself; so the article to keep is the one about her. Logic and WP policy mean that the answer is not to move this copy-and-paste with an incorrect name over the existing redirect; but to delete this, clean up/expand the Frankie Housley article and then change the Flight 83 redirects' target to Frankie Housley. Then we have one article covering one event, with the focus correctly on Housley, because it is her that has received the ongoing significant coverage more than fifty years later; the crash itself is only listed in air crash databases. YSSYguy (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 15 November 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. Rlendog (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Hay (ice hockey)[edit]

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

non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY 18abruce (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played 5 games for his national team at senior level. See here. The Banner talk 01:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has actually played 11 games for the New Zealand men's team, but according to consensus at WP:NHOCKEY Division II or III participation is irrelevant.18abruce (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. 18abruce (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As may be, but playing five or five hundred games for the New Zealand national hockey team satisfies no extant notability criteria, NHOCKEY or otherwise. No evidence that this obscure fringe player meets the GNG. Ravenswing 22:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely non-notable and isn't even playing for the highest level on his Tier III Junior United States Premier Hockey League. Also couldn't this have been Speedy delete, it appears to have been created by the player in question according to the edit history? Yosemiter (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made in Malaysia[edit]

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

Obvious WP:NOTDIC as this is basically just a dictionary definition, does not tell the reader any more details than what they already knew. Made in China etc are already full articles, so this is useless from a reader's point of view. This is like the driving in Madagascar case at WP:REDDEAL. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't really an encyclopaedic topic. Made in China for example, has some cultural significance due to the term bring widely used and due to having both a positive and a negative connotation. But Made in Malaysia seems to be a fairly routine description. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Malaysia products doesn't have any significance problem or importance. And "Made in China" does for that matter (examples in the article). NgYShung ^huh? 10:54, 19 November 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. Only SPAs want to keep this, it seems. Sandstein 20:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Milkovics[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

I still don't believe this subject meets the notability guidelines. Most of the sources are not WP:RS in my opinion. Full disclosure this article was previously nominated by me and the result was no consensus. I don't believe it has improved at all. This is a run of the mill businessman with no indication of impacts that warrant a page on Wikipedia. I also think it is worth noting that the editor and the person the article is about are from the Czech Republic yet no entry exist on the Czech language Wikipedia... Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of the page User:Zackmann08 has a personal interest with the person WP:COI, that is clearly obvious, he has tried to block me as the editor, he is deleting all my editing and really keen on deleting the article. Please do check the editing history of the article and you will see he has vandalised, removed my edits, references. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not even worthy of a response. If any admin even remotely agrees with the statement made by Pikipaki2222 above, let me know and I will gladly explain the situation. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About some sources used there: iDnes.cz is important Czech news site (online brother of MF Dnes magazine); Mam.ihned.cz is one of magazines of the Economia company (another big media house in the Czech Republic); DigiZone.cz is owned by Internet Info company which runs also other online sites. These seem to be reliable, others I don´t know. Why there is no article in CZ Wiki? Their PR campaign is probably aimed at English language customers... Pavlor (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'am sorry that I was not able to provide my point of view earlier. Just for who is new to this discussion I would like to provide some background information. I am a very new editor to Wikipedia, and I have started with this article, it was here since quiet sometimes and I thought I could provide more up to date informations. I have no any relation to him or to his company, I am not part of any PR campaign. As Pavlor pointed out above, the sources are legit ones and comply with Wikipedia policies and support the notability of the person. Today later I will add new ones as well I obtained print articles from 15 years ago from the most read newspapers from Hungary, I already uploaded here but Zackamnn08 has deleted them because I wasn't able to add to the article in the right formats, I will try to upload them on the right format later on. I believe the reason is that I haven't created the article in Czech yet is, that the article was here in English, Milkovics is not Czech and his work just partly was done in the Czech Republic (rather in several countries as the sources are showing), and as there is no any requirement to the source be in English, and English is an universal language I thought that the best is to have the article in English first. I believe that to disqualify sources as few did, even if they do not understand the articles, or the market, have no idea of the Czech, Slovak, Finish, etc. markets and its news outlet are rather not reasonable (even in previous discussions few criticised how these websites are look), their feelings or belief are should not be a reason for deletion. The article has 21 sources as of now, and I do know not the number of sources what matters but their quality, I strongly stand for that all of them are complying with Wikipedia polices for sources and support the person's notability. If needed I can go through one by one and prove it, as well that the authors are independent, established journalist. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And now a case of WP:BOMBARDMENT. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No Zackman08 if you would actually check the references rather just try to blindly make your case to delete the articles, all of them are new articles from the previous weeks. I think a new update and new references are helping to have a better, more relevant article here. As well, all of the new references are from reliable sources, I am sure they have not been written in the previous days to WP:BOMBARDMENT the article. Also I was travelling in the last weeks. How many references can be added at one time, please advise? Pikipaki2222 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is not the correct venue for debating who is right or not take it to a talk page or to ANI Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I said nearly 3 months ago as there's still nothing convincing regardless of improvements, because this still suggests it's only existing PR, also I'm not seeing anything to suggest this could then be acceptable soon and this still actually applies, there's literally nothing significant here and we should not think otherwise lest we mistake ourselves. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only facts here that the references are from reliable sources. The rest are assumptions from people who does not know the business or/and the region. 85.255.234.139 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing this thread with amusement how few editors make judgment about things they have no idea or they do not understand. Just to pick few from the references and their authors, the news-outlets already been discussed above.

I coud go on and on. I would not argue for the notability of the person in this article, but somehow well regarded journalists have decided that he is worth enough to write about him and his doings, and far as I can see that is why Wikipedia has its notability guideline based on this criteria and not people's feelings. I believe it would be a mistake to think that all these journalist have bad judgment. 2A00:1028:8386:496A:E5C5:4B5A:33DC:396E (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above is a WP:SPA with no edits outside of this discussion. Likely WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK of page creator. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zackmann08: Probably true. However, they are right there are at least some RS about subject of this article. How many sources are needed to keep this one? As I wrote above, idnes.cz and ihned.cz are portals of big Czech media houses, good enough sources (in general terms), I think. Pavlor (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Pavlor: the number of sources is not relevant. Read WP:BOMBARDMENT. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Zackmann08: Of course. That is why I mentioned my view about both idnes.cz and ihned.cz web pages. Aren´t such sources sufficient? Pavlor (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Zackmann08: I really thought that I will try to stay away from this until it resolved, but Zackman08 you should really have to have some deep issues with this person as you are only trying to discredit everyone who is not agreeing with you, claiming that they are biased (or they are doing things in my behalf), but you couldn't do anything with their arguments. It seems to me everyone is in a big conspiracy (including the journalists and the papers) against you. I didn't asked anyone to comment here on my behalf because I believe that I did enough to save the article with my arguments. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Pikipaki2222: say what you will but you have already been blocked once before for WP:SOCK. You attempted to cast WP:ASPERSIONS against me by reporting me as a Long-term abuseer but were basically laughed at by admins when you didn't provide a single shred of evidence. You're sole purpose on wikipedia is this page. You also seem convinced that my sole purpose is deleting it. If you bothered to look at my contributions you would realize that is false. Get over yourself and realize you aren't that important for me to take the time to attack you or the page you created. Try actually contributing to building a wiki. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for you to promote people. I've had it with your rude and baseless comments towards me. Until you start editing constructively I will not respond to any more comments from you. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Zackmann08: Again no argument, just your beliefs, you cannot and you never evaluated any of the references, or the authors or anything relevant (as anyone can see from your contributions from this article). You just put maintenance tags all over to the article, you are in your own word are rude with beginners, and you are probably angry. Yes I looked for help from administrators, because even you say that I am not that important for you, you invest a lot to discredit me and to absolutely discourage me of editing now from more than 4 months. I am contacting, as Wikipedia advises, for the help of experienced editors to improve my future edits with this article (and upcoming ones) if I will get the chance to continue as well to be protected people like you. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sorry, but notability cannot be inherited. I gave a thorough evaluation of the sources in the last AfD. Every single source only mentions the subject in context of a decision/product launch by the company. Others are interviews which are primary sources and even these interviews are all in context of the company - they ask stuff about the company which makes the company notable, not the subject. There is nothing to show that the subject themself is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment @Lemongirl942: my point (with the Czech dealings of his) is exactly that he has created (he is the founder and CEO) a notable company, if that would not make him notable then following your thoughts Steve Jobs, Bill Gates would not be a notable person as well only their companies. Pikipaki2222 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Pikipaki2222: Well, there are entire books about Steve Jobs or Bill Gates... These two really aren´t comparable to the subject of this article - whose notability is borderline at best. Pavlor (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Pavlor: Of course I would not compare him to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, absolutely not! I only was referring to the argument (namely that the company is notable but not the person who has made it notable). And he is complying with Wikipedia notability guideline (quality of references) even if someone feel not in the same way . Pikipaki2222 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on SPAs I noticed that there are a multiple !votes by SPAs. I had seen this in the previous AfD as well. The SPA activity here suspiciously points to a campaign to promote the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everything listed here is simply trivial and unconvincing, nothing actually establishing his own convincing and acceptable article, and the sources then match this hence simply nothing genuine for an article here. I must say, I also have to believe there's some paid advertising motivations here given the fact the maintenance tags have been removed with no considerations or improvements, and then the history overall simply consists of questionability. Simply because there was a business connection to someone else or there was attention for it is an automatic inherited notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 24 November 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. Most "keep" opinions boil down to "renominating this is abusive". Not so; the last AfD had a "no consensus" outcome, so a renomination is quite unproblematic. Accordingly, these "keep" opinions are accorded little weight. Sandstein 20:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanClap[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

So far nothing to add on this Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Everytime being saved by citing GNC or vote counts. No improvement and No one bother to care about this one.

Most notorious ways of making This Wikipedia Compromised on a highest scale of blatant promotions: Motivations are none other than Paid advertising. Such articles are violating every means possible by misusing GNC and References. Wikipedia is compromised. And can you even cite anything why on earth this article makes an Encyclopedia material. No one bother to know about this company. Not even their own industry I doubt. Only few media references are blatantly misused to create this High promotional material. Only interest is to build SEO, Online reputation and Luring customers or employee in the name of Wikipedia. As per wikipedia Such as this:

A quote from Alastair Sloan, Newsweek "Wikipedia can be cynically manipulated by companies and...the credibility of the website is, especially in the developing world, a powerful and potentially dangerous tool."

This is the ideal and most notorious case for such highest degree of misuse. Light2021 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 02:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy Halloween!) 02:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (3rd nomination) clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. For example, here is coverage from the First Post article:
Roommates at IIT, Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, had always wanted to solve a really big consumer problem in India by leveraging mobile technology. After graduating from IIT, Abhiraj went on to IIM Ahmedabad, while Varun joined Qualcomm as an engineer. Eventually, they both joined the Boston Consulting Group. While in the US, a common friend introduced them to Raghav Chandra, an engineer at Twitter who shared their vision.
After returning to India, the three realised that the industry of local services had seen no innovation for at least a decade, and decided to focus on solving this problem. UrbanClap was launched in November 2014, in a tiny office at Bhikaji Cama Place in South Delhi, offering services in 5 categories and with 100 partners on board.
The organisation grew rapidly as the team grew from 3 to 35 odd members and, by April 2015 UrbanClap raised $1.6 million in the seed round of funding, from SAIF Partners, Accel Partners and the founders of Snapdeal, Kunal Bahl and Rohit Bansal. At the time, the service offering had grown to 46 categories and 2000+ professionals were registered on its platform.
Barely two months later, as UrbanClap expanded to other metropolitan cities in India, the company raised another $10 million, in Series A funding from its existing investors SAIF and Accel Partners.
This discusses UrbanClap's foundation, history, and products in detail.
The article from Entrepreneur notes:
Brainchild of IIT Kanpur alumni Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, UrbanClap claims itself as the India’s largest marketplace for local services. Whether you are looking for a plumber, beautician, a yoga trainer or a wedding photographer, UrbanClap is a one stop destination for all local services.
All you need to do is place your requirements on the UrbanClap app or website and within short span of time platform will bring these professionals to you.
Headquartered in Gurgaon, this startup offers services in more than 75 categories across Delhi NCR, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Chennai and Pune. Today, they serve 5000 customer requests per day, and have built a base of over 20,000 service professionals – who together represent the gold standard for trusted services in India.
Every month, UrbanClap sends them business worth $200 million annually (current run rate) which include Rs 200 from small carpentry jobs, to a large interior designing assignments worth several lakhs.
This provides extensive coverage of UrbanClap's product. WP:CORPDEPTH is clearly met.
I reviewed the current text of the article and do not find it promotional:
UrbanClap is an Indian online service marketplace that connects customers to service professionals. The company was founded in 2014 and is is based out of Gurgaon, India. In December 2015, UrbanClap was servicing 5,000 requests from customers per day, and had a "base of over 20,000 service professionals" who provide labor for UrbanClap's users.
As of 2016, UrbanClap has raised $37 million in funding from Bessemer Venture Partners, Accel Partners, SAIF Partners, Kunal Bahl, Rohit Bansal, and Ratan Tata.
UrbanClap acquired HandyHome, a Mumbai-based after sales service platform in January 2016.
Cunard (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know, how does the Firstpost article contribute towards notability? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (3rd nomination) participants: SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), Safehaven86 (talk · contribs), K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), ChunnuBhai (talk · contribs), Zppix (talk · contribs), Pyrusca (talk · contribs), Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and DaltonCastle (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (3rd nomination) closer: Sandstein (talk · contribs). The AfD nominator disagreed with your 17 October 2016 close of the 3rd AfD at Talk:UrbanClap#Wrong Judgement for clear consensus/ Mislead mere by Equal vote.
Cunard (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same old tactics and references are being used to mislead and building lengthy discusssions with no notability. Sources like Enterpreneur are highly questionable as any one can write about their own startup by themselves. On the other hand One Paragraph about company appear like a profile. and nothing else. ZERO notability for Encyclopedia Material. This is complete non-sense. Created for Their customers gain Online popularity or their Employee or even Investors. Too early to have this article, if in any case it survive. This is blatant degree of misuse citing few references for building Wikipedia articles. As happening these days to compromise all the Wikipedia with such Non-sense .

I highly doubt anyone care about this company or even know about this. Leave the mass popularity, a startup started with few people and now making this page to promote themselves. Where there is nothing to write about this one. What are we building here? One paragraph profile for such companies ?

Light2021 (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as please note to closer these are literally the same sources as offered at the 1st AfD and they are still, as I mentioned there, advertising, see my first AfD for statements and analysis. Nothing here has suggested anything else of actual substance, and it's clear the emphasis of advertising is still in the above sources, given it's all information about the company's locations, offices, company information....simply see Whether you are looking for a plumber, beautician, a yoga trainer or a wedding photographer, UrbanClap is a one stop destination for all local services. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep and close we just did this. Nothing has changed (as the nom and supporters acknowledge). We've got sources that meet WP:N and a neutral article that isn't any form of advertising. For more details, see my comments on the last AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only Survived because of Keep voted. Most insignificant, One Paragraph article written to promote company by every means possible. Ever heard SEO and Online Reputation? that is exactly it is all about. Mere article in Wikipedia is highest promotions for such company. Still nothing to write about this one. ZERO encyclopedia notability. Light2021 (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close Abuse of AfD process to renominate less than a month after a previous discussion. The nomination doesn't even make any sense.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for making Wikipedia Sense: Something from Wikipedia only : "The concept of notability can also be described as a measure of the topic's impact, particularly with biographic articles. Think beyond the mere search for those multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Instead, think like an historian: Why will this topic be remembered? How did it impact the community? What is different now because this happened? How does knowledge about this topic help us to explain the world around us? These notability-proving impacts don't have to be total paradigm shifts in human thought. In short: who cares and why?.

Blatant Misuse of even creating this article in a first place. Only for promotions and nothing else. Wikipedia is compromised with such articles. Light2021 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from

"Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia"

Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing (see WP:SPA).

Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.

Wikipedia is not a vanity site for every person, organization or product that wants to have their own page.

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.[1] If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.

Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid.

Most of the content in an article about an organization should be cited to credible, independent sources that directly support the information in the article, such as scholarly works, books and the media. Per WP:CORP, organizations that have not been covered in-depth by multiple, credible, independent sources do not qualify for a Wikipedia article.

and many more to cite as per Wikipedia. ZERO Encyclopedia notability. No significance. Nothing to write but just one paragraph. What importance does it make here? Light2021 (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read out the Media Coverage, What kind of media cover startups in such a manner

"Roommates at IIT, Varun Khaitan and Abhiraj Bhal, had always wanted to solve a really big consumer problem in India by leveraging mobile technology." - FirstPost
"UrbanClap was launched in November 2014, in a tiny office at Bhikaji Cama Place in South Delhi, offering services in 5 categories and with 100 partners on board"

What are we even discussing here? Company operations and Violations, Misuse and highest degree of Abuse on Wikipedia. Nothing to write about it. You can keep going on reading media coverage. It is filled with such coverage. No media can make such coverage or story for such a new insignificant startup, not even known in a smallest community. Light2021 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Reads like a Company Profile. No where it is known Why on earth this makes and Impact on our society for being notable " UrbanClap is an Indian online service marketplace that connects customers to service professionals. The company was founded in 2014 and is is based out of Gurgaon, India. In December 2015, UrbanClap was servicing 5,000 requests from customers per day, and had a "base of over 20,000 service professionals" who provide labor for UrbanClap's users."

As of 2016, UrbanClap has raised $37 million in funding from Bessemer Venture Partners, Accel Partners, SAIF Partners, Kunal Bahl, Rohit Bansal, and Ratan Tata. Light2021 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC) UrbanClap acquired HandyHome, a Mumbai-based after sales service platform in January 2016.[reply]

Delete -- my comments from the previous AfD still stand: "While the article does not have an obvious "promo vibe" to it, in this revised form it offers no indications of why this company is notable or significant. This is essentially A7 material, a brief corporate blurb. The sources offered (entrepreneur.com, Gadgets Now and Times of India), while secondary, are not reliable for establishing notability. Thus, the article still falls under WP:NOT a promo, as the sole purpose of this article to exist is to promote the company. There's definitely no value to the general reader; it's simply a WP:DIRECTORY listing among other unremarkable companies."

I would also add, that for a non notable entity to have a Wiki article is WP:PROMO in on itself. As this is simply "catalog" material, the sole purpose for the article to exist is to promote the business, as it provides no value to the reader. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a previous deletion nomination was made for this page only two weeks ago. It's disruptive to renominate after such a short time. It's a waste of the community's time. There's no reason to believe consensus will have shifted in two weeks time. The correct course of action in this situation is to open a deletion review. It's not appropriate to renominate articles until you get the result you want. Wait a few months instead, or better yet, open a deletion review. In the mean time, this discussion should be speedily closed so as not to encourage this type of behavior. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

even you put your efforts writing more about this one. How far did you go? Few investment mention and One Paragraph. This is A7 Matrial with Speedy deletions now. High degree of blatant promotions. There is no change, and not even improve in article. and not it will be. Waste of renominating again where such Spam should be speedy deleted. Light2021 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been reminded on numerous occasions, articles cannot be speedily deleted if they've survived a prior AFD discussion. Urbanclap has survived three. So yeah. Not going to happen. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and reads like a press release; WP:Promo and WP:Corp apply. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Superficial referenciness is provided solely by churnalism. There's nothing substantive in the way of actual independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Four AFDs in last 6-months (two in last 14 days) is definitely disruptive and abuse of the afd process. Nothing has changed since last discussion (neither the nomination rationale nor the arguments). Consensus is very unlikely to change in such a short span of time. CLOSE. Anup [Talk] 23:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on not changing anything. This article has become a Paragraph. you can ask yourself one Good question. On what ground this 1 Paragraph article written like a Business Profile in Bloomberg makes it Encyclopedia material. And where there is seriously nothing to write about this one from collective news coverage. High degree of promotions. Proof 4th Time we need to think this as corporate spam (from other as well). TooSoon is applied on this one. Why so hurry to writing this article. Let the company grow into something significant. Wikipedia has no deadline. Right now it is Blatant Promotion building SEO and Online reputation and nothing else. That is what changed in this time. Light2021 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Clear abuse of the AFD process - Nominating 3 weeks after the 3rd AFD closing is as disruptive as it gets!, That aside Google brings up tons of sources, Granted not all would be reliable sources however most are, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:not so; the last close was "No consensus" A no-consensus close can be relisted at any time, though it is advised not to relist immediately because there is more hope of getting consensus after an interval. ) a month is generally considered a suitable time. The relist was not abusive , but the proper thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 13:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can immediately be renominated if the previous AFD had little to no participation however if the last AFD had alot of participation then they shouldn't be renominated so quickly, 3-5 months is more or less considered fine however 3 weeks generally isn't. –Davey2010^Talk 13:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are mere "Bad Faith" and personal. As you have done previously or in ANI. Your Speedy Keep is just one of them on this one (1 Paragraph with zero notability). Even you can give lecture on things as if you know it all. Please consider the Senior Admins for that matter if not me. They have expertise and experience unlike your or me. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments aren't bad faith at all, With the greatest of respect I've been at AFD for the past 3-4 years so I can safely say I know alot more than you, We're all knowledgeable as each other - Being an admin doesn't mean you're an expert so to speak, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELAFD, part of the Deletion policy page, states: Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting one paramount principle of Wikipedia, just citing from Wikipedia:The rules are principles and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - "Rules cannot cover every possible circumstance and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia". On specific note to this article DGG stated below (as being senior and experienced Admin) very clearly. All these nominations were not in best interest. I agree with him. or One Important question for you as well as you also being an Admin :" Do you by any means think this article is worth keeping?" Thanks.Light2021 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.As for the merits: no newspaper story about a small business in an Indian journal can be treated as a reliable source for notability--they are basically entirely promotional, to the extent Iwould hesitate to call them even advertorials. The prooof of this is incomparing the material to the companies own admitted press releases and websites, for the say the same thing. I would really like to have some reliable sources in the fields of business and entertainment available fro that area, so we could write decent articles for the companies that are worth it.Of the previous afds for this article: The first was closed without explanation as keep when there were equal arguments on each side. The second was closed as speedy keep when nobody except the nom. showed up. That is not how we close in such cases--it should have been a nonconsensus. Tje fird was closed non-consensus. Do we have what should have a series of co nonconsensus closes. It is time to decide whether the prupose of wikipedia is to be a business directory or an encyclopedia. (After all, we decided way back at the beginning, when we adopted the fundamental policy WP:NOT, & it's time we stopped ignoring it.) DGG ( talk ) 13:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right. And the subject-specific notability guidelines are a big part of the problem her, in that they are perfectly crafted for building a directory and entirely divorced from actual sourcing or indeed sourceability. I suspect this actually goes back to the School Wars, where it was decided by default that senior schools are "inherently notable". Guy (Help!) 14:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as you may remember, that was in large part my proposal, but it was a proposal for a compromise based on the need to avoid the dozens of daily discussion of senior and elementary schools. It was based on purely practical considerations as an empiric way of deciding, not any principle I would call notability . I support similar compromises elsewhere, and if we had one on companies, it would eliminate about 1/4 of the AfD workload. I don't know how to construct one for websites. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it well, and as a solution to endless drama it worked excellently. It did not fix the problem of a cadre of editors who thought that completeness of coverage took precedence over actual sourcing, and that was my point. That's where the rot set in. It's just about acceptable for schools. Even if football match reports in local papers are a lousy basis for an article on an institution, nobody really gains or loses by inclusion. Once you get to commercial entities the game is different, and the variation in significance between companies is also probably greater than tat between schools (mine was over a thousand years old and educated a Pope and a Lucasian professor of Mathematics, I like to think that puts it at the upper end). Schools don't pay PR agencies to place football reports, companies pay them to place press releases. Churnalism is a real problem for Wikipedia as a large number of mentions used to establish notability genuinely are simply press releases. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close-Abuse of AfD process to renominate a particular article successively.I don't belive the general consensus swings so fast. The nomination looks hollow- the rhetoric appeals a lot but speaks lot less.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clear abuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. First make a wikipedia article, then use it for SEO. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-promotion of a non-notable company. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability. Times of India, Economic Times, and Business Standard are notorious PR blogspam hosts used by startups. Note the spinoff domains and non-staff editors, as well as the promotional tone. These are not independent sources, they don't talk about something the company has actually done besides simply existing. Even if they weren't paid PR, they do nothing to establish notability, since existing is not a free pass for GNG. Note to closer - Be very careful about how you weight these responses, given the general lack of familiarity with the surreptitious PR work. Jergling (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a good look at the sources and I'm sorry, but they do not satisfy WP:CORPIND. For example, the Firstpost source is entirely written by the co-founder. And yet, we have people quoting it for notability (This points to a greater problem here - editors do not inspect the source. They just look at a source and think it is OK. I find this pretty bad because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we are supposed to hold stuff to an academic standard here. We definitely need to be sceptic about sources and analyse them carefully.) The sources in Times of India/Economic Times (all part of the same media group) are not useful either - they are either interviews of the founders or routine news about the company mergers/finances. The Hindu businessline source is a very brief coverage with stuff like Those who wish to avail themselves of this service can log on to the app, place a request for Save Water Mumbai, and they will be visited by trained plumbers from UrbanClap who will fix the leaking taps. The activity will run for a week, until Friday, April 22nd. - like someone didn't even bother to redress the press release. There is nothing here which substantially focuses on the company and explains why it is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 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] "Rich Chigga". Billboard Charts. Retrieved 15 November 2016.

[1]