Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 November 17 November >

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 no consensus. Although strongly leaning toward Keep Joyous! | Talk 01:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Chambers (pilot)[edit]

Elizabeth Chambers (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The only reliable secondary source in the whole article seems to be this one from the National Archives. There rest of the article is passing mentions and Find-a-Grave. This person was certainly a very accomplished pilot, but her notability is not obvious. She didn't appear to break any records, or write a book, or do any of those other things that make people notable on Wikipedia. Add to that the paucity of secondary sources and this article doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel terrible about this AFD because it appears to have been created during a recent Wikipedia:Meetup/National Archives Gender Equality Edit-a-Thon, and because the creator is a relatively new editor who appears to have created only two previous articles, both similar to this. One of which was deleted and the other of which is, apparently rightly, tagged for notability. This feels tragic, since she cannot possible be personally related to all three of the female veterans she has created articles for. Something must be wrong with our Edit-a-thon system or the guidance we provide to new editors, for a new(ish) editor acting in such obvious good faith to have created articles without reliable, secondary sourcing. Still, I have to say delete, because I searched and can find no secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has more than enough citations that establish notability. In addition to the NARA article there are articles about her in the military press of the time. There is archival material from the National Archives as well as from THE repository on WASP pilots, Texas Woman's University, as well. Additionally this WASP program was highly competitive and I believe very few people made it into the program, much less passed through training, which is illustrated by the actual statistics that were gathered from TWU archival sources. I have to wonder if it is a lack of clicking through these digitized resources and also a basic lack of understanding of the WASP program where often these women died in the jobs and then because they were wrongly classified as citizens, did not even get proper burial funding, much less recognition. Elizabeth Chambers is not related to anyone working on this page. She was selected because shortly after losing her pilot husband to a tragic flying accident, and with a young baby, she had the guts to become a pilot herself and serve in a dangerous unit. Also, her son was in a HUGELY popular movie at the time called Heaven Can Wait. That is also notable. I believe strongly that the review of notability here is unfair and is not warranted, is unnecessarily rigorous. Finally this page was created by an Archivist at the National Archives, which both Wikimedia DC and Wikimedia New York City are partnering with to encourage the inclusion of content onto Wikipedia. This AfD request is a very unconstructive precedent for a page with great adequate sources for a stub article. I think the bigger picture should be considered, as well as the fact that the entry is solid. I believe it establishes notability and think the requirements here are way too rigorous. BrillLyle (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I moved the page to my user space to preserve the significant information contained on the page while waiting for NARA to provide further materials. I know this is untypical but I don't want to lose the great work already done. BrillLyle (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An update, I heard back from the NARA archivist and there's a large file of information on Chambers that can be requested from the repository in St. Louis. So I will keep a copy of the page in my name space and when or if that information is accessible (and I have also done a more thorough search on the huge treasure trove of books on WASPs that AREN'T digitized), then I will attempt to fill in the page and hopefully it will pass this very stringent requirement.
That said I am still shocked and dismayed that the criteria for results to solve AfD is a Google Book search and an (I am assuming online) search for biographical information about someone who had a career WAY before the internet. Also since when did NARA and military newspapers become sources that are specious? These are government records that have a lot more legitimacy than many news sources that are allowed. And military newspapers seem just as legit as mainstream newspapers. I guess the implication is that these were puff pieces because there may have been a female audience? I start to then become even more dismayed.
So I continue to not hear great arguments for the deletion of this article. Should ALL of the WASPs be allowed to have pages? Of course not. But this woman was selected as an example by NARA of a notable person to put forward. This woman did all the things I referred to in my prior response. The documentation is there enough for a stub. And what does it really hurt Wikipedia at the end of the day that there is a short stub of an article that is well-researched, has adequate citations, and fills in a picture of a time in the history of the United States that I suspect many people don't know about. I know that researching this woman and the program the WASPs were in was very illustrative and interesting. So yeah, I think this is over-reaching to reject it, but I'll just keep trying until I can pass AfD. At this point I am determined so, yeah, you're warned I am not going to let this die. It might take a few years but it's going to be improved and will pass muster, eventually. BrillLyle (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrillLyle: - Elizabeth Chambers is dead, so she is definitely not going to be doing anything notable in the future. It's also unlikely anyone is suddenly going to unearth something new and notable that hasn't yet been shoehorned into this article. You write, "what does it really hurt Wikipedia at the end of the day". The policy regarding notability was agreed upon by a consensus of editors, and many of us support the integrity of the project. If you don't like Wikipedia's policies, start a discussion to have them changed, or seek the input of other editors next time before expending so much effort on a biography that might not "pass muster". Furthermore, I have yet to see an AFD discussion swayed by self-pity. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: First off, I object to the comment on self pity. That is not part of the conversation I have been having here. It seems personal and unnecessary. And more pointedly, inaccurate. Not sure what the deal is but I reject that soundly. Feedback, take it if you want. Secondly, if you know anything beyond internet-available resources, if you know anything about libraries and archives, you understand that the digitization processes of great citation-worthy materials can take years. And often material exists but there is no way to monetize and/or justify the very expensive digitizing process. Not to mention material that has copyright constraints, which is also a big problem area that prohibits release except to researchers who go to the repository in person. So end result: a lot of information is never digitized. To suppose that material does not exist that would be great supporting citations and further information is actually one of the more erroneous things I have heard in, well, ever. This is so wrong it isn't even defensible. So yeah, if this is the basis for the AfD then I am REALLY going to be taking a long-term and dedicated interest in proving this AfD wrong. I am actually flabbergasted, and will be telling some of my working librarian and archivist friends this story and will be holding my stomach laughing. Well I won't because I am pretty unhappy with this AfD at this point. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Oh, and the lead of this most recent argument, that she's "dead so she is definitely not going to be doing anything notable in the future" argument? So I guess only living people who might do notable things in the future are notable?!? I mean, now I really AM laughing. Come on, really? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: I can order for a fee Chambers' 70-100 page personnel file from NARA St. Louis but this is now bordering on the absurd. Just wanted to note that this file will have a lot of I am sure very rich data to add to the claim she is notable. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources such as the National Archives and Texas Woman's University demonstrate that the topic passes WP:BASIC. I have moved the page back to mainspace as that's where it belongs and any other action must wait upon the closure of the discussion. Userfication will remain an option. Andrew D. (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BASIC states that Wikipedia biographies must demonstrate a depth of coverage, and use secondary sources. There seems to be only one secondary source used to support notability, and even that source isn't really independent of the subject (a US government agency writing a bio about a US government employee). I searched for a solid biographical piece about this person and found nothing. Google Books brings back nothing. As well, WP:ANYBIO lists addition criteria, which the subject of this biography doesn't appear to have. Clearly the editor who created this article put in a lot of effort, but Wikipedia's notability criteria were constructed by consensus, and they exist for good reasons. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sorry buy I cant see anything in the article that shows notability and the only claim in the article "notable for becoming a pilot shortly after her husband lost his life while flying, despite the fact that she had a new baby" is not actually supported by the reference which just mentions it as a fact. All one thousand odd of these women are worthy individuals but I dont think we need an article on each of them just for joining up. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Women who became pilots before 1960 and especially those who served their country are notable enough for Wikipedia. Further agree on legitimacy of sources. Passes in my opinion based on notable occupations of minority groups. Has nothing to do with the baby, though that definitely is surprising and should stay in there. Jane (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jane023: - Has a consensus been reached someplace that all women who became pilots before 1960 and served their country are notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Could you please link to that policy or consensus? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense. Thanks you. Jane (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the lede of the Wikipedia article about Women Airforce Service Pilots:
The Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP), called "Women's Army Service Pilots" in some sources,[1] was a paramilitary aviation organization. The WASP's predecessors, the Women's Flying Training Detachment (WFTD) and the Women's Auxiliary Ferrying Squadron (WAFS) organized separately in September 1942. They were the pioneering organizations of civilian female pilots, employed to fly military aircraft under the direction of the United States Army Air Forces during World War II. The WFTD and WAFS were merged on August 5, 1943, to create the paramilitary WASP organization. The female pilots of the WASP ended up numbering 1,074, each freeing a male pilot for combat service and duties. They flew over 60 million miles in every type of military aircraft.[2] The WASP was granted veteran status in 1977, and given the Congressional Gold Medal in 2009.[3][4]
Over 25,000 women applied; however, only 1,074 were accepted into the WASPs. The accepted women all had prior experience and pilot's licences. Of those accepted, the majority were white; aside from white women, the WASP had two Mexican American women, two Chinese American women (Hazel Ying Lee and Maggie Gee), and one Native American woman (Ola Mildred Rexroat).[5] Due to the existing climate of racial discrimination, the only African American applicant was asked to withdraw her application.[6]
So yes it was extremely competitive. Not all, but NARA felt she was important enough to highlight, so I am going to say this establishes this. As well as that pesky common sense thing. :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ “Cornwall Postmaster Ferried Warplanes in World War II,” The Evening News, Oct 8, 1971, page 3a; “Women Pilots May Become Members of the Army Air Forces,” The Reading Eagle, Nov. 1, 1943, page 20; “Veterans Begin Aid Fight,” The Age, May 25, 1977, page 20; “Veterans Bill Advances,” St. Petersburg Times, Nov. 4, 1977, page 3A; “Women in the military,” Sarasota Harold Tribune, May 26, 1995, 5B; “Sunday’s the Day for Washington Gals To Fly Somewhere for Breakfast,” The Evening Independent, Jul. 31, 1947, page 6; “War Prisoner’s Wife Enters Flying Group,” Prescott Evening Courier, Jun, 16, 1944, page 8; and “Early Decision Pilots Her Through Life,” Toledo Blade, Jan.10, 1975, page 10.
  2. ^ [1] Archived October 18, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  3. ^ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ40/html/PLAW-111publ40.htm
  4. ^ Thune Recognizes Women Airforce Service Pilots from World War II - Press - United States Senator John Thune. Thune.senate.gov (2009-05-21). Retrieved on 2013-07-23.
  5. ^ McLellan, Dennis (October 23, 2000). "Adding a Missing Piece to Mosaic of American History". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
  6. ^ DuBois, Ellen Carol; Dumenil, Lynn (2015-02-05). "9". Through Women’s Eyes: An American History with Documents (Third ed.). Boston, New York: Bedford/St. Martins. p. 549.
If 1000 women were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, then that averages to about 20 per state and it would be a good idea to create articles for all of them. If these women are good enough for the medal, they are notable enough for Wikipedia. We don't need to create a policy for that. Jane (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This might have changed since the time this article was originally nominated for deletion, but currently I count more than a dozen citations from the likes of National Archives, TWU publications, GPO, NPR, WASP's newsletter, & TCM. There is no doubt in my mind that it passes notability muster regarding sources as per WP:BASIC & certainly items #1 (Congressional Gold Medal) & #2 (first women to fly U.S. military planes) at WP:ANYBIO. Peaceray (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peaceray: - Regarding the sources you mention (in order):
  • National Archives - a lengthy source, but just barely secondary, as it is a government source writing about a government employee.
  • TWU - a photo and one sentence.
  • GPO? - Couldn't find it.
  • NPR - The article doesn't even mention her.
  • WASP Newsletter - About Elizabeth Chambers, the source writes: "Betty Chambers 44-3 is now married-- the When? and To whom? are missing. She was working for Am. Airlines at LaGuardia Field until recently." That's it. Hardly a secondary source, and certainly lacking the kind of detail needed to establish notability.
  • TCM - Please explain how this source--which doesn't mention her name even once--can support her notability?
While I would agree that receiving the Congressional Gold Medal should "pass muster" per WP:ANYBIO, it was awarded en masse to over 1,000 WASP pilots at the same time. Hardly a unique award. This entire article is supported junk links and Find-A-Grave, and one barely secondary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Oh dear. It has come to this? Alright, I will take a stab at addressing these. I guess I could also go down the line of citations on the page and justify why they in total are establishing notability but for now I will address the ones you pointed out.
But again, I think this is over-reaching in terms of scrutiny of a perfectly good stub.
  • National Archives - a lengthy source, but just barely secondary, as it is a government source writing about a government employee.
Actually it's an article by an archival division presenting information about holdings within its collection about someone who was a civilian. So it is a government archive, yes, but she was never considered a government employee. But even if she was a military person recognized as a government employee, this source is completely legit.
  • TWU - a photo and one sentence.
This is a solid primary source
  • GPO? - Couldn't find it.
For G.P.O., please see United States Government Publishing Office and this cite here. I forgot to add the link, which I have fixed. 123 Stat. 1958 Public Law 111-40: Women Airforce Service Pilots Congressional Gold Medal (PDF). Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O. 1 July 2009. OCLC 437033643.
  • NPR - The article doesn't even mention her.
It's about the program, giving context for the work she did. I believe this is okay to do to establish the role she played in WWII
  • WASP Newsletter - About Elizabeth Chambers, the source writes: "Betty Chambers 44-3 is now married-- the When? and To whom? are missing. She was working for Am. Airlines at LaGuardia Field until recently." That's it. Hardly a secondary source, and certainly lacking the kind of detail needed to establish notability.
It's a reference the supports Chambers being married and working at American Airlines. It isn't an insidious plot to establish anything but these facts.
  • TCM - Please explain how this source--which doesn't mention her name even once--can support her notability?
TCM is a respected database. It is there to support the fact that her son, who is referenced in the article, was in the movie, although he appeared uncredited. Which was common for smaller roles. That said, Heaven Can Wait was a huge movie with a major star. And he played the main character as a baby. So, establishing this fact.
While I would agree that receiving the Congressional Gold Medal should "pass muster" per WP:ANYBIO, it was awarded en masse to over 1,000 WASP pilots at the same time. Hardly a unique award. This entire article is supported junk links and Find-A-Grave, and one barely secondary source
This government award had a huge impact. The WASPs, because of this award and the public recognition were then granted the right to be buried at Arlington. So this is a big deal. Over 1,000 WASPs is actually the unique thing. It is to support reflection of the danger and work that these women did. The cite only supports the fact that if she was part of this group honored in this way.
And:
Article and picture in military newspaper is legit: Darr, Ann (19 November 1943). "Betty Chamber's Son Played Don Ameche At Age Of One For Fox Films" (PDF). The Avenger: News from the "Mother-H ive" of the Army WASP's. Vol. 1, no. 7. Avenger Field, Sweetwater, Texas: Texas Woman's University. p. 3.
Article in military newspaper is legit: "'Don Ameche' Eats Crackers Frm WASP Table; Suffers Himself To Be Pawed By Trainees" (PDF). The Avenger: News from the "Mother-H ive" of the Army WASP's. Vol. 1, no. 11. Avenger Field, Sweetwater, Texas: Texas Woman's University. 21 January 1944. p. 3.
Article in military newspaper is legit. Describes her work and establishes that she was sent as a representative of her WASP group. "Betty Chambers, W-3 Tours Lockheed Plant" (PDF). The Avenger: News from the "Mother-H ive" of the Army WASP's. Vol. 1, no. 19. Avenger Field, Sweetwater, Texas: Texas Woman's University. 19 May 1944. p. 3.
Photo and establishes where she was born, in official yearbook, which is legit: WASP Class Books 1944 (PDF). Texas Woman's University. pp. 22, 31, 51.
Super important citation that establishes how difficult it was to become a WASP. Out of 96 entering what was already an elite program, only 57 women actually made it through the program. 44 W 3 Graduation Program (PDF). Texas Woman's University. 15 April 1944. p. 25.
Photo from archival collection of subject at job entry is references. Legit. "Greenwood AAF, Greenwood, Mississippi (250.42.1)". Texas Woman's University.
Another super important citation that establishes Chambers' personnel record, how many hours she had flying at Greenwood where she was in active duty. This is a government report about that is an extremely legit record of her service."GAAF WASP History: Greenwood, Mississippi" (PDF). Texas Woman's University. 1944. p. 13.
The TWU BioFile for Chambers that collocates the planes she few and the places she served. Legit. This was generated as part of an archival collection. See GLAM initiative, which is a Wikipedia-backed initiative that attempts to reference archival works that are digitized like this, and most importantly, a Wikipedia initiative that highlight collections like the WASP collection at TWU, onto Wikipedia. 100% legit. Mission critical to adding great content to Wikipedia. Legit Legit Legit. "Women Airforce Service Pilots: Elizabeth M. Chambers" (PDF). Texas Woman's University.
In sum: I think maybe there is a misunderstanding about the value of the previous mentions and these additional 8 citations from an archival and collections perspective possibly? All of these serve to establish her notability and should mean that this stub should be able to stay on Wikipedia. I am concerned at the lack of understanding of this concept here. This is not a trivial thing, here. This is an attempt to address the gender gap of a woman who was doing a remarkable thing for this time. It is important to women pilots, to women who serve in the military, and to the history of America during WWII. I am not understanding the objections here at all. Beside the fact that this entry is solid. Please reconsider. You also seem to be the only one so actively pursuing the AfD. I am not sure why this is being so passionately defended, attempting to delete good content. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is better for having this article. Being one of the first women to take on a male dominated profession should be notable. Moreover, the fact that Chambers and others like her were not recognized as veterans for their work at the time I think reinforces the point that their task was a difficult one and one that is noteworthy. Too bad she wasn't an arena football player who played in one game. Then she would be presumed notable. Apparently playing one game as a professional athlete, even if a lesser viewed sport, is more noteworthy than breaking down gender barriers. To me, this article highlights is that Wikipedia's notability guidelines often don't capture what articles truly add value to our encyclopedia. Knope7 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well-sourced and the information from the National Archives and TWU helps establish notability. Agree with Knope7 and BrillLyle, she was part of an elite group of women breaking gender barriers and should be part of our encyclopedia. There are enough reliable sources to write a fleshed-out bio. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As highlighted before, the article is well-sourced and has some independent reliable sources, in my opinion enough to pass WP:GNG. And this AfD nomination highlights why we need to create articles at gender equality edit-a-thons- doubt a man with this many sources would have ended up at AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: - By my count, the only secondary source in the whole article is this one, and even it is sketchy, as it is a US government author writing about a US government employee. Can you add a link to any other lengthy, reliable secondary sources? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Is it just me or are you the only editor repeating this very strange -- and quite frankly incorrect -- statement that NARA, a massive repository of culturally and historically significant information, an archive of beautifully citation-worthy information, is simply "the US government" writing about a "US government employee," another misnomer as she was more than just some clock-punching employee. This is all completely part of the GLAM initiative to get more great content onto Wikipedia. I agree wholeheartedly with @Joseph2302: that this type of scrutiny would not be ending up in AfD if it was about a man. And the whole point of this editathon and initiative.
Just like to comment that this is nothing to do with being male or female they are just being judged on the previous notability consensus for military aviators, if this article survives it may then set a precedent for thousands of both female and male non-notable aviators to have articles, I suggest it needs wider scrutiny then just this AfD as it lowers the notability level considerably. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to end AfD I think there is enough consensus here that the article is a solid stub that this AfD should be dismissed. There seems to be one, lone editor, who has some misunderstanding possibly, of what NARA is, and the significance and value of its holdings as it relates to Wikipedia content. I for one am EXHAUSTED trying to argue this AfD. It is solid. Please release it. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we ignore their policyless discussion for 2 days, then it will have reached the 7 days, and can be kept in peace. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrillLyle: - You are not correct. More than one editor who has participated in this AFD has agreed to delete the article. Also, the fact that this is the second deletion nomination for this article, was somehow left out of this discussion. The first AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Chambers, and it was a delete, as this one should be. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true. The first AfD was closed when the article was voluntarily userfied. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and if anyone is near the Air Zoo in Kalamazoo Michigan any time soon, they have a plethora of information on the WASP program and the women in it, including her. Perhaps one of the curators at that museum can aid someone in finding additional sources. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving
@ONUnicorn: Thanks so much! I emailed the Air Zoo to see if they might have any information that could add to the article. Really appreciate the tip! Best to you! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so happy to report that I heard back from the Air Zoo's Director of Exhibits and Museum Programming as well as their Collection Registrar. So fast. I am grateful. Air Zoo exhibited the Fly Girls exhibit that was on display at Arlington National Cemetery during the National Gold Medal Ceremony in 2010. To the Collection Registrar's knowledge Chambers was the only widow and mother in the WASPs. The exhibit has biographical information about each individual WASPs. So I added that to the lede. It's something helpful to separate Chambers and show her notability. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrillLyle: - There's nothing in Wikipedia:Notability (people) stating that being a widow and a mother add to a person's notability. Please explain. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: I am hesitant to even answer this question because it seems like you are probably joking, right? To be accepted into the WASP program was highly selective, and then to get through the WASP training was a major accomplishment. The fact she had within months lost her husband AND had a baby, and was stationed at a base away from her kid in Mississippi (after being at Sweetwater, etc.), is this not enough to satisfy and actually define what a unique and notable person she was?!? I am not quite sure what the deal is here, and why this issue of notability is so difficult to understand. NONE of what she did or achieved was trivial. Have the two days proceeded enough to remove this AfD. This is really exhausting and is exactly why AfD is a nightmare. I don't want to become uncivil here, but it mystifies me that one recalcitrant editor can behave in such an obstructive manner, and that it is okay. I believe AfD could be used effectively, but this case has illustrated very clearly the shortcomings of the process. So hopefully this was just a joke maybe? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:MilborneOne expressed the same concern as I do (see above); "the only claim in the article 'notable for becoming a pilot shortly after her husband lost his life while flying, despite the fact that she had a new baby' is not actually supported by the reference which just mentions it as a fact. All one thousand odd of these women are worthy individuals but I don't think we need an article on each of them just for joining up". That editor also stated that this AFD "lowers the notability level considerably". There were 1000 or more WASPs, and Chambers is no more notable than any of others. She was a true patriot, and had the fortitude to pursue a difficult training program despite adversity. But I don't feel that is enough to make her notable by Wikipedia standards. The fact that there has been much lamenting in this AFD about how a one-game cricket player is more notable in the eyes of Wikipedia further demonstrates that the bar needs to be lowered for this one. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: I think you should consider the Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built essay. Just as editors have raised notability questions about this article, others are addressing those concerns. I think that the AFD request is premature due to these efforts, & right now the Wikipedia:Snowball clause essay may be relevant concerning AFD. My advice is to give it some time for the inclusionists to do their work before applying the exclusionist scrutiny. There's certainly other editing work to do in the meantime, rather than to keep arguing about this article's current but mutable state. Peaceray (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whatever its state a week ago, the article as it stands is better sourced than a great many. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:59, 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 Discussion Moved to Talk:Parallels Between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler because of speedy deletion. Speedy Delete. (non-admin closure) Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 02:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels Between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler[edit]

Parallels Between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suspect this will be a controversial AfD but really, this article is original research and more specifically Synthesis of published material. 900+ references might seem impressive but it doesn't guarantee that the article is encyclopedic in nature. Pichpich (talk) 23:52, 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. While I understand the concerns of the delete !voters, the article subject is notable by our standards per, among others, WP:PROF. The defamatory content in question can be removed and, if it really is that bad, rev-del'd. Remember that deletion is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Frampton[edit]

Paul Frampton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has requested that the article be deleted because he believes it contains inaccurate and defamatory material regarding his entrapment in a drug scam in Argentina. JerryRussell (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If this article is deleted, it will be a sad day for Wikipedia. I would rather see the defamatory material removed. At the very least, I believe the article should include the exculpatory information that drug courts in Argentina are notoriously corrupt, and well known for unjust convictions. See the article talk page for discussion. JerryRussell (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it difficult to understand why the subject should wish to suppress coverage of his conviction here when he has written and published a book about that self-same subject himself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the book, Frampton has a chance to explain himself at much greater length than our Wikipedia article could allow. After having scanned through it myself, I came away feeling that it's pretty unlikely Frampton signed up to be a drug mule to supplement his income. Whereas, the idea that he made a dumb mistake under Cupid's influence is very plausible. Apparently that sort of "reasonable doubt" is not a consideration in criminal court in Argentina.
Don't underestimate Wikipedia's influence. It's near or at the top of any Google search. JerryRussell (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there's any jurisdiction in the world that would make a distinction between acting to supplement one's income and acting under Cupid's influence when deciding whether a man is culpable for his actions. It certainly wouldn't be a factor in the UK or the USA, the two countries with which Frampton has the greatest connection. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP86, intent is an absolutely central factor in the US criminal justice system. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law). JerryRussell (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Mens rea, The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty...As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law." JerryRussell (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it's immaterial whether that intent is based on financial considerations or "Cupid's influence". Any poor Nigerian woman found entering the UK or the US with that amount of cocaine would be convicted and sentenced to a far harsher sentence than Frampton received, whatever excuse she came up with for doing so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A poor Nigerian woman would probably be offered a plea bargain in the US, or just as likely deported back to Nigeria. It's interesting that you assume any explanation that such a woman could come up with, would be an "excuse". And it's original research for us to be putting ourselves in the role of judge and jury. But it's pure conjecture to assume that Argentine courts are capable of rendering justice in a case like this, even in the face of reports to the contrary. Our BLP policy is to remove conjectural interpretations of a source. JerryRussell (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to get off this track. He was found guilty. He is guilty. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, which all state he was found guilty after extremely compelling evidence. We dont care about hypotheticals involving possible Argentine court corruption. Otherwise every single court system in the world would be open to that argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously -- Frampton easily meets our notability standards. He was notable (WP:PROF) purely on the basis of his academic profile, i.e., before the drugs incident. That incident doesn't make him less notable -- rather the opposite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as currently and repeatedly being used as a coatrack for the "He is a CRIMINAL" editors who seem to pop up so often. The concept that this single event is "making him more notable!" is contrary to any common sense approach to biographies of living persons on Wikipedia. Wikipedia being used as a "public pillory" is not the intent of Wikipedia, though, again, I have found some editors more intent on such sensational tabloidification of this project than of seeking to give important information to readers. I ask any closer, moreover, to disregard opinions that favour this tabloid use of this encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His professional activities and criminal conviction are notable, both, for example, being the subject of coverage in the New York Times. The article isn't defamatory because the negative content is factual. Martinlc (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Putting his criminal conviction aside he is barely notable. His criminal conviction got so much press because of his position at the time. Were he a shoe salesman he wouldnt even have an article. Its a case of two relatively unencyclopedic events reinforcing each other to meet our notability threshold. There is no possible way he could have a biography here without his conviction being covered, it got more press over an extended period of time (he was convicted, he took his employer to court, he then released a book about it) - its easily the most sourceable thing about him. On the rare occasion I disagree with collect - in this case his article is not being used as a coatrack, a number of editors have tried to keep his criminal acts described in a neutral manner and have actually given far more weight to his academic achivements than they deserve by editing standards. But the subject (who still claims innocence) would rather his criminal activities were not mentioned at all. Which is just not going to happen. I still think the article should be deleted - we dont have articles on every person convicted of drug trafficking, and given his relatively minor academic achievements, the subjects own request to remove it, it can go and the encyclopedia is not going to suffer a loss. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting thread about his academic notability here: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5618
His H-index is 43, and his work has 6900+ citations. One person says: I think it’s fair to say that Paul Frampton is/was a world class physicist, but not necessarily in the division of current/past top world class physicists.
The NYT article discusses Frampton's own calculations of his chances to win the Nobel Prize. They seem non-negligible, especially if the Large Hadron Collider discovers proof of his axigluon particles or bileptons, or otherwise provides experimental proof of his many theories and models.
Having said all that, you might be right that it would not be a fatal loss to the encyclopedia if the article is deleted. His physics theories are still described in the topical pages, and I'm sure there will be much more coverage when and if experimental verification is available.
Your statement above "He was found guilty. He is guilty." -- leaves me wondering if you've understood my legal argument. In order for Frampton to be found guilty of drug trafficking according to US or UK common law, the prosecutor would have to show that he intended to transport the drugs. If he didn't know he was carrying drugs, and his intent was to visit his girlfriend, then he would be found "Not Guilty". He would also be entitled to a jury trial, where the jurors would look into his eyes and judge his character. They would have far more information that we do as armchair judges. Of course if Frampton were a poor black woman, he wouldn't be able to afford a lawyer for a jury trial. But then he wouldn't be famous enough to have a Wiki article, either. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, which all state he was found guilty after extremely compelling evidence. You would only think the evidence is compelling, if you don't understand the issue of criminal intent. The sources all leave plenty of doubt as to Frampton's intentions. JerryRussell (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay let me be more blunt: I do not care about any legal argument you come up with. It is completely irrelevant, its WP:OR and has zero influence or bearing on the issues. Neither wikipedia, his article, or this deletion request is the place to appeal, debate or otherwise relitigate his conviction. That would be in Argentina. As has been explained to you multiple times now, wikipedia reflects what the sources say, which is that he was convicted by a court of smuggling drugs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Frampton almost certainly passes at least 2 notability criteria for academics. First, he has held a named chair at UNC Chapel Hill, which passes the named chair prong. He also almost certainly passes criteria 1 where in the notes on it we learn "The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1," which implies that since there was a Festschrift for Frampton published we can conclude he passes academic notability criteria 1.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as the article explicitly states an honorary professorship at a major university, and that was enough for WP:PROF alone. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Collect and Only in death have won me over to their point of view. This article must be deleted to comply with WP:BLP. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Presumption in favor of privacy -- Avoid victimization: This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. It is highly plausible that Frampton is the victim of a scam. Deletion of BLP's of relatively unknown subjects: Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, maybe closed as delete." While Frampton is an accomplished and notable academic, he is not a publicity seeker. Even his book about the scam has not been widely promoted. See WP:LOWPROFILE for guidance on establishing whether an individual is a public figure. Notability is not the same thing as high-profile. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE says Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.
Collect is right that this article has become a coathook for tabloid journalism. It seems to be impossible to maintain it, or to obtain a consensus to remove the defamatory material, or even to include exculpatory information. Only in death says he doesn't care about my legal arguments, but it seems to me that it's as clear as that the sky is WP:BLUE that the article is defamatory. WP:SYNTH should not be a suicide pact, but if we can't get consensus to remove the defamatory material, and we can't even get consensus to include exculpatory information, then the article has got to go. JerryRussell (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're the nominator for this AfD. It's unseemly at best to !vote on your own nomination. At a minimum, one should acknowledge this in one's !vote... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for "tabloid journalism" -- I don't think any tabloids have been used as sources on this article. The main source for the drugs smuggling conviction is the New York Times... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not only the nominator, but also the person who said "If this article is deleted, it will be a sad day for Wikipedia." just up there, ^^ points ^^ up there ^^ -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone seriously believes that the current material is defamatory then they should raise the issue at BLP/N. This is not the place for such discussions. But you might want to review the previous discussions at BLP/N, linked above, before starting that process. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that nothing here is remotely defamatory. In fact the article bends over backwards to present Frampton's point of view that he didn't see anything strange about being asked to transport a cheap empty suitcase, that he didn't notice that it weighed far more than it should have done, and the text messages that he sent about drug smuggling were jokes. The legal arguments presented here are completely spurious. The court decided on the evidence that Frampton knew what he was doing. The fact that he probably did it for love rather than money wouldn't get him off the hook in any jurisdiction in the world, and in some jurisdictions he would have received a death penalty. And if he wanted to keep the matter private he wouldn't have written and published a book about it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Nomoskedasticity and Roxy's concern that I am !voting in my own AfD, I checked the policy and here it is: WP:DISCUSSAFD, Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. I'm sorry if my initial comments were unclear, but I meant to say that I was nominating the article at the subject's request. I was feeling considerable uncertainty and discomfort about the deletion, so I refrained from making a vote. I had to watch other people's responses, and actually spend some time studying the policies, before I felt ready to vote. I see strong arguments on both sides, and will respect the closing consensus, whatever it is. JerryRussell (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there was nothing wrong in your giving a "delete" opinion here, because you made it clear at the top of the discussion that you didn't think then that deletion was the best result. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan commented above that defamation issues should be discussed at BLP/N. I did raise a new ticket there. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Frampton. I posted a link at the article talk page. Maybe I should have posted the link here too? Anyhow, discussion is ongoing there, if anyone wants to participate. JerryRussell (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent discussion at BLP/N has now been archived at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive247#Paul Frampton for those who are interested. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: He was obviously notable before his drug incident, and the incident itself is not presented in a defamatory way. Ceosad (talk) 20:50, 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, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Nabi Kazi[edit]

Ghulam Nabi Kazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find reliable sources to back up the notability of the subject of this heavily promotional article. I don't know enough about this field to be able to say if the articles cited allow him to meet WP:PROF, but I don't believe he does. Obviously, if there are articles in a language other than English that demonstrate notability, I'd be interested in seeing them. agtx 21:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete On the one hand, there is no evidence to support notability. He is last author (non-alphabetical) on all highly-cited articles and I could find minimal citations singling out his studies. On the other hand, he is wearing a tuxedo in the photo...so. Seems clear delete per GNG and PROF based on Google Scholar search (not my field either). Notability is not clear. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's nothing here for any applicable notability and it's in fact an advertisement given how the entire article is formatted. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PSafe[edit]

PSafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be scareware with no claim of notability, using Wikipedia as a web host. Sources are largely first-party. AV-TEST.org[2] only tested it once in 2014, and no independent editorial reviews exist.

I wasn't going to AfD this until I noticed potential fraud. Compare verified Amazon reviews: [3] to unmoderated Play Store ratings [4]. This screams malware. WP should not be hosting this, at least not in this form. Jergling (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Confirmed malware: http://malwareresearch.org/psafe/ Jergling (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I nearly G11'd considering how damningly blatant this is, and that's also while seeing the username "Psafetecnologia" in the history logs along with apparent various other connected users, this is only summarizes it as a blatant advertisement seriously needing deletion, not mistakes for "hopeful improvements". SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PSafe TOTAL Android[edit]

PSafe TOTAL Android (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary duplicate of PSafe, also WP:PROMO with unreliable sources for non-notable product. Jergling (talk) 22:02, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alok Kumar (business executive)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salting can be requested on WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoGo Tech[edit]

GoGo Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I honestly would've only PROded but given how blatant and persistently motivated such advertisements are, I wouldn't be surprised if it's restarted soon so here we are; everything listed here is a blatant advertisement, regardless of who and what was mentioned in this article, and the 2 sources listed are clearly republished advertising, and there's honestly nothing both genuinely non-advert and notable here hence deletion is the only solution. Also, it's important to note the 2 advertising-only involved accounts bypassed AfC, see Draft:GoGo Tech Limited (note this Draft also had both only advertising information and links) and simply started the fullblown advertisement themselves. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One PR blogspam and one local source. Not notable. Jergling (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt – Gogovan COI accounts have been spamming this company on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons relentlessly over the past year, i.e. Gogovan, GOGOVAN, and, GoGoVan, all repeatedly deleted and recreated until being salted. Countless spam images on Commons have been deleted, i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4. Once this article is deleted I predict it will simply be recreated, and once this namespace is salted it will be recreated at GoGo Tech Limited. Dear GoGoVan: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion. Advertise elsewhere! Citobun (talk) 18:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guldal Caba[edit]

Guldal Caba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Very little coverage in reliable sources, and article appears as a promo piece. Delta13C (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and is only mentioned in passing in a few reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing comes closing to showing that Caba is anywhere near notable in any of her roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Aloudat[edit]

Anas Aloudat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable professor/academic that appears to fail WP:PROF. I cannot locate reliable independent coverage of this individual to satisfy even WP:BIO. [6]  Wisdom89 ♦talk 20:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Wisdom89 ♦talk 20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Although there is plenty of material to support BIO a GS h-index of 10 is not yet enough to pass WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as simply nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, what's listed is simply not what convinces an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 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 no consensus. There is surprisingly deep disagreement about whether the sources are promotional/superficial or sufficient for an article.  Sandstein  21:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwolla[edit]

Dwolla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From Detail talk page discussions, References like Wall street coverage and Fast Company clearly shows nothing about this company. It is definitely made by someone close to this company to mere promotions and nothing else. Another fintech with no encyclopedia notability. Popular media did not cover this as being notable. this is just Press nothing about depth of coverage. Highly misleading in nature. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This one I scratch my head on as the nominator says there is detailed talk page discussions. If you look, there are references laid out there by other parties. My search found more references than I could possibly use for the page. Here is one from Fortune that is about as in-depth as you can get to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. As far as promotional tone or COI, it can be cleaned up without deleting the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- strictly promotional and has been tagged as such since 2014. Wikipedia is not a platform for companies' promotional messaged. The Fortune article referenced above does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, including copy such as:
  • The payment network Dwolla has launched “the most important partnership we’ve had to date.” That’s how founder and CEO Ben Milne describes his company’s new deal with BBVA Compass, a subsidiary of BBVA Group.
If the promo tone is addressed through copy editing, there would be not much left. Yes, the company exists, but Wikipedia is not a a catalog of unremarkable tech companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article itself is not only a blatant advertisement but everything from the sources are advertising, including literal company quotes and self-supplied information such as what it is, its services, how it can be used and other company-focused specifics, and the history itself shows the expected several coming-and-going accounts, take "Caitlindwolla" for example who was clearly an employee, and then the apparent company-based IPs....therefore there is nothing, especially not PR sources, that would amount to sufficient convincing for us to become a literal PR advertising webhost. In fact the history is so blatant, it's quite clear the company knew about this article and was using it to its own advantages, something else non-compromisable. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company does have coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH and is similar to other corporate pages we allow. -- Dane2007 talk 14:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of not accepting other corporate pages we allow which are vulnerable to advertising of course, we must first think what the consequences and damages are when such blatant advertising is accepted, and I've noted above what the concerns are so this is a case of deleting being the only path of cleanliness for Wikipedia, lest it become a advertising-publishing website, and it's clear the company planned for this considering the past accounts are literally advertising accounts. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was happy to find this page. I was checking out payment methods for a web hosting company and saw Dwolla, which I had never heard of. I do not understand the mindset of people who want to hide information from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.142.106 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If nothing else the references to Dwolla blog really need to be deleted. That is link spam.--Rpclod (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources provided by North America easily demonstrate this topic passing WP:CORPDEPTH. Attacks on the journalists as being paid advertisers with zero evidence being provided is pure original research speculation and a possible violation of WP:BLP which applies to non-mainspace content. --Oakshade (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  As per Oakshade.  As per WP:5P3 fundamental principles, what we write is intended to be used and distributed.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - Despite the comments citing WP:CORPDEPTH, the important ones that are actually policy are WP:SPAM and WP:NOT which explicitly state "removal of anything unacceptable or unsuitable for Wikipedia", and literally that's what this article is, it's been obviously influenced by the company itself, the sources are all PR as is the information, and no one has cared to either acknowledge the concerns or at least sufficiently improve them (although the latter would not be feasible since the other concerns are non-negotable) hence deletion is the only solution for such blatant advertising.
When we start saying No to explicit policy such as WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, we're damned, because as it is, it's clear company employees were canvassed into this AfD as it is. As it is, I concur with the other Delete vote in that, Indian publications have notoriously been listed as advertising-publishers and articles even cite this in either "Information by company website" or "For this information, see company website", therefore suggesting anyone is being attacked when it is in fact the honesty.
For Wikipedia's sake, as it is this has been deleted multiple times, the current article is blatantly overbloated with "products and services" and lastly so is the history where literally no one, including the Keep votes, have cared to meaningfully improve it. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was only deleted once, in 2011, before all the provided sources establishing WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH were published. Even the guideline (not policy) WP:SPAM states "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view." --Oakshade (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And did you ever see an article being despammed after such an argument? What I have noticed it that the spam and advertising stays where it is because the editors stating that fact, are not acting upon it. The Banner talk 09:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No one has addressed the obvious WP:LINKSPAM issues so I must assume SwisterTwister is correct.--Rpclod (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed a section on pricing before I looked at this AfD.  I wasn't worried about the sources I removed because they were primary, and later I noticed that one of them was one of the "blogs" to which you had objected.  I didn't know what else you meant, and if you can't explain a problem, there is a presumption that the problem can't be explained.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing WP:LINKSPAM is a matter of regular editing, not deletion (see WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL-CONTENT) and that action was done with this article anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Every Keep comment here has simply stated some trivial general not such as WP:BASIC, WP:CORP or WP:GNG, but those still mean nothing when explicit policies WP:SPAM (which states removal of unsuitable materials is in fact acceptable) and WP:NOT (which also states removal of anything unsuitable for Wikipedia), this any claims of "So fix it!" or "This only needs a few fixes" is not applicable when both policies suggests against it. Hell, even with WP:IAR, it also supports removal of anything unsuitable for Wikipedia, so we honestly have choices to support removal, let's not ignore them. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG is just "some trivial general"? WP:BASIC and WP:CORP are meaningless? Wow. WP:GNG, which a vast majority of editors consider paramount, states " if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." As for WP:SPAM, this is becoming a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. WP:SPAM clearly states that if a topic a notable but written in an advertisement tone, the article can be simply be re-written into a neutral point of view.--Oakshade (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here are the non-primary references from the article:
Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here are two relevant comments from the talk page:
== Establishing Notability ==

This article is not edited often, but Dwolla is certainly notable enough to warrant an article.

From the Wikipedia notability guidelines for organizations and companies:

  • An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
  • The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.

There have been many articles in depth about Dwolla. Though significance is not necessarily the same as notability, in the case of Dwolla, it is notable because of its significance. As noted in these sources, its significance is not in its user base, but its alternative to traditional payment systems, a key component of the modern economy. And though it's not central to its significance, Dwolla was very prominent during the Bitcoin increase in 2013, when it was the easiest way to transfer cash from Mt. Gox. Dwolla has trouble gaining use due to the network effect; though this is the case with any social-oriented startup, the size of its user base would be misleading when judging the significance of Dwolla, as implied in these third party sources. The number of these reliable, third party sources is notable, both in depth, and the breadth of articles that mention Dwolla.

Some devoted articles:

  • Forbes: [7]
  • Business insider: [8]
  • Techcrunch [9]
  • Pymnts.com [10]
  • Credit Union Times: [11]
  • New York Times blog: [12]
  • New York Times article centered around Dwolla [13]
  • Mashable [14]

The following are brief mentions, but imply the significance of Dwolla as an alternative:

NittyG (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

== Sources for 2014 and 2015 ==

This is a quick and dirty list of URLs to web sources. Forgive the sloppy urls, but the idea is let's fix this article's bias and bring it up to date with sources. The good news is most are print media sources that have both a date and a headline in the URL (feel free to improve these links, but, better, spend the time reading them an incorporating into the article):

KevinCuddeback (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No one can and will fight back against WP:NOT which one again states removal of anything unsuitable, as it is still policy. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no valid argument as to this topic which clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and is valid per WP:SPAM is somehow "unsuitable" or subject to WP:NOT.--Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a few examples to indicate the quality of the most recent references that are asserted to be significant coverage:
bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/ . Dwolla is mentioned in only one phrase--the subject of the article "z already has several investments in financial technology ventures including 21, Affirm, Boku, Coinbase, Dwolla and TransferWise."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/upshot Same as the first item, about the same person ;
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/19 - One sentence in a list.
des moins register: local article about local company, indiscriminate coverage
payment week: short press release in a very specialized trade paper
Fortune: they signed up one banking company as a customer. That Fortune should print a story about this indicates a PR job.
It seems clear to me that asserting such references to show significance is promotionalism. One of the necessities for starting a business is good start-up funding. An equal necessity, especially for internet businesses that have only a web presence, is a good PR agency to place stories that will encourage people to explore their site. Both of these are good and appropriate parts of the economy.
But the question here is whether we permit getting an article on Wikipedia to be a third part of the program. If we do, any good PR writer should be able to manage an article like this, and certainly to find the references they or their colleagues have generated. But we will no longer be an encyclopedia, and will be betraying the trust of our readers. If they want PR, Google etc. finds it very effectively, and all of us probably use this daily to find directory and catalog information. We, on the other hand, are the only widely used source for those who want NPOV information about the sort of important subjects they might expect to find information in an encyclopedia .
The principle at stake here is not really CORPDEPTH or INDISCRIMINATE, it's NOT DIRECTORY, and the fundamental pillar that WP IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.
There's a personal issue at stake for all of us. It is perfectly reasonable to make a web directory, and at the beginning there were good manual efforts until Google showed it could do it better. There's no point in a bunch of amateurs trying to beat them at their own game. If I did that sort of work, I'd expect, like the other people in that business, to be paid for it. But there has never before in the world been an encyclopedia in any medium with our scope of coverage and multilingual capacity, and in the English language, there is no effective alternative. Almost uniquely, the amateurs--those working for the love of the project--have shown they can do much better at this than the professionals working for money. It takes real work to maintain our distinctiveness against the forces that would pervert it, and AfD is a key part of it. I have no ill-will for the people who want to use us as a directory and a place for advertising, but they have no place in our mission. Among the worthwhile things to do with our lives, I don't see how it can include running a promotional site for the love of it. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To add to the above analysis, I will note that several of the sources in that large list are obvious PR, not only the SiliconPrairieNews (clearly a PR trade publication), TechCrunch (explicitly states the information itself is from company website), Forbes (not in fact an independent staff article, but instead a hired contributor for the company itself), BizJournals.com (never has and never will be accepted as it's literally another PR trade publication), Boston Globe (trivial coverage by far), VentureBeat (yet another PR trade publication and it yet again shows) and BusinessInsider (another PR trade publication, regardless of, since the fact it literally consists of company-supplied information), both Mashable and Pymnts (I've never heard of the latter, but it too is clearly PR trade) are simply trivial PR coverage and Mashable itself lists information as "company-contributed) and there are then the obvious ones such as the Entrepreneur and HuffPost both of which were listed here as "brief mentions", and then lastly the Bloomberg which is literally a company stocks listing. Therefore, there's literally nothing at all of both actual coverage substance and non-PR advertising.
Something else we've noted before, and no one (especially not from the Keep side) has cared to mention but we ourselves cannot simply confide in a major publication to not simply republish company advertising (especially if paid) so we ourselves are in fact different, as an encyclopedia clearly, to not at least affect ourselves with such blatancy and PR actions. Also, as an important note for closer , the history itself shows the article has in fact not substantially changed at all, and especially considering the listed sources here, those changes aren't going to happen. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail WP:CORPDEPTH? Even those in favor of deletion are acknowledging WP:CORPDEPTH isn't an issue.--Oakshade (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per independent sources provided in Talk:Dwolla and copied to this AfD. I don't see any advertising unless you count expository writing as advertising. Icebob99 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things is that explicit policy was mentioned above repeatedly by different users, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, both of which can and has been used to remove advertising. When we seriously start questioning policies, we can no longer be expected to be a functioning encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 16:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
=== How to contribute ===
Shortcuts

AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD.

Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources in the article are a mixed bag, but meet WP:N. Article could use some editing, but not horrid. Hobit (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about the extremely specific analysis above which actually went as far to quote material from the listed quotes, and the fact WP:NOT applies since the said sources are republished advertising, also violating WP:ORGIND? SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erb? [23] is a fine source for the article. [[24]] is too. Plenty of passing references to add to it. Hobit (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fortune, Forbes, and TechCrunch certainly count as WP:RS, and all have significant articles. If the linkspam is an issue, just remove it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, I explicitly showed above all of them were company-influenced, including TechCrunch which has not only become notorious for republishing anything to help the company themselves, but also the fact Forbes is now largely simply "freelance journalist-authored sites", not independent. Fortune itself simply consists of republished company quotes. WP:NOT policy is not negotiable. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment but I simply must disagree strongly. If the standard for judging whether business press is "company-influenced" then no business article, and no companies, will ever pass. To assert that WP:NOT is "non-negotiable" is simply silly. Not only have criteria for notability and even notability itself been negotiated and debated innumerable times within the project, but also every single AfD discussion is negotiation towards consensus about notability. You may feel you "explicitly showed' the lack of reliability, but your evidence and assertions do not appear persuasive. I would urge you not to be overly-attached to removing articles you don't feel meet your personal standards by re-characterizing sources as unreliable just because you don't like that they don't support your position. I could just as easily say Forbes and Fortune are clearly under WP:NEWSORG and widely accepted as WP:RS. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis including the other, DGG, also cared to specify the concerns, and they were genuine concerns showing that, regardless of publication or name, the contents were still PR, even the national ones such as NYT which literally cared to specify what you would find at the company website, thus that's not independent and it's not genuine coverage. WP:NEWSORGE and WP:RS are still not comparable to WP:NOT. There are no "overly-attached personal standards" here, simply that we never accept advertising overall, something that no one else at the Keep side has cared to cite.
"AfD is negotiation towards consensus about notability" Exactly, and the analysis above has shown it's not even notability here, simply advertising. Once again, Forbes and Fortune were analyzed above, found to be advertising for explicitly stated explanations, and that's all there is to say. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is this thing still going on? Easy keep based on notability established via multiple significant mentions in reliable sources, as highlighted in many !votes above. The standard anti-business complaints echo'd in this AFD are beyond moot, but at least they are entertaining to read if one has some time to waste. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 05:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyne Underwood[edit]

Carolyne Underwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable except for participation in reality show DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She is the participant in several different reality shows and has significant coverage over time: 2007 Daily Mail, 2007 The Mirror, 2008 The Mirror, 2010 Manchester Evening News, 2010 BBC, 2012 BBC, 2013 Manchester Evening News and 2015 Daily Record. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable game-show contestant. News coverage is fairly trivial: the 2015 Daily Record article mentioned above is actually about the British Medical Association's annual conference rather than about Underwood, and simply states "Carolyne Underwood, who was paralysed in 2007, was among those featured [in TV show The Undateables]"... presumably because they had a nice file photo they could dust off for an otherwise dull piece. As the 2012 BBC article points out, "With reality shows being such a popular format, it's perhaps not so surprising that we see members of the public cropping up in more than one programme." No evidence that she has gone on to do significant charity or campaigning work, which might have nudged my !vote toward a very Weak Keep. Keri (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable TV personality; Wikipedia is not a tabloid. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I've closely been watching this nomination and planned to comment sooner, clearly everything including the listed sources simply show she was only active and therefore best known for that one show, and nothing else at all aside from it, therefore there's literally no other information, let alone for actual substance and notability, of which none are satisfied. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, I don't think that you looked over the sources I cited above, because they show that she is known for more than one show. Please review again, since she is in the news for various reasons over time. Thanks. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Megalibrarygirl. The acting credits plus the injury combine to meet GNG. Montanabw(talk) 05:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per sources brought by Megalibrarygirl.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasons above and she was the first disabled reality participant which makes her more interesting/encyclopedic. Readers are going to want to see this article so why not.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:47, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 01:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generation_Snowflake[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Generation_Snowflake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is a discussion of a term which is not widely used. The discussion is not NPOV. The discussion could also, with modifications, be lumped into the discussion of Millennials or Gen Z. Thanks. MHP Huck (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. The above comment isn't accurate. I can only find it in tabloids and even there the mentions are extremely thin.MHP Huck (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a review of a basic Google search and it returned zero reliable sources. Nothing at all. There is some alt-right type material, most of it is political, which isn't reliable. MHP Huck (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly call The Times or The Daily Telegraph or The Independent or The Irish Times or the Irish Independent or GQ or The Australian "unreliable" and "tabloids". And where these organs are devoting whole articles to the term, I'd hardly call that coverage "extremely thin". Keri (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, Keri: The Daily Telegraph, The Australian, The Spectator, TES... even add the BBC if you don't mind minor coverage. These are already sources for the article! EddieHugh (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, you guys are full of it :) so I have to disagree - those publications are mostly tabloids. You will notice that none of those papers have substantial circulation. Name me a paper with over 1 million in circulation that has used the term more than once. BBC is the best source you've cited, but I have never heard this term anywhere else. MHP Huck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of newspapers by circulation shows that all UK newspapers with a circulation of >1M are tabloids! Whether or not you have heard of it is not, you'll find, among the relevant criteria for notability. EddieHugh (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your response tells us all we need to know about your nomination. Keri (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what is that, exactly, Keri? In my view, a tabloid simply isn't a credible source. There is a UK newspaper with 800,000+ in circulation which is reputable - but they haven't used the term. Look, I am not unware of the availability heuristic. Part of my job is to read the news and I haven't ever seen the term. Ergo, I think I have a better perspective than average to determine if it is in wide use or not. Further, google trends and ngrams objectively support my subjective perspective. I am winning this kiddos. MHP Huck (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is that, exactly? "Ill-informed" and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You keep bandying around the word "tabloid" but appear to be confusing that with "circulation". You're not "winning", because this isn't a competition. The article meets general notability guidelines. If you don't have any grounds for deletion based on policy, you're simply wasting everyone else's time. Keri (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do if I like it or not. The term is non-existent in reliable sources. That is a problem for your position. Tabloids don't count, doesn't matter if they have high circulation or low. 22:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC) MHP Huck (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Telegraph is not a tabloid. The Spectator is not a tabloid. The Australian is not a tabloid. How are these not reliable sources? They fulfill the criteria laid out at WP:NEWSORG (though there may be too much reliance on opinion pieces in this article) and they don't make an appearance at WP:PUS. At any rate, it's important to distinguish the tabloid format from tabloid journalism. clpo13(talk) 22:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to tabloid journalism. The British papers are tricky since, I would argue, many combine both aspects. MHP Huck (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search of the Wall Street Journal web site shows at least half a dozen uses of the term within the past year. The Wall Street Journal is a credible source. The Washington Post also has at least two articles using the term. While I might question whether the WaPo is credible at this point, others would not. This looks like an attempt at a one-person heckler's veto.97.91.254.54 (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – General notability guidelines state that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". This is clearly met: the article is sourced from, among others, a book, a major (non-tabloid) newspaper, a major magazine and (probably) the leading educational publication in the UK. This has all been discussed on the article's talk page. EddieHugh (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely contest that those are reliable sources. You didn't name the sources but described them since they are well known for being unreliable. Tabloids and alt-right publications with narrow audiences don't qualify as reputable sources. Period. MHP Huck (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are claiming The Times, The Independent, the TES and The Daily Telegraph are unreliable, tabloid, alt-right sources, you should pop over to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and get them checked out. Keri (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires significant coverage, which is not present. This term also appears to be a "promoted term." I've seen neologism much stronger than this get booted. It is also possible the term is transitory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MHP Huck (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Popular use makes it an acceptable WP:NEOLOGISM, but as of now the article is just a mouthpiece for Fox's opinions and the tone treats them as fact. Should focus on the Collins definition or an article analyzing the term rather than critiquing the individuals labeled by that term. Jergling (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, The Austrlian's article is locked behind a paywall and comes up on my ad/virus blocker as malicious. Can anyone access it? Jergling (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to access it by Googling the article title. However, linking it directly doesn't seem to work because this link now won't work for me: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/generation-snowflake-why-millenials-are-mocked-for-being-too-delicate/news-story/2f885d016af1a881bff92b69282fd88e, even though I just copied it off a page I was able to access via googling the title. It's weird, but if you want to read it, try googling the title: "Generation snowflake: why millenials are mocked for being too delicate" --DynaGirl (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does appear to meet WP:GNG. Actually I had come across the term and popped on to see if we had an article on it. It is a viable subject for an article, with further honing. Irondome (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am still perplexed - I have never heard this term used generally and it seems vapid and rather dismissive. Do we have other ageist neologisms for comparison? I searched some other recent terms but they have all been merged with other pages. The term isn't used in the States. I guess if it is used abroad that changes my perspective. I still don't respect any of those publications where it has been used, however. MHP Huck (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is the Me Generation article about the Baby boomers. With respect to the Generation Snowflake article, I added notability and POV tags shortly after it was created, but since then additional refs have been added, and at this point, it probably does meet GNG. POV still seems to be an issue, although it's better than it used to be. It is a challenge to write a neutral and encyclopedic article about a pejorative term.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Me Generation, this case still seems weak. That term had entire books written about it. Popular books, too. Snowflake just has one or two politically-aligned pundits echoing the term in their own little sphere. Maybe someone will write a book about this eventually, but then the argument could be made for WP:TOOSOON Jergling (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone did write a book about it: The Snowflake Effect was published in 2014, and Fox's book was published this year. Keri (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term is in common usage today, more so since generation snowflake have gone on the rampage when the democrats lost the presidential election. the fact that so many snowflakes want it deleted is surely reason enough to keep it. It is used extensively on twitter to describe those that stamp their feet and cry their eyes out whenever they do not get their own way or someone dares to disagree with their narrow minded views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flap zappa (talk • contribs) 08:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Flap zappa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Great job differentiating yourself from Generation Snowflake by throwing a fit and name-calling because you believe someone disagrees with you. Jergling (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded similarly but my comment was removed. I think the above comment from Flap zappa shows that this process is biased. MHP Huck (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was directed at a specific editor, calling them an idiot. That is a personal attack. Flap zappa's sweeping rudeness towards "so many snowflakes" may have been ill-mannered but was not directed at a particular editor. Keri (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And his comment, which still stands, reads, "the fact that so many snowflakes want it deleted" (I appear to be the only one here who wants it deleted, and I don't consider myself a snowflake but he is referring to me) and he then says, "used extensively on twitter to describe those that stamp their feet and cry their eyes out whenever they do not get their own way or someone dares to disagree with their narrow minded views." Plainly, this is directed at me, and he is showing how this term is used as an insult. I think Keri needs to step off this page and let a less biased Wikipedian guide this decision process. MHP Huck (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huck and Keri: Please don't refactor others' comments. That includes striking out votes, or deleting comments because they contained a mean word. Calling someone an idiot is an insult and clearly uncivil, but it's not a personal attack and would better be solved by discussion. Jergling (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lecture me on fucking policy, pal. I'm not refactoring others' comments, I'm striking out a !vote that shouldn't have been made - you don't vote on your own nomination. As for incivility, calling someone an idiot is clearly a personal attack. Far better editors than you or MHP Huck have been blocked for doing so. Keri (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you need to wind your neck in and drop the battleground mentality. Keri (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to say but "wow". Jergling (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a confirm that Keri is a problem. I don't need to win this or anything, I literally thought this term wasn't in use. I still think the sourcing is weak and the language questionable. Is there anyway we can get another user to take over the "lead" or whatever it is that Keri has asserted here? MHP Huck (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I am "asserting" here is actually called "stating policy". Constantly complaining about policy reinforces the impression that your nomination for deletion is a combination of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Keri (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming that your interpretation of policy is right and mine is wrong. I don't know. But you appear to be biased here. I have no problem being wrong here about the relevance and notoriety of the term, but you seem completely intent that you are right. MHP Huck (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "interpreting" policy, I'm stating it. There is no linguistic or philosophical qualification required: you cannot call another editor "an idiot", and not expect to be called out. You cannot claim that an article is not reliably sourced when de facto it is, and not expect to be called out. You cannot call other editors a liar - as you did to me - and not expect to be called out. Keri (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keri, you have clearly applied the rules as you like, not according to policy. To eliminate my post but not the other gentlemen's is patently biased. I don't think using conservative news papers and thin references is for a neologism is appropriate, but hey I am in the minority. I want the best for Wikipedia and will continue to donate even if I know people like you are tyrannizing over the process. This term is a joke, you could almost just put it under "kids these days." MHP Huck (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is at least ill-informed. The term is in wide use online, particularly among right-wing Americans. Whatever may be said about whether the article is adequately sourced or has correct tone, the nomination starts out on the wrong foot with a false claim.--Srleffler (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was made in good faith and I have yet to see it outside of right wing material. The term appears to be mostly international in use. I'd be interested to see a list of deleted neologisms for comparison. MHP Huck (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term as I know it is more of a slur / derogatory term than official. It is close to the term SJW in that it is an insult to those who fit the category, not anywhere near meaningful, and certainly not used by the people it describes. It shows a misunderstanding of the younger generation and their ideals, and hardly merits more than a short paragraph on the Millennials page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.19.93.59 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC) — 8.19.93.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge -> Political correctness /Very weak keep; although I suspect this sorry excuse for a Wikipedia article is staying despite the fact it just about barely scrapes WP:GNG and is used predominantly only by one small group of people, the same that synonymise "European" with "cuck" and such. You know the ones. ☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 22:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a merge. PC is way older than the millenials. Also it does not "barely scrape by" WP:GNG, it passes with flying colors. Your argument sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kleuske (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of evidence that the term is in use and notable. Kleuske (talk) 12:14, 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. The concerns from the deletion argument seems to have been addressed as of the time of this closing, the consensus seems to be leaning towards keep. Arguably one could view this as a no consensus as well, if the deletion side would like to bring new arguments to the table to address the concerns, there should be no prejudice to open a new AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Backyard Brawl[edit]

2007 Backyard Brawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject was previously created as "2007 Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia football game" and was deleted in 2014 after this discussion. The same rationale for deletion holds now. In short, this game is not notable enough to warrant its own stand-alone article. Summary of the game at Backyard Brawl, 2007 Pittsburgh Panthers football team, and 2007 West Virginia Mountaineers football team will suffice. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the outcome of the original AFD. Nothing has changed since then. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual games of a rivalry are not inherently notable. It could potentially factor into notability if there were other reasons (that is to say, in my opinion, a single rivalry game is more likely to be notable than a single non-rivalry game that is otherwise identical), but nothing has been presented to that effect here. Smartyllama (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Keep The article has since been expanded with evidence and sources that show sustaining coverage of this game as much as three years later, so I think it now satisfies WP:GNG on its own. Smartyllama (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The content that was added to the article was simply that from the deleted article from two years ago. Nothing has changed since then. I don't believe there's any lasting notability of this game. — X96lee15 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There's definitely a case that could be made for this game, particularly in regards to "13–9" being a sort of in-joke between Pitt and WV fans. With a google search I see a few articles about the game published years later. ESPN's archived box score of the game is entitled simply "13–9". Typically an ESPN box score would be titled something like "Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia - Box Score - December 2, 2007. Obviously, the article as it currently exists gives no indication of, well, anything. But if someone were to put in the work I think it could be passable. Lizard (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had this position in the original AFD and I hold it now. I believe that the coverage in the news more than surpasses WP:GNG. Certainly the article needs more content, but that's fixable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Am I missing something? This is a blank templated article and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If this is the result of abuse, consider my comment rescinded. Jergling (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it needs more content, but that's editing issues and not deletion issues. How exactly does this fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE--it actually is WP:DISCRIMINATE for being focused and specific.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prose was added since my comment. It failed INDISC because it looked to be a set of indiscriminate statistics describing a trivial event with no assertion of notability. I don't know sports! -Jergling PC Load Letter 22:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak keep - This is just a box score. Should WP list box scores for all football games?--Rpclod (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping Smartyllama. I think the article is now borderline notable. Four references is fairly sparse and none really indicate particular notability for a Div 1 football game, but at least the article now has encyclopedic value.--Rpclod (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused regarding the status. When I first viewed it, it was just an infobox without any reference. No evidence of notability was provided. Then content and somewhat sparse references were added, which seemed to push the article just into keep. Now it has reverted to an infobox. Seems like some WP:TNT is appropriate.--Rpclod (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The place to write/expand about this topic is in the Backyard Brawl article, which, ironically, actually contains very little information about this supposedly "important" game. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article has since been expanded significantly. Pinging @Jergling: and @Rpclod: who based their votes on the lack of content rather than notability, in case they want to reconsider. Also changing my own vote above to keep as I feel the article now demonstrates that this particular game is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, some keep comments were made when prose was added from previous deleted article, and while that prose should still be included in this candidate, I don't think the topic itself is notable, as it fails WP:PERSISTENCE and I don't think an individual game that isn't a championship is notable unless it has some landmark quality to it. The name "2007 Backyard Brawl" implies that there have been dozens of these games. Icebob99 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a lot of content has been snipped from this page as a result of copyright concerns. As a result, it now has nothing but an infobox. If the article is not deleted, the closing admin should perform a history merge to the old version of the article and restore the prose content. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Every college football game gets news media coverage in the US; very few are notable for our purposes. This basically empty article certainly is not one of those very few. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple areas where routine coverage in reliable sources (i.e., basic GNG) has been agreed upon as not sufficient. Academics and professors springs to mind, as does entertainers. I'm making the observation in the wrong place, perhaps, but given the obsessive level of attention that college football attracts in this country, I would argue that routine coverage of each and every iteration of a frequent match up does not make a football game notable unless that game was exceptionally or specially notable. If this game was in some way special, then that should have been in the article text and sources. Neither did I see any reason in my own searches to indicate that this was anything other than a routine meeting of these teams. I hope that helps explain the above !vote. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE when it comes to sports covers basic box scores and listings. This game received much more coverage than that, and is clearly WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If consensus is that this is not notable, it should probably be redirected to Backyard Brawl as a plausible search term rather than deleted. It's certainly well-known enough to at least do that. Smartyllama (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

    The subject meets WP:PERSISTENCE because it has received significant coverage after 2007 (2009, 2010, 2013, and 2016).

    Post-2007 sources

    1. Tuchman, Robert (2013). The 100 Sporting Events You Must See Live: An Insider's Guide to Creating the Sports Experience of a Lifetime. Dallas, Texas: BenBella Books. p. 597. ISBN 1935251147. Retrieved 2016-12-05.

      The book notes:

      Pitt can claim more victories, but the Mountaineers have had their share of wins. During the 2007 "Brawl," the Panthers upset the Mountaineers by knocking them out of the BCS National Championship Game. It was the biggest upset for the Panthers and the "Game of the Year" after the votes were tallied by ESPNU. And it did nothing to quell the tension between these two neighboring schools.

    2. Pauley, Scott (2009-11-23). "West Virginia vs. Pitt: Panther Fans Turn Down Tickets To The Backyard Brawl". Bleacher Report. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.

      The article notes:

      In the 2007 edition of the Backyard Brawl, West Virginia had everything to lose and Pitt had nothing to gain, as far as the 2007-08 season was concerned.

      Hailed as the most important Brawl in history, the 2007 showdown saw the Panthers blatantly ruin a trip to the National Championship and an outright Big East title for WVU, by winning the game 13-9.

    3. Teel, David (2016-11-29). "Backyard Brawl reunion could affect Hokies' bowl destination". Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.

      The article notes:

      Pittsburgh and West Virginia clashed in their Backyard Brawl for 69 consecutive football seasons, most famously and epically in 2007. The Panthers and Mountaineers have met 104 times dating to 1895, but not since 2011 and with a renewal not scheduled until 2022.

      ...

      West Virginia and Pitt are separated by about 75 miles, and their rivalry was a staple long before each joined Virginia Tech in the Big East football conference during the early 1990s. Their most notable recent encounter was 2007, when the Panthers, four-touchdown underdogs, defeated the second-ranked Mountaineers 13-9 in the regular-season finale, denying the home team a possible invitation to the Bowl Championship Series title game.

    4. "Backyard Brawl timeline". Charleston Gazette-Mail. 2011-11-24. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.

      The article notes:

      In one of the most painful losses in WVU history, Pittsburgh upsets the No. 2 Mountaineers 13-9 in the regular-season finale at Milan Puskar Stadium, ending the Mountaineers' national championship aspirations. The game also turned out to be Rich Rodriguez's last game as coach at West Virginia as he accepted an offer to take over at the University of Michigan.

    5. Bierman, Fred (2010-11-25). "Weekly Matchups: The Day After Thanksgiving Blockbuster Edition". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.

      The article notes:

      Well I remember 2007, when unranked Pittsburgh knocked off No. 2 West Virginia in Morgantown to keep its rival out of the national championship game.

      ...

      Back to the Backyard Brawl. Expect it to be a hard-hitting, low-scoring game. Both teams have struggled on offense and play hard-nosed defense. This is an underrated rivalry, and the teams have played some big games.

      In 2007, unranked Pittsburgh upset No. 2 West Virginia at home, dashing the Mountaineers’ national title hopes. The stakes won’t be quite as high this time, but the game will be an entertaining start to what promises to be a great day of college football.

    6. Bird, Michael (2016-11-03). "Let's talk college football title droughts. Which school is our Cleveland Indians?". SB Nation. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.

      The article notes:

      West Virginia

      No Claimed National Titles

      Closest Call: 2007

      Is there a fan base in college football that would celebrate harder, buy more t-shirts, or burn more stuff than West Virginia’s if their team finally won a national championship?

      West Virginia had unbeaten regular seasons in 1988 and 1993, but the Mountaineers where crushed in major bowl games, first by Notre Dame and then by Florida.

      2007, on the other hand, was a legitimate chance. In a crazy year in college football, Rich Rodriguez’s team was clearly one of the best, as he had finally paired a good defense with his then-unstoppable offense. West Virginia merely had to take care of business against 4-7 Pitt to earn the right to play Ohio State in the BCS Championship, a game in which West Virginia would likely be favored.

      Mountaineer fans, this is the point at which you should look away:

    7. Peaslee, Matthew (2016-02-11). "WVU alum Pat McAfee begins comedy tour". FanSided. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.

      The article notes:

      There once was a time Pat McAfee was the most hated man in Morgantown.

      It was in the hours and days after the worst loss in West Virginia football history: Dec. 1, 2007.

      To most, it is known simply as 13-9. In the 100th edition of the Backyard Brawl, unranked Pitt came into Milan Puskar Stadium and surprised everyone watching around the nation with a huge upset of then No. 2 West Virginia.

      McAfee missed a pair of field goals in the first half of that game. Had he converted the kicks, the Mountaineers would have been playing in the national championship. He missed, though, and WVU missed its chance at the limelight.



    2007 sources
    1. "Pitt throws curveball at BCS with win over No. 2 WVU". ESPN. Associated Press. 2007-12-02. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.
    2. Finder, Chuck (2007-12-02). "Unranked Panthers win 100th Backyard Brawl, 13-9". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.
    3. Thamel, Pete (2007-11-02). "Fitting End to a Tumultuous Season". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.
    4. Starr, Rick (2007). "WVU kicker McAfee gets death threats". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.
    5. "Biggest Upsets of 2007". Sports Illustrated. December 2007. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.
    6. Gillies, Robbie (2007-12-20). "Top 10 Upsets Of 2007 College Football Season". RealClearSports. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2016-12-05.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Apparently TOOSOON now. Perhaps later... Joyous! | Talk 22:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statik G[edit]

Statik G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobio or WP:COI article on up-and-coming young musician, seems to have made a great start to his music career, but WP:TOOSOON yet for an article. No significant coverage online from WP: Reliable sources, just music blog reviews and passing mentions of performances. News coverage seems to be all local indy press and local music blogs, with no indication of editorial policy. Doesn't yet meet WP:MUSICBIO, though it's pretty clear that he'll get there eventually. Wikishovel (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He deserves a chance to be seen and heard. I'm a huge fan, he's the number 1 rapper on reverb charts for hip hop and #8 in the globe I thought now would be the best time to let him shine and help someone notice him before he gives up. Give him a year he's touring with lil Wyte soon and working with major underground artists on his next album.. If you delete it now there's no point because he will fit the credentials by the time you do!! Or message me and let me know what sources are considered credible I will hit them up myself and do what I have to do to get him noticed!! He's too talented and everyone tried to keep him from being heard.. A wiki would show he is considered serious. Let me help — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhymeSickJunkie (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he does deserve a chance to be seen and heard, but Wikipedia is for documenting things and people that are already notable, not to help them become notable. For examples of what kind of references Wikipedia article have about notable musicians, please see WP:MUSICBIO. If you need any help with the references, you're welcome to ask at my talk page. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be a bit WP:TOOSOON. At the moment there are not enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. No objection to a recreation should more sources be found in the future. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the few independent sources seem very local. Hobit (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial and unconvincing sources for the same trivial and unconvincing information along with a trivial and unconvincing career, they all say the same thing and therefore delete. SwisterTwister talk 08:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the delete comments mention that the sources are local and trivial, but they do meet the WP:MUSICBIO requirements of multiple, non-trivial (see denver.com), published works, and they don't meet any of the exceptions. Obviously this artist isn't a pop hit but based upon the coverage I'd say he meets notability requirements. Icebob99 (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really only see the one [[WP::RS]], the Denver Post web article Icebob99 mentions. The "multiple" part seems to be lacking. Otherwise, I don't see that any of WP:BAND's criteria apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Hey there, I'm Statik G. I don't know how to do this stuff so i'm sorry if I'm not doing it right.. anyway I was googling myself and saw this come up, meaning I had a Wiki posted up recently? Is there any way for me to see what sources were used and what was said? I wish I would have read the debate or noticed this before it got deleted. I normally wouldn't even notice or get involved a debate about me, but I noticed 'local and trivial' - I do get decent coverage in the CO/WY area but to be fair, my career has been based on national tours the last 3 years and if you google 'Statik G' there are multiple reputable websites and publishers similar to Denver Post from around the nation that mentioned or wrote articles on me including ones in MO/AZ/TX/OK/NM and more. I know I'm no Bieber or Michael Jackson yet; I'm not sure what level of success is considered non-trivial to you, but I do get paid decently to travel the nation and play music (i've played in almost every state in America) and we sell merch from US to Russia to Austrailia to Japan. Plus I noticed some other artists that are around my level have a Wiki made about them as well so I guess I'm just confused about the process.

I am however wondering if the deleting parties did any research for information that was reputable before requesting the deletion or if they simply looked at what fans posted on the page and considered it unworthy. I know some articles about me re-hash my story, And I do agree I haven't gotten major press but that's because I've done everything completely independently on my own dollar/talent and won't pay for press or plays and rarely pay for advertisement. The beer named after me gets plenty of reputable coverage letalone the coverage from the national tours. I understand you have a strict policy though and I won't argue that, and yes, though I've been an artist for 10 years I am just now starting to garner worth-while attention that is required for a Wiki but i know I'll earn my place regardless if you feel i haven't yet. ~~Statik G~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatikGesus (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be a solid consensus here for deletion , however if one wish proceed with merge or redirect, feel free to continue the discussion on the talk page so a consensus to merge or redirect can be gauged. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SolidFire[edit]

AfDs for this article:
SolidFire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete and Salt, advertising article, not only deleted once before at AfD, but in fact started last year by an advertising-only account who pseudo-contributed as an "advertising removal" account but apparently took the time to not only start this advertising article again but also review and accept another user's own advertisement; I'll note all of the sources listed here are as expected, PR and republished, wherever published since that's exactly what the contents are, only focusing with the company's own words and thoughts of advertising itself, something my own searches are also finding....from their own published websites, so it's not even actual efforts of republishing if they are still only hosted at the company website. The user's own efforts alone including to seemingly make this article "substantial" with simple PR sources and mentions show enough concerns to question how elaborate this advertising campaign was. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and more coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Concerns about tone in the article can be addressed by copy editing it. North America1000 13:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into NetApp. This company came and went in five years, so will not become more notable. W Nowicki (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered merge but this SolidFire is in fact mentioned there in a sufficient form and this can therefore be deleted since it's simply advertising. Also, as for the listed sources, they are all literally advertising wherever published, take the "SolidFire breaths life!" caption for one, everything is literally simply advertising; for example, the WallStreetJournal is not only from their business contributor blog, but it's simply advertising how they gained money for their own business, the ComputerWeekly is essentially still only advertising and is also focused with its connections to NetApp. Then take the ZDNet (also has been established as a questionable source): "SolidFire offers flexible purchasing model for data center storage!".
The NetworkWorld also only advertises what information there to advertise the company and then TheRegister is literally an interview with the CEO advertising his company. Therefore we cannot honestly call any of this actual substance, independence or actual meaning, if it's still in fact advertising, whatever and wherever it was published, because that's also what churnalism means and is what's still happening. Once we start making excuses of a news source publishing PR therefore making it acceptable, we are still accepting advertisements overall.
So you see the pattern of all of this, like with all other advertisements here at AfD, in that it all only advertises the company itself and also naturally includes information only the company itself would know such as literally showing its own finance numbers or business plans & thoughts. Also, therefore, we cannot "Simply fix the advertising" if the advertising consists of the entire article, information and sources included.SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have checked the proposed target first. OK, sure, although NetApp could be beefed up a bit too. W Nowicki (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources in the article that clearly meet necessary criteria and denote notability. Whether redirecting makes more sense from an information point of view is a different question. -- HighKing++ 20:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not answering or satisfying how the article has been restarted each time as blatant advertising, therefore the fact the listed sources are then clear published and republished advertising information by the company itself, there's no compromises about that unless we want to damn ourselves as an advertising webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the purpose of AfD. Here, we look to see if an article topic is notable enough for its own article. This is. Any other tangental problems you have with the article or the authors are not for here. -- HighKing++ 17:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There exists some reliable sources in the article and Northamerica1000 has pointed out multiple reliable sources with content that is clearly more than just regurgitated primary sources. With multiple RS, the topic has been shown to be notable per WP:GNG. Any promotional or non-neutrality issues can be better solved through editing, not deletion. Hence, keep. --Mark viking (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing though, sources #1, 3, 4,6, 8 and 9 are all either publications known for publishing and republishing company-authored advertising, and this is clear since the articles always contained something of "The company supplied this information today", "The company wants to say to its clients today here", "This information comes from the company's website today", etc. All these sources have clearly stated such blatancy especially when such articles noticeably then also contain "The company's CEO said today", "The company's spokesman gave this statement here today", etc. None of that was independent news nor was it actual news at all, since it was simply company-published words.
As it is, especially websites such as Forbes have notoriously become PR webhost motivators, since the "journalists" will be hired freelance PR journalists, not actual staff journalists, therefore emphasizing the natural risks of accepting such blatancy, simply because the Forbes website wants to both include the company's abilities in its self-advertising and then (2) get extra money from both the hosted advertising and the company's own payments, and (3) Forbes never then has to pay any full-time staff since they were all either company employees or hired freelance employees.
There the contents above are not company-univolved, significant or substantial and it literally only took me a few minutes to confirm in the listed links above (the 2 other comments above, "Merge" and "Redirect" both acknowledge this is not independently convincing either), therefore we shouldn't willingly mistake it as such "news". Thus, simply saying "it's a news source" is not applying in fact the contents themselves are still eternally damned as company advertising. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – We'd be damned as an encyclopedia if articles with very minor promotional tone are blanket deleted instead of simply copy edited to address such concerns. The only promotional content, which is very minor, is in the History section concerning the company's founder, which can easily be trimmed. North America1000 22:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would need a rewrite to make it comply with WP:PROMO. Copyedit it all you wish but I can tell you it won't make much of a difference. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Just promotional blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - it's hard to expect to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if a company that is worth USD$870 million is not considered notable. I'll take a shot and see what I can do. It's also unfortunate that the AfD process causes reference stuffing to demonstrate notability. One source should usually be enough to substantiate each statement. This skeleton has almost zero puffery now as I can see. Getting into Gartner's Magic Quadrant is the gold standard of recognition for tech companies.Timtempleton (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the article, tightened up the sources, corrected some incorrect info and flushed out the history.Timtempleton (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote against merge - SolidFire is no longer independent, and Netapp apparently now markets the products as Netapp SolidFire, so the SolidFire article will no longer need to be updated, but can stay as a historical archive. Merging the info such as the history into the Netapp article unnecessarily complicates that article. In my experience most acquired and discontinued tech companies keep their articles. MCI Communications, Covad, ADC Telecommunications, etc.Timtempleton (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - Compare how the article has looked after all this time, from the AfD start, to after and to finally now, the only consistency that has stayed is the same exact PR advertising that is known for such articles, which is literally only focusing with what the company wants to advertise about themselves, and this shows since the fact the sources all repeat this too.
Therefore it's not something that we would keep in considerations for WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, which are both policy, and thus WP:BASIC and WP:GNG be damned, because it would mean we are confirming we're not a business listing and company webhost, and the history as it is shows this was only ever planned as an advertisement, therefore not considering that, is only damaging enough and, worse, if we take no actions. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't seem to be press releases - can you point out specific instances which can easily be removed?Timtempleton (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some more of the content into NetApp. Its our usual practice to keep the material under the name of the current company unless the earlier company was famous, or more important. But the article on that company needs some attention as well. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already voted against a merge - it seems there's too much info to make a merge work without making Netapp's article too clunky. How would you do it? It looks like Netapp is selling a product called Solidfire [34] (which should probably be added to the Netapp article product section) but that the company SolidFire is no more.Timtempleton (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Topic is wp:notable, see sources found by NorthAmerica1000.  Claims of advertising saturating the multiple reliable sources, the article content, and placed there by agents of the company is lacking a foundation.  No need to discuss merge here, and such a result is not binding even then.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There has specifically been analysis of these sources and they show nothing but republished and reformatted PR advertising, especially with the fact everything is consistent with what their own website press releases say about it, hence certainly not independent if it's simply republished from company website PR. WP:N means nothing when policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply, both of which are non-negotiable. When we no longer consider policies such as this, we're damned. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your passion for protecting Wikipedia from blatant promotionalism, but that's all gone now. An $870 million dollar acquisition is inherently notable, regardless of anyone's opinion of the value of the news sources.Timtempleton (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NetApp; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator' - If needed, I am in fact willing for a Redirect as long as we can seal this article's fate from becoming advertising again. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article is undoubtedly written in WP:NPOV. We shouldn't delete an article because it was written as an advertising vehicle; after all, if the subject is notable, then Wikipedia should have an article for it. Just because it was created by an advertising editor does not make this less notable, and in fact, I haven't found any instances of advertising. Also, previous AfD was by no means conclusive of this form of the article. Even on cursory glance, this AfD is a lot more in depth than its first one. Icebob99 (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually policy including WP:NOT explicitly states advertising can be removed on sight, regardless of anything, and even the CSD applies and allows this; therefore because everything has shown above this was in fact only started for advertising, it's enough, regardless of anything else that would "perhaps suggest" otherwise. The fact it was even then started by an advertising account emphasizes this, and that's not something we should allow. An account that was only ever willing to focus with adding advertising for companies in hence an advertising account, and WP:DUCK would apply in this.
As I said above, I'm willing for the article relink to the parent instead, but there's enough Delete and merge consensus to show this is simply not convincing as its own article. WP:NOT policy is not negotiable (nor should we make it so), compared to guidelines WP:BASIC, WP:CORP and WP:GNG which in fact are. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading your comments correctly, you're saying that even if a subject is notable, if the article was started by someone with a conflict of interest and/or it's too advertorial in tone, instead of fixing it, it should be deleted? What if the editor simply didn't know the site guidelines, assuming good faith? No consensus usually means keep, but also keep this on your watch list.Timtempleton (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOT ADVERTISING is basic policy, and is more important than questions of notability. If something is really notable, a person without NPOV will write an article. If anyone thinks it should be kept, they should first rewrite it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The foundation for what defines "really notable" here is the premise that there are people "with NPOV" and "without NPOV".  Wikipedia does not identify such categories.  It is an elitist argument that editors can be labeled and divided, and that notability is defined by the contributions of right-thinking editors.  See WP:BATTLEGROUND. 

I also get the sense of a deeper idea here that policies and guidelines don't apply to the contributions of either side of this labeling.

This foundation is then used to state a fallacious argument, as follows.  To clarify the fallacy it helps to redefine "a person with NPOV" and "a person without NPOV" as "a person".  The fallacy then falls out as either the statement, "if something is really notable, a person will write an article" or "if something is really notable, a person will write an NPOV article".  But this is a fallacy because if something is "really notable", a person may or may not write an article.  Or this is a fallacy because if something is "really notable", a person may or may not write an NPOV article.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to NetApp per WP:NOPAGE. Literally every single source I saw mentioned it as a part of NetApp. We don't create articles for every small subsidiary unless the subsidiary can show notability independent of the parent company. That is not happening here. Accordingly, I suggest a redirect with history preserved. If someone wants to add information, they can pull it out from the history. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. While ambassadors aren't inherently notable, there's disagreement about whether there is enough coverage for an article about this one.  Sandstein  21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susantha De Alwis[edit]

Susantha De Alwis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO - being an ambassador does not establish automatic notability. Dan arndt (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:DIPLOMAT: " If an individual who is, or was, the "head of mission" meets the criteria in a well-respected essay (such as WP:SOLDIER) an individual biography article can be created ". Therefore, since the subject was a head of mission. It justifies the presence of this article. Cossde (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. Dan arndt (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Says who ? Dan, if flag rank officers are considered notable per their rank, heads of missions are notable. Cossde (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there is no inherent notability of ambassadors, otherwise none would be deleted. Secondly there have been at least 2 proposals at WP:BIO to give ambassadors inherent notability. Both have failed. LibStar (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no inherent notability in being ambassador. A gnews search shows very limited coverage indicating fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thankyou for finding these. The first one appears a dead link. The 2 obituary articles may be suitable. However is there coverage during their life? LibStar (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this is not a notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 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, —UY Scuti Talk 19:12, 16 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) 13:00, 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) 14:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally I fully disagree - I see no reason for not having articles on ambassadors! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this is a WP:ILIKEIT kind of reasoning with zero demonstration of how WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly if there was such thing as inherent notability of ambassadors, then none of the articles on ambassadors would be deleted, which is not the case. Secondly there have been at least two proposals, that I am aware of, at WP:BIO to give ambassadors inherent notability. Both of which have failed. So unless you can provide evidence that there is a WP policy that supports your view, the article fails to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Per WP:WHYN, we require coverage to have an article. In this case, we don't have enough to write an article. However, I do see a claim of significance in being the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations. There might be coverage which we haven't found out. Accordingly, I would suggest a redirect to this article. This preserves the edit history and in case someone can find more stuff, it can be restored. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this biography, he did hold the position, but note that this was the UN in Geneva. The list in Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations includes those in New York, not Geneva. See the official NY list. Icebob99 (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Island (where that biography/tribute is published) is, I think, the second largest English language newspaper in Sri Lanka. On the other hand, the tribute is written by Leelananda de Silva, so it is not completely independent. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Found some more interesting sources. [35] says that he was the Sri Lankan representative at Geneva. It also says that he served as the Secretary of the Political Committee of the 1976 Colombo NAM Summit. [36] & [37] & [38] articles which say that he was the Ambassador to Washington. Here is an article he wrote for LA Times [39]. He was good enough to be at White House State Dinners with the prime minister of Sri Lanka and a select few other guests, according to this Washington Post article [40]. Ambassadors to USA tend to be the best among the lot in most nations. Lack of more references can probably be attributed to Sri Lanka's lack of news worthiness in the world stage. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - newspapers.com [41] isn't the best for finding recent articles, and I can't access these, but the site shows a few US articles from the 1980s and early 1990s that do seem to provide in depth coverage of De Alwis. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment essentially these are the exact same article reprinted in different regional newspapers - which is basically a mention in passing, nothing in depth that establishes notability. Dan arndt (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree. The newspapers.com link I gave has 8 articles, 5 of which are unique. None of the repeats come from different papers, rather they come from different printings of the same paper. While the papers could be considered regional, all were nationally respected at the time and, I think, had reporters that covered national news.
Also, note in your searches that there is a common alternate spelling, "Susanta De Alwis". Under this spelling, a couple more titles show up: in 1978, he was chairman of the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries and in 1987, he was elected chairman of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with the nominator that this person fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I could not find any significant coverage from independent reliable sources on a Google search. See also my comment replying to LemonGirl942. Icebob99 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ambassadors to major nations are often notable, and the sourcing for this individualis sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no. There is no inherent notability of being an ambassador to/from a 'major nation". As an admin you should know better. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Lipsky[edit]

Matthew Lipsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be false information. Contested prod, which was then readded by an IP with the comment "Article originally claimed that he played for MetroStars and Bayer Leverkusen, which are outright lies. It also claimed that he played for the Connecticut Wolves in 2003, but, according to this: [42], the Wolves didn't play in the USL in 2003. Nothing appears on him when searching US soccer stats database [43]. He fails notability for athletes, as he never played a game as a professional." Bradv 19:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The claims of notability were hoaxes. No evidence he played for either team on Google except Wikipedia mirrors. Ordinarily this would be a speedy delete as hoax, but he was a Division I college athlete and that part is verifiable, so I would be opposed to speedy in this case. Smartyllama (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as blatant hoax Spiderone 21:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. This does not really have even an allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue being a Division I college athlete is an allegation of notability, and that part is verifiable, which is the only reason I opposed a speedy. It doesn't make him notable, but it's enough of a claim to stop a speedy. Smartyllama (talk) 02:04, 20 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) 09:30, 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 no consensus. Low participation (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Solgaard[edit]

Adrian Solgaard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed the G11 speedy of Domdeparis (ping) because I think it is not purely promotional and A7 is at best a gray line ($1m in crowdfunding is something, and there is an award). This being said, I see no claim of notability for Lifepack, and if Interlock is notable (dubious) the biography still needs to go - it is the lock, not the inventor, that is notable. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hi Tigraan the trouble is that the claim is not true it is at 613 917$ which I agree is a lot too but the tone is highly promotional. Domdeparis (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, not a WP:G11. Speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be extremely strict. It would take two minutes, tops, to rewrite the article (without even changing the meaning of the sentences) in a non-promotional way; I did not do that, because I think it will be deleted, but it is not pure promotion, hence G11 does not apply.TigraanClick here to contact me 15:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you've lost me...you did nominate this article for deletion ? Domdeparis (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point being made is that this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but does qualify for deletion on the grounds of notability under the standard process of discussion here. I am offerring no opinion on either point, but just trying to prevent you from being lost. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion and AFD are different processes, with different rules for what qualifies. If an article contains any claim of notability at all, then it can't be speedied for notability issues — but it can still be AFD'd for notability issues if the notability claim isn't a compelling or properly sourced one. The difference is that speedy makes the article go away instantly, while AFD is a process that lasts at least a week and allows people the latitude to research and improve the article if it's salvageable — so speedy has much narrower conditions for what qualifies, and even an obviously deletable article isn't necessarily a speediable article if it doesn't meet those specific conditions. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, sorry I didn't see this page where I could comment. Adrian is a guy from my area. The campaign made 613 on Kickstarter, but via indiegogo (google lifepack indiegogo) it's over a million usd. I added the lock page as well, that won some awards. I added a 30 under 30 list I found him on as well. I'm new at wikipedia stuff, so I'm trying to do my dues by contributing to some other articles as well. Does this clarify? Jesperxson (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 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, —UY Scuti Talk 19:02, 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. czar 02:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provision (musical group)[edit]

Provision (musical group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article restored after a PROD contesting at WP:UNDELETE yet the user (band member himself) cited no actual improvements or how the article can become better, which it needs, the history shows the concerns also in that nothing has actually amounted to substance and showing this article can be sufficiently improved, the statements at WP:UNDELETE emulate signs of "My band is known, I donate to Wikipedia so that should also help keep my band advertised here" even if those were not the exact words, because amassing such a large amount of information, yet no actual sources, and then having the article advert-formatted, is enough concerns by itself; my own searches are not finding anything better and the listed sources are simply local news articles. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello User: SwisterTwister. This is User: Breye7x. I am also the frontman for Provision. It was been brought to my attention by User: Finngall and User: JJMC89 that any changes made by me to the Provision (Musical Group) page or any undo actions, represent a conflict of interest because I am a part of the band itself. I was completely unaware of this until today, and I apologize for my lack of knowledge on this fact. Our page here was created by a long time fan. It is not my page, even though it contains information about me. I use the term "my page" loosely. I am not the original author. Our page has been updated and maintained over the years by our fans. It has also been wiped clean and vandalized at different times, which is why I began to monitor it from time to time and add factual information that was true. Our page has been altered with untrue information many times over the years.
I did contest it's deletion yesterday when I saw that our page was gone. I have never had to do this, and I am sure I came out wrong in trying to explain my request. My band however does meet the "Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles" listed under #5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
My band Provision was signed with 2 of the Largest Synthpop Labels in North America. A Different Drum and Section 44 Records. We signed multiple release contracts with both labels.
Both labels have a history of more than a few years, and a roster of performers, many of whom are are independently notable; and have their own Wiki pages here.
I completely understand that because of the conflict of interest rule, I can no longer make edits or revisions to our page. And I have asked our fans to please help with this, and to make changes to the content for us positively; so that we can stay on Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia very much and I donate throughout the year to help keep it online. I did not mean that statement as any kind of justification to advertise my band here, when I contested the deletion of our page. I am not here to advertise, or to try and break or bend the rules. I had a rough day at work, and was upset because I believed our page had been wiped again by vandals. I love Wikipedia very much, and I have always been proud to be a part of it. Please don't delete our page. Please allow our fans the chance to correct it, and make it right. Thank You in advance for your time. Breye '7x' Kiser Breye7x (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reads like a promotional page. Sources indicate only local coverage. None of the labels appear significant and there is a hefty chunk of CoI editing going on. Karst (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable band page that is promotional in nature. -- Dane2007 talk 14:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page is in Compliance - This page has since been edited by multiple users. Page does not read like an advert, nor does it read in a promotional way when compared to multiple other band and musical group pages here. References cited from online publications in Italy (Chain DLK) and Sweden (Brutal Resonance) and others, include more than just local coverage. Dxtc2 (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability - To state that none of the labels appear significant is untrue. A Different Drum was the largest Synthpop label in the world having signed over 100 artists and releasing over 400 singles and albums. Check out the catalog of releases on A Different Drum's page at Discogs. It's simply impossible to reject or discount the notability of A Different Drum and it's artists contributions to keeping Synthpop alive though the 1990s and 2000s. Some of it's most notable artists include Alphaville, Real Life, Christopher Anton of Information Society, Iris, and Provision. All of whom sold thousands of albums and singles and toured over the last 2 decades, which contributed greatly to A Different Drum's success. Dxtc2 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - I contributed to this page in the first few years of it's existence under my former user name Dxtc. This page used to have other references that no longer exist. They were perhaps removed as the links were no longer accessible. The page was altered and changed many times by many different users. It was also vandalized here and there. The COI existed because a member who is also an editor here, had made edits to the page without being aware of the rules of COI on wikipedia. Someone should have reached out to him before the page was simply deleted. The page at User talk:Breye7x indicates that he was made aware of these issues by editors Fingall and JJMC89, who reached out to help him; and he has since ceased any activity on this page. Multiple editors have since made edits, revisions and performed cleanup; including JJMC89. No further COI exists, and the previous arguments for removal have been remedied. Dxtc2 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been sufficiently improved. Article has been edited for neutrality. Conflict of Interest no longer exists. All references point to functional links that are verifiable. Subject is notable according to wiki’s own definitions. Keep. Opticon98 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Dxtc2 and Opticon98 are  Confirmed socks of Breye7x. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Breye7x.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Musical group that does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 TT me 22:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret, because I like their music and own one of their albums. Didn't find any better references to improve the sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. A Different Drum (RIP) was certainly a notable label, but debatable as far as being an "important indie label" for purposes of satisfying WP:NMUSIC criterion #5. And the sockpuppetry involved obviously didn't help the cause. --Finngall talk 22:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with drastic reductions While the COI and sockpuppetry are obviously WP:GAME attempts, the existence of two bona-fide album releases[44] does (just barely) qualify on WP:BAND #5. I don't think that it really is debatable that Section 44 or A Different Drum qualify as "more important indie label{s}." Most of the content, however, definitely needs to be purged. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean White (Solar)[edit]

Sean White (Solar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accomplished, but not notable. Does not qualify under WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 18:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Purely promotional. No scientific achievements of note. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as certainly not notable as an author and, quite honestly as anything else, and not only is it clear the user (whether intended or not), was advertising but they completely bypassed Draft reviewing altogether; and with something as questionable as this, when there's also clear advertising, that's not something to move themselves or have accepted (especially not accepted if it's at least a competent Draft reviewer). SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Avruch[edit]

Kevin Avruch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It looks like this article does not meet notability requirements. The user who created it, @Scarwriter: (notified), declares a COI and affiliation with the university in which this professor teaches, on their page, which there is nothing wrong with. However, I'm not so sure the professor in question actually meets notability requirements. FuzzyGopher (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • At first glance it appears that the subject meets WP:PROF criterion 5 with a named chair and probably criterion 1 with 700 Google Scholar citations to his book and significant numbers to his journal papers. Let's see if we can bring in some experts on academic notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with ip, meets WP:PROF.Smmurphy(Talk) 02:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per WP:PROF#C5, the named chair. Some named chairs are ex officio rather than given in recognition of excellence in scholarship, but that doesn't seem to be the case here: he received the named chair in 2009 and was named dean in 2013. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PROF (named chair).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He holds a named chair so clearly passes academic notability criteria 5.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 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.  Sandstein  23:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two tickets to Heaven[edit]

Two tickets to Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:NFILM Brianga (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Русский фильм Два билета на тот свет. DENAMAX (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: None of the sources in the article, nor those mentioned above, are valid for GNG. Directories and prerelease hype are not useful sources for establishing notability. Jergling (talk) 23:07, 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) 06:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew R Crow[edit]

Andrew R Crow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created in 2008 the day after Andrew Crow was deleted; both were created by Arcrow (talk · contribs), whose only contributions were these two articles and a promotional userpage. Refs are to articles authored by the subject, his employers, and organizations with which he has associations. If the claim made in the article about the discovery is true, he probably merits an article, but that claim is supported by a ref for which he was one of many authors, and also lacks third-party support. Mindmatrix 17:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no indication of notability. appears to be as article claims, a bench scientist who has published, but there is no indication of secondary sourcing to establish that any of the 15 papers he has published are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per E.M.Gregory's rationale above. Could we get an h-index for him? I'm not sure if that's as easily said as done. Jergling (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an h-index of 22. I'm not sure what that means in this field. agtx 16:38, 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  20:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Fontana[edit]

NGO Fontana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This highly promotional article has been around for some time, but shouldn't be. The article fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as secondary source mentions are extremely limited ([45] and some passing references elsewhere). Half the links on their website don't work (like "About Us"). I also had to remove a substantial portion of the page which was copyvio from here agtx 17:41, 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.  Sandstein  20:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khlapieel Benjamin[edit]

Khlapieel Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding anything to show notability. I found [46] but that's not even an RS. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unsourced article with unverified claims. If he really has "international recognition" we need citations to this recognition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Gallagher (fighter)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James Gallagher (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted after an AfD discussion and reposted soon after. The speedy repost was declined since this Stub was different from the more detailed version that was originally deleted but more importantly in the short time between deletion and re-creation there was no change in the subjects circumstances that would cause a change in the original AfD's conclusion. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's no more notable now than he was a week ago when this article was deleted. He fails the MMA notability criteria at WP:NMMA and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. He has no top tier fights and is currently fighting for a second tier organization. Routine sports coverage is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable fighter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 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) 06:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grupa Azoty Prorem[edit]

Grupa Azoty Prorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article, with no claim of notability. Searches did not turn up anything to show it passes WP:CORP. Onel5969 TT me 17:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant advertising with clear advertising-motivated for this article hence there's nothing else to state otherwise than that the current contents and sources are far from convincing, hence advertising. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal Literacy Foundation[edit]

Aboriginal Literacy Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. While this organization may do excellent work, I have not been able to turn up any in depth secondary sources that discuss the organization. All of the sources on the page are primary sources. I don't believe it meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP unfortunately. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I still confirm my own speedy since literally everything here is blatant advertising with also no actual significance, there's simply nothing else beyond that especially since the summary is "This was clearly started for advertising". SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertisement written in the subject's voice. No third party articles or reports on the org, but they are registered with the ACNC[47]. 34% of their reported $496k AUD income in 2014 was spent visiting a single conference! (Not that that has anything to do with the AfD, but they didn't have a CharityNavigator entry, what was I supposed to do?) Jergling (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I removed the proposed deletion (PROD) tag, because I though deleting without a discussion might be controversial. Thye current page is on the borderline of disastrous. This group might be barely notable based on some sources online that I found: see some news articles and some book mentions. Whether they are significant enough coverage for notability is, as often is the case, in the eyes of the beholders. Bearian (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, each of these handful of results on Google are trivial, and merely mention the organization. They do not appear to discuss the organization in any detail. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 of the 6 cites on GScholar appear to be for a Canadian org called the National Aboriginal Learning Foundation, just for the record. The GNews is more significant than my searches turned up, though. A Parliamentary charity made ALF their recipient in 2014, although the committee itself seems pretty minor. Jergling (talk) 15:34, 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 no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 01:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burger Urge[edit]

Burger Urge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP. Supplied sources are not reliable. Got some coverage this year because of some advertising controversy but that's WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Sources provided only just gain notability. The page needs a lot of work though, needs to be more like an article and less like a promo. Ajf773 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as the listed links are either simply advertising what the company has to offer about itself and its services (take the blatant mentions of its business plans and thoughts in those articles) to then mere articles about advertising controversy, which although not advertising, can and still is actually unconvincing for notability, because that comes and is expected with any company; a company like this is also going to take advantage of PR advertising when opportunities come and they show in those articles above, simply note the blatancy of its condom activities (note also the first link how it literally advertises their "marketing plans"....
....and then how the next article actually goes to show, once again, their business plans of expanding their business and their plans of specific locations, that is company-supplied and initiated advertising and we should not mistake as otherwise. None of that actually amounts to substance and nor will it. Once we start taking and accepting such blatant or trivial information, wherever published, we cannot be taken seriously to handle unconvincing articles. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need articles on every fast food chain in the world. From spot checks the refences given above are essentially about this firm promoting itself, so WP:CORPDEPTH isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, some of the coverage presented above is routine, but I think the stuff about their somewhat tasteless and ill-advised advertising campaigns is out of the ordinary. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep. While some of the articles are a bit transparent in their promotional aims, I believe there is enough to meet WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company marketing draws attention and coverage that goes beyond trivial and routine mentions in WP:CORP, so I would say it is just barely notable. Agree with above comments that the current state of the article is poor, but that is separate from notability. MB 15:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable. Besides, I trust Nick-D's opinion, as he is the resident of the country in question, and would have known if the company were notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, that is an interesting cherry-pick of the nationality of those participating. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:35, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InTheChat[edit]

InTheChat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

utterly trivial references comprising only that do not show notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as entirely advertising and basically no actual significance at that, the entire history speaks for itself also and shows there's nothing to suggest otherwise convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A7 material. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A small firm with 21 employees (2015). CIO Review has them as one of its 20 Most Promising Customer Experience Management providers [48] but that is anticipative rather than reflecting achieved notability. I would say this fails to establish encyclopaedic notability at this point; at best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 10:48, 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. Multiple reliable sources supporting inclusion per WP:ARTIST. Katietalk 13:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Tunberg (artist)[edit]

William Tunberg (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:ARTIST I could not locate reliable sources for notability verification. Of the sources I found there was his official website, artsy, and the Robert Berman Gallery, which spoke more to the subject's works of art and not to his biography. Without reliable secondary sources establishing notability, I do not think this is worth of a WP:BLP Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is under construction. Please re-review and let me know specifically what you would like me to do. This is a 50-year career, with articles and shows going back to the '60s. I'm locating and scanning the sources. There were no computers then. Nothing was digital until the late-'90s. Please be specific as to what you need. How do I prove the art shows? Scan in the announcements and attach? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstwct (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm leaving proper messages or if they are getting to you. I left a message before and now I can't find it, so I will leave another. This page is under construction. I'm adding cites as quickly as I can. Please re-review. Please also leave me a message if there is something you'd like me to do that I'm not doing. I've worked very hard on the page and will continue to improve it. I would appreciate your guidance and patience. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no museum collections or otherwise actual substance and I found only major book collections for his father, so there's simply nothing genuinely convincing for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I undid the close per Whpq and I am attempting to withdraw my proposal for deletion. If I am doing this incorrectly still please let me know. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I left an entire dialog yesterday about why I support keeping this article, but my discussion appears to have disappeared.Cstwct (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC) *Keep And I just spent a lot of time redoing my argument in favor of keeping the page, which disappeared also.Cstwct (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cstwct: It's inappropriate for you to try and WP:!VOTE twice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, I did not vote twice. I'm writing to Comatmebro to let him know that I lost my argument in favor of the page 2X, an argument that took me a long time to write. My comments weren't meant to be voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstwct (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry I forgot to sign.Cstwct (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you posted a "keep" !vote with this edit and then another "keep" !vote about an hour and forty minutes later with this edit. This may have been an innocent mistake, but the end result is that it looks like you've !voted twice. You do not need to begin every comment you make with "Keep". Just follow the proper format and add your post. If you want to post something specifically for Comatmebro, then you might be better off trying User talk:Comatmebro. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly is right. I made comments in the wrong section because of my ignorance of how Wikipedia works. I've used Strikeout to remove the first comment (I'm learning). The hour and 40 minute difference in posts is because that is how long it took me to write my argument in favor of keeping Tunberg's page. I've lost my argument twice, and I think this is because the software deems me to be inactive while I'm composing and logs me out as a precaution, even if I'm hitting Preview during the process, which is not enough. I don't know how else to explain this. I will write it again and have it up by the end of the day.Cstwct (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 2605:E000:6303:A500:AC68:6E8D:F045:54D6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep I disagree with SwisterTwister, who is placing too much emphasis on the importance of museums and no emphasis on the importance of religious institutions that inspire faith, universities that teach our children, and cutting edge innovators, such as General Dynamics, that invent new technologies in aerospace, maritime and IT. Institutions such as these are Tunberg's collectors. Placing importance only on museums is a narrow view of art.
I haven't had the opportunity to develop the most important section in Tunberg's page, which is the Marquetry section. Tunberg has taken marquetry out of the decorative arts and into the fine arts – he has joined together two distinctly different worlds. Tunberg has been called a "master of modernist marquetry" by Peter Frank, a renowned American art critic. (Frank, Peter. "Art Pick of the Week". June 19-25, 1998. LA Weekly). Tunberg has also been called a "marquetry master" by Interior Design magazine for the furniture and sculpture he created for Chapman University's Interfaith Center. (Cohen, Edie. "A Congregation of Talent". August 2005. Interior Design, pp. 186-193). I haven't had the opportunity to discuss Tunberg's innovations in marquetry, such as the technique he developed to bend marquetry over 3-D sculptural forms and half-rounds; nor the finish he developed to keep lacquer from cracking when wood moves due to temperature changes. Before Tunberg, marquetry was never used as a medium in contemporary fine art sculpture.
I haven't had the opportunity to discuss the above because I've spent an inordinate amount of time learning Wikipedia and trying to keep his page from being deleted. I've responded to your objections. I've gone through his bio, pulled out his museum exhibits, and inserted them into the article to make them more visible. When you objected to the lack of cites and links to other Wikipedia pages, these issues were corrected. And this was no small feat.
Tunberg has had a 50-year career, 35 of which were nondigital. In order to obtain the required cites, we have to pore over old magazines, catalogs and newspapers that have been collected for decades and thrown into boxes. It means finding and scanning not only articles and newspapers, but old negatives, slides and photographs. For the majority of Tunberg's career, there was no internet where you could put in a search term and pull up needed information. Nor were there digital cameras where you could take a photo, upload it to a computer and fix it in Photoshop. Photography was done the hard way -- with traditional film and negatives. In any event, in Tunberg's day, documenting was not a priority; the artwork was most important. Today, hype is everything.
I respectfully request that you allow Tunberg's page to develop and mature so the reader can obtain a complete view of Tunberg's accomplishments. I also think it's important so young artists will know that marquetry is a viable medium for fine art sculpture. It's a very difficult medium, which is off-putting, but hopefully the images of marquetry sculpture on Tunberg's page will inspire young sculptors.
Finally, I can't address SwisterTwister's remark "I found only major book collections for his father." I'm not sure what ST is referring to, since Tunberg's father didn't write books. He was a radio, television and screenplay writer.
I would appreciate it if you would resolve this matter at your earliest possible opportunity. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to exist for "what you think children should learn about and from who", Wikipedia accepts articles for artists in permanent collections necause it's a major achievement and o ly a select number of them get collected. Also. By book collections, I meant that his father's authored works are still in libraries. Artists being in museum collections is something we've always had including here at AfD. The two things we've established helps for such notability is either art reviews or collections. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpreted the concept I discussed at the beginning of my rebuttal. Further, your quote (not mine) doesn't accurately reflect the intent of my words. And, as I mentioned in my rebuttal, Tunberg's father did not write books; therefore, since his books don't exist, they wouldn't be included in libraries. He was a radio, television and screenplay writer. The four images on the page you saw were movies he wrote. If you had scrolled past those images, you would have seen his filmography. I agree that museums are important, but you can't put so much importance on them that you discount important institutional collectors and society at large. With regard to art reviews, I can send you a crate of interviews if your interested.Cstwct (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are offline reliable sources referenced in the article , passes WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I'm not sure if the nominiator can proceed with the withdrawal now that at least one editor has supported deletion, but perhaps SwisterTwister can be persuaded that while it is not required for artists to have their work in museum collections, that criterion has now been met, invalidating his claim that there's simply nothing genuinely convincing. Mduvekot (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a message on ST's talk page, asking him to review this discussion and make his decision. His talk page says he's semi-retired and not very active. Any ETA on this? I'd like to get this resolved before the TG holiday, as that would be the perfect time to work on the article and supply Wikipedia with the forms and information it has requested. I don't want to put any more time into Tunberg's article if it's going to be deleted. Please advise asap. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Many indications can be found in the article of this artist's accomplishments in the field of visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources convince me that this artist is WP:NOTABLE. A piece at LACMA and mentions in Art in America and Esquire? Definitely. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:39, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omolola Ladele[edit]

Omolola Ladele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Nigerian scholar wth a few mentions in the press, but who's never been involved in any major event or project. --Qwacker (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not yet attained WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Her notability relates to her position as provost, not to any project. Judging from the sources already available in the article, the appointment of a woman as provost was itself a newsworthy event. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid argument. Institution is not a major one. WP:Prof is not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
And yet her appointment was regarded as newsworthy. The sources decide what's notable, not you. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Adeniran Ogunsanya College of Education isn't a "major academic institution" by any measure so Ladele doesn't qualify under WP:PROF. I can't see sufficient coverage of her appointment in the press to pass the WP:GNG either, and even if there were it would be a WP:BLP1E. Joe Roe (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The institution seems to be a constituent college of the Ekiti State University. Being the provost of a constituent college is not good enough for WP:PROF. In addition, the coverage seems to be routine news about the appointment sources to a press release. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunwest Solutions[edit]

Sunwest Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources. - MrX 13:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This AfD and my CSD A7 were placed near-simultaneously. Anyway, this article has a similar pattern to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nettech Ltd in that the article asserts claims sourced only to a Yellow Pages listing and uses the Design Museum website as a "reference" (which mentions neither firm). No real evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; clearly fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -was speedily deleted yesterday and then recreated as one of a suite of near identical articles supported by a multitude of trivial or irrelevant refs. No notability here.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should not be deleted The page is for new start up which is making lot of buzz. So i find it absurd saying to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisangel123 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Should not be deleted The admins should make a concrete effort to accomodate start ups.As wikipedia has little to no information regarding them. With information technology being so important, they simply cannot be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisangel123 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot vote twice, and in both reasons you have given unsatisfactory reasons to support Keep. Wikipedia has specific notability policies for a reason.Ajf773 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and article exists solely for advertising purposes. Ajf773 (talk) 17:31, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bryant (Motivational Speaker)[edit]

Andrew Bryant (Motivational Speaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability. Hype-y bio sourced to almost no third-party sources; the podcast may be arguable third-party, but is not a reliable source. Google searches for "Andrew Bryant" and "Andrew Bryant" speaker (to weed out the many other people of same name) found no relevant reliable sources in first 100 hits. No relevant hits in Google News or News Archives for "Andrew Bryant" speaker. Google Books for "Andrew Bryant" speaker lead with a few books he's author or co-author on, and quickly degenerated into various hits which did not have his name mentioned. Nat Gertler (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete as self-sourced PROMO. To supplement searches by Nom, I searched "Andrew Bryant" + success and got to the same sort of primary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I have been unable to find hardly any 3rd party reliable sourcing for this person. In addition, the page is promotionally written. Gluons12 ☢|☕ 20:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Radojčić[edit]

Igor Radojčić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Assistant referee with almost non-existence sourcing. Not seeing any indication of notability. AIRcorn (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added some more links and extended the article from 1 sentence, I'm not sure on the subject guidelines for assistant referees, so I wont be voting. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any, so it probably defaults to WP:BASIC. I would like to organise some guidelines for referees at some point though. AIRcorn (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:57, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Borović[edit]

Jovan Borović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Assistant referee with no real indication of notability in the article. No real sourcing, just links to Serbian profile pages. AIRcorn (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything about referees in WP:OUTCOMES. AIRcorn (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of GNG being met Spiderone 22:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. Having not apparently refereed any continental level matches, I would be surprised if this ref had received any coverage beyond the listing of his name in routine match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:31, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountain Inn Hotel[edit]

Blue Mountain Inn Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NOTADVERT Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That is just a plain advert for a completely non-notable hotel. I tried to find something which resembles a reliable source which covers this hotel but I couldn't find anything. It is just one of many regular hotels in Lesotho, so the only mentions of this hotel are in non-RS holiday trip reports. They also sponsor a marathon, but there isnt much on that either and that would not make the hotel itself notable. It simply fails WP:GNG and the article is very likely written to promote the subject. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete sourcing on age is paltry, not reliably sourced. A gNews search turned up nothing at all [49]. Search of gbooks [50] - zilch.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable hotel failing GNG. WP is not a business directory. MB 15:00, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atiqur Rahman Fahad[edit]

Atiqur Rahman Fahad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. Previous prod contest that he played in the Asian games not relevant as that was a u23 competition. Fenix down (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 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 Page deleted via CSD A7 RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Gupta[edit]

Lucky Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was removed by an IP. I have tried to find sources for the subject but no reliable sources are available to qualify the subject on GNG or SNG. I suggest a deletion. Would look forward to views from other editors. Lourdes 06:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (possible CSD A7): A WP:SPA autobiography on a subject previously deleted A7 under another name variant. I can see some coverage of a "Jammu-based actor" of this name but no evidence that it is the same person (and nor would the coverage establish notability if it was). I am seeing no claim of notability in the article nor any means of verifying its basic information so am also proposing the article for CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saholic[edit]

Saholic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsurprisingly this is another company-motivated advertisement (see recent tagging of mine), not only because the information and sources are literally advertising anything they would ever say such as their services, their business plans and actions, client information, the listed sources are all unconvincing, not helping since they are all publications known for republishing news and costuming it as news; my own searches literally found such republications, hence there's nothing to take both seriously and confidently.

There's no need to keep such blatancy especially since it has no substance or otherwise convincing materials, I had speedied this before but it's clear we'll need ammunition for any future concerns, not to mention because the various advertising-only accounts, all of which have the essences of company influences. As it is this was mistakenly accepted by someone in April 2014 who never cared to examine both the advertising materials or the fact it was company-motivated. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NCORP and WP:Promo. Non-noteable tech company - article written with a promotional tone note suitable for WP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The given references are routine announcements and I am locating nothing better. I had been going to suggest a redirect to the parent Spice Group but that page lacks references and the company website is no longer available, preventing basic verification. And this recent Financial Express item indicates the brand and parent may now be part of an Ominiventures Private Ltd.) AllyD (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - purely promotional and no evidence of notability; I'm surprised it has lasted this long Spiderone 11:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - solely here to exist for spam page. Sagecandor (talk) 02:53, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PropTiger.com[edit]

PropTiger.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Literally a seriously overblown article with not only published advertising but republished advertising costumed as "news" as shown by the obvious thinly covered signs of those publications, which are notorious as it is for republishing whatever the company pleases and pays for, and the fact the article was intentionally formatted like this by over 10 advertising-only accounts, one of which was actually named "Realestate", explains everything especially since it's obvious as it is, the company itself is advertising-motivated about this article. To note, I can be guaranteed that since nearly all of these start with names, they are surely company employees, and along with the other one I listed earlier, see also the user "Way2wealthRealty".

My own searches are then finding such republished news, but that's expected since we cannot confide at all with such publications, especially since all that searches naturally found were literal republished company financials and specific business plans and lists. Let's not continue making it worse by allowing such a blatant advertisement, as we made the mistake of allowing this for nearly 2 years now, but at best, it emphasized the sheer blatancy of how the company continued advertising this so-called article, especially since it's only about 5 years old, it means there's nothing but its advertising. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the only thing of any conceivable importance is that Murdoch bought it, and that's not nearly enough. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Routine coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 00:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While some of the sources (e.g. ET Bureau) are questionable, Murdoch's involvement and subsequent coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are not significantly talking about the company. The ones which do, turn out to be based on extensive quotes by company employees. Keeping in mind WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND, I don't see enough at the moment to have an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to the above, it also fails WP:AUD. The media relevant to the topic is clearly of very limited interest. It's simply not encyclopedia-worthy.--MarshalN20 Talk 00:33, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhibus.com[edit]

Abhibus.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As always, this is only focusing with what the company would advertise itself, which starts with its services, a history "About" which is basically the largest part of the entire article until it finishes with its sources, literally advertised information from the company about its financials and company money; my own searches, naturally only found the same, which is expected of course from Indian publications who are so known for paid-for advertisements, therefore there's simply nothing to confide as being both independent and not advertising. Now, another unsurprising part is the literal sheerness of over 10 advertising-only accounts involved with this one account, all since it began so that's self-explanatory itself. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 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. I will salt--this is hopelessly non-notable at this stage. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bro4u[edit]

Bro4u (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete and Salt please given this was speedied once before as both no claims of significance and advertising and this is exactly what it is, note this was even cut a few days ago to at least initiate some improvements, but it's clear, with such blatancy, the only solutions for such advertising is deleting altogether. There's especially the obvious advertising publishing in the sources themselves, not to mention information, and that's exactly what I'm seeing at searches, but that's something expected since all of this was in fact clear company-motivated advertising. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article on a recent start-up firm. The given coverage is predominantly propositional start-up coverage which I think is insufficient to establish encyclopaedic notability. There is also some coverage of their hiring for distribution of their publicity but however commendable, I think that is also insufficient for notability. AllyD (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 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) 06:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jockvale Road[edit]

Jockvale Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local road lacking notability. Article is un-sourced and makes no explicit claim of notability. Without a substantive reason of some kind of significance (political, social, cultural, etc.), a local road is just an instance of WP:MILL. MB 04:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is a completely irrelevant local road. It fails WP:GEOROAD this way. I tried to find some reliable sources about the road itself but all I could find are some businesses and addresses situated on that road. There are some news in newspapers/pages which mention the road in passing when some events happened on or near that road. Examples are police chases or accidents, but those article never deal with the road itself, it is just mentioned to give the reader the information where the event happened. There is no significant coverage of this subject itself which would satisfy WP:GNG. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—fails WP:GNG. If deleted, Template:Attached KML/Jockvale Road should be deleted as well. Imzadi 1979 → 12:27, 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) 06:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bankfield Road (Ottawa)[edit]

Bankfield Road (Ottawa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local road lacking notability. Article is un-sourced and makes no explicit claim of notability. Without a substantive reason of some kind of significance (political, social, cultural, etc.), a local road is just an instance of WP:MILL. MB 04:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use roll pin to measure angles[edit]

Use roll pin to measure angles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also be aware that the article creator had tampered with the Afd link above -- I've repaired it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an instruction manual. Also too poorly written. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as clear WP:NOT as it literally is a how-to, not an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 02:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Goldberg[edit]

Jody Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-notable person whose only source is from the creator to the subject's LinkedIn page. No claim to notability. Only reason that I am taking the AfD route is because this is a controversial deletion nomination. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks more like a test page that should have been deleted with WP:CSD. -- HighKing++ 12:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real controversy I could see. The single-purpose account that removed the prod did not give any reason at all. My guess is the usual case of a first-time editor not understanding the process. We really need to improve the on-boarding process. W Nowicki (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no claim to notability, nor am I seeing any through searches. Fails WP:BASIC. I have flagged CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 21:40, 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.  Sandstein  20:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takako Saito (actress)[edit]

Takako Saito (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress, The sources listed in the article are "famous brithdays" which isn't a rs, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 03:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)*'[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with no prejudice on reinstatement later per WP:TOOSOON. At the moment, I can only find two true secondary sources on her: Journal Online, and PEP. Both do cover her in detail and will fix the BLP issues, so they might still count towards notability. The rest are promotional articles from her parent TV network, GMA Network, [51] and [52]. It should be noted, however, that Eat Bulaga is one of the largest noon-time shows in the Philippines. Check back in a few months, she'll probably have enough coverage then. (Also she shares a name with a male Japanese modern artist living in Germany)-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obsidian Soul - Excellent find!, Well to save it being deleted how about just redirecting it to Eat Bulaga until more substantial stuff comes up ?, I mean no one's going to go to refund and any rewrites will no doubt be rubbish so perhaps redirect is better ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the Eat Bulaga article mentions her, a redirect would be a bit confusing at this stage. I think simply deleting it would be good enough, recreating it when she does meet WP:GNG is simple enough given how short the article is at the moment.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I hadn't checked but assumed she was, Okie dokie was just a suggestion, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 15:04, 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ends of the Earth (figurative)[edit]

Ends of the Earth (figurative) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article only has one news link as a source which doesn't correlate with the content of the article. The other sources are religious text and a Youtube video. Overall, this article was created on personal research per WP:OR. JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain: sources amended - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the examples have little in common with each other, to the point of not even exactly matching this phrase - the related dab page does a better job illustrating the use of the phrase, and that's enough for this topic. A notable figurative term should have some strong etymology sources easily available, but the best source I can come up with is this - which doesn't clear WP:NOTDICT as mentioned above. Antepenultimate (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its just a random collection of times that a particular phrase has been used, mashed together to make an article. As mentioned, it should be deleted per both WP:NOTDICT and WP:SYNTH. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, delete - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:11, 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Shieber[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jonathan Shieber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has already been deleted in 2013. No additional signs of notability. Set up and majorly contributed by an SPA who has also started a couple of linked articles and then been completely inactive. Rayman60 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete no claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and a possible candidate for CSD A7
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thapichithu Vaa 2[edit]

Thapichithu Vaa 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:Movie and WP:Promo. Non-notable unreleased film written with a promotional tone. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't find any independent coverage. Only serves to promote the movie. Probably could have been nominated for CSD. Note that there is also Thapichithu Vaa 2 (Film). EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. No significant coverage. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 21:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Private video being labelled as a movie. Wiki page to probably make the children feel as though its a real movie. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 13:31, 25 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of attendance figures at anime conventions[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of attendance figures at anime conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is Listcruft, largely redundant with List of anime conventions, and contains information which can already be found on individual convention Wikipedia pages. Looking at the citation links, it's also obvious that almost all the information is from one source. PatrickD (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --PatrickD (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the WP:NOTSTATS no context as to why the attendance figures are important. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The majority of cons are small regional gatherings and therefore there doesn't seem to be much point in ranking their attendance. That takes care of most of the list, and for the bigger ones I question the need to compare them at all. The over reliance on one source which let's be honest has always been doubted does not really help.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kill It With Fire please. Individual articles cover it much better then this list, no point for it to exist. Esw01407 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that when I see an article like this, my first question is: is there a corresponding category for each part of the X and Y? So yes we have Category:Anime and manga lists, but I don't see Category:Conventions by attendance or anything like Category:Attendance-related lists, and for me, that's significant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of WP:GNG sufficient for a stand-alone list Spiderone 20:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Besides the article is too Western-centric and relies on a single source. Plus, I don't think convention attendance is a defining factor of such cons anyway. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. All content uplifted from a single source.Ajf773 (talk) 17:55, 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. North America1000 00:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Chennithala[edit]

Prakash Chennithala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brief mentions in sources but couldn't find anything to show subject meets WP:BIO NeilN talk to me 02:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Reads like self-promo. A lot of flowery and purple prose. Perhaps the organization, Human Rights Protection Mission, deserves a Wikipedia article, but the individual's role in the company does not. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA autobiography referenced only to brief coverage of a press release issued by the subject. The tailored Indian search finds an in-role quote in a short piece from The Hindu [53] which at least provides basic verification of the subject's organisational position, but does not establish notability. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are only few passing mentions. Subject fails basic and gng. It also reads promotional. Anup [Talk] 14:09, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Chan (musician)[edit]

Jennifer Chan (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:NACTOR. Made one album which did not chart or receive signficant coverage, appeared in one low-notability film, was a radio DJ. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appeared in two films, the first of which, as per the official Hong Kong Film Archive online catalogue (which lists her among the cast), won Best Screenplay at the 8th Hong Kong Film Awards. Her second film, a starring role, was screened as part of the 23rd Hong Kong International Film Festival (1999). Co-hosted radio programmes with Vivian Chow and 黃凱芹 in the late 80s. There is missing information on whether the album or any of its singles did or did not chart. Noveltykid (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Noveltykid (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 10:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. Very sparse coverage, mostly nostalgic articles about 80s and 90s music in Hong Kong. It appears that the subject has been out of the limelight for about 20 years and has no intention of resuming her showbiz career. Deryck C. 17:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andreas Philopater: Can you please expand on that? How does Noveltykid's rationale show how the subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:NACTOR? Wikishovel (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She was a DJ on national radio, she had a supporting role in a major film and a lead role in a minor film (but still a genuine feature film production, with international funding, that didn't entirely sink without trace), and she released an EP that is still referenced on 90s nostalgia sites. It doesn't amount to overwhelming notability, but it's certainly enough to keep an article so that people wanting to find out more about her can look her up. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "a lead role in a minor film (but still a genuine feature film production, with international funding, that didn't entirely sink without trace)", I refer to her having top billing in Dreamtrips, both the final cut and the script of which are preserved in the Hong Kong Film Archive. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:24, 25 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 21:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davgotra[edit]

Davgotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't verify notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I couldn't find even a passing mention of it in any reliable source. That also means that we cannot redirect or merge it anywhere. There aren't any notable people or villages bearing the clan's name. So, we cannot convert it into a disambiguation page or a surname article. In short, WP:ATD is out of the question. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources verifying topic found. Also note strange edit history. Article created by SPA who blanked the article the same day it was created. MB 04:53, 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  19:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaderz[edit]

Leaderz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found this on the forgotten articles page. Anyway game with some questionable notability. I can't find anything for this, the EL had nothing to do with the game also. (Looked over sites like Gamefaqs and nothing for this also) Wgolf (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can't find any coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources. Kolbasz (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 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) 06:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jajra[edit]

Jajra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable clan article. A couple of lines with no citations. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom; fails WP:GNG at least as far as English language sources are concerned Spiderone 11:34, 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 redirect to DSI Samson Group . Some masterial can be merged, if desired. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D. S. Rajapaksa[edit]

D. S. Rajapaksa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - information contained within DSI Samson Group. Dan arndt (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Notable entrepreneur. Definitely needs significant improvement, however. MB298 (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as merging would only damn us by not only keeping it altogether in the history as it is, but there's literally nothing to merge that would not affect it as nurtured advertising but also that there's literally nothing significant, all there is here is a company founder and that's it. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable - I've just removed the words "and successful" from the article (that's not for Wikipedia to judge). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (merge if needed) to DIS Samson Group. sources in article are poor/broken and searches are turning up nothing useful. Hobit (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to DSI Samson Group - not enough substantial in-depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone page, but a redirect to his company's page would not be out of line. Onel5969 TT me 21:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Technical Keep as, although it may seem a No-Consensus, it is in fact a Keep given the one Delete vote in fact lists his position as being major, hence like the other comments in fact satisfying WP:POLITICIAN, thus there are no serious considerations for delete (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charitha Ratwatte III[edit]

Charitha Ratwatte III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. This man served as Treasurer of Sri Lanka, which is a powerful government position. MB298 (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary to the Treasury is a civil service post, not political, equivalent to Permanent Secretary. Therefore does not qualify for notability under WP:POLITICIAN. However, the individual may qualify under WP:GNG.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - it would appear that the individual's only notability is that he was the chair of the United National Party. Most of the article relates to the fact that he is the son of J. C. Ratwatte II (WP:NOTINHERITED) or his minor bureaucratic roles (which are not notable). I fail to see any significant notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Note that this AfD should have been immediately marked Speedy keep WP:NPASR and an administrator or NAC should have closed the discussion, as this nomination is an argument from WP:ATA.  This allows the nominator to either improve the nomination or conclude that an AfD was not needed.  As it is, three weeks into the discussion there is not any evidence of a problem that needs attention.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:33, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen Earth International[edit]

Miss Teen Earth International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The article has not received SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Richie Campbell (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a run-of-the-mill beauty pageant contest. There are some mentions in local newspapers, but there is nothing which would indicate significant and substantial coverage of this contest. The sources which mention them (like the San Pedro Sun; a newspaper for a 16,000 people town) are super local newspapers and not really RS standard. A search did not reveal any more substantial than what is already in the article. This contest clearly fails WP:GNG. It should also be noted that the article is blatantly written like an advertisement. Dead Mary (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 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.  Sandstein  23:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Ullah Jan Afridi[edit]

Habib Ullah Jan Afridi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is maybe a fake there is no trace of this person ever having been a member of the national Assembly Of Pakistan on the official web site Parliament web site the article incorectly names a real politician Hameedullah Jan Afridi article Domdeparis (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am afraid this is not fake. He was MNA in tribal area of Pakistan ( [1] , [2] , [3] , [4]. I have also submitted the source of well known TV channel GEO TV. This is also true that Hameed Ullah Jan was a Senator[5] and he is the cousin of Habib Ullah Jan Afridi. National Assembly Of Pakistan official website will only keep the record of current Members. I will be creating page for Hameed Ullah Jan as well soon.Wania Khan (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    talk The Geo tv page refers to an incident that concerned Hameedullah Jan Afridi and not this other person. There is no proof a part from this article that he is or was a member of parliament. i have provided a source that correctly names Hameedullah Jan Afridi as the person involved in the incident and there is ample proof that he was a member of parliament. Please provide other sources. Domdeparis (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wania Khan the parliament site keeps a list of ALL past members from 1947 onward and this gentleman does not feature in any of the lists. http://www.na.gov.pk/en/content.php?id=121 --Domdeparis (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Geo TV". www.geo.tv. Admin. Retrieved 16 Jan 2013.
  2. ^ "Sama News". www.dailymotion.com. Admin. Retrieved 16 Jan 2013.
  3. ^ "Dunya News". www.playhdpk.top. Admin. Retrieved 16 Jan 2013.
  4. ^ "Wikileaks". www.wikileaks.org. Admin. Retrieved 12 Oct 2012.
  5. ^ "Activist1". www.activist1.wordpress.com. Admin. Retrieved 16 Jan 2013.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet GNG at this time. Kierzek (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG. Just some local producer and social leader promoting himself PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 03:50, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Business Educators[edit]

Business Educators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Business Educators" became "UNIVentures Inc" in 2013, but I cannot find significant coverage of either entity. There are four different "Univenture(s)" out there, but this specific one doesn't seem to exist outside of their own website. (for reference, the others are Univentures PCL in Thailand, Univenture Systems Inc in the USA, and a Univenture in Italy). Thus, it fails CORP and GNG Primefac (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, no references to be found. Looks like a great resource for culling non-notable academic personnel articles, though! Jergling (talk) 19:44, 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 speedy delete (G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar). MER-C 03:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everlake Ecommerce[edit]

Everlake Ecommerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability in view of WP:ORG. "Everlake ecommerce" turns no result of news sites. The award claimed is confirmed but for Descaler UK, not the parent company, plus, I doubt it is great for notability anyways. TigraanClick here to contact me 18:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 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 21:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speak More Effectively[edit]

Speak More Effectively (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An (apparently) trivial publication by Dale Carnegie which isn't even listed on his Wikipedia page. I can't find anything online to indicate it gets even a passing mention of "books by Carnegie". On an almost-irrelevant note, this page has been an orphan since 2009. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. I also couldn't find any information about this particular pamphlet, at least part of which appears to be available online here; given the 2008 copyright date and its very contemporary appearance, it may be a repackaging of concepts from Carnegie's Public Speaking and Influencing Men in Business and its assorted revisions, but I can't find any direct evidence to confirm that. And I found nothing concerning this particular edition, not even enough to warrant a redirect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even a book, but a self-published pamphlet. No reviews or citations from independent sources. Jergling (talk) 19:41, 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Book Club Association[edit]

Japan Book Club Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A strange combination of information on the Japan Book Club Association, and an opinion piece on Japanese "thinking skills and communication skills." Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can barely make sense of this page, but it seems to serve little purpose besides advertising this organization. It's a complete mess and it's not encyclopedic. -IagoQnsi (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 90% of the refs are from the book club. The refs not from the book club are strange. For example, there are a couple of books, written ten years before the club started, that source the overview of the club. In the article atleast, there is nothing that says it passes GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article makes little sense and doesn't have a credible claim to notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:11, 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 redirected to Web application development. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Web Application Developer[edit]

Web Application Developer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

States that Web Application Developer is "not the same as a Web Developer" but does not go into detail as to how and why Web Application Developer separates itself form Web Developer. Also no references are cited. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]



A Web Application developer is not the same as a Web Developer and should not be redirected to the Web developer wiki page.

A Web Developer is a person that "creates" Websites and not a web "Designer".

But, they are also not an "Application" developer meaning they are not using "Business Logic" or Application Layers in their website.

Web Developer create websites that are mostly "static" and about 95% consists of static non-changing HTML.


A web site that uses HTML and JavaScript if complex can be considered a "Web Application" and this a Web Application Developer created it even through there is not any Server Side code.


Going to be including reliable sources soon, right now just very busy.


But a Web Application Developer and a Web Developer are two different positions.

In reality through in today's world they are used interchangeably when they should not be.


Here is the order of Positions:

1. Web Designer (HTML and CSS)

2. Web Developer (HTML,CSS,JavaScript) [95% Static website with no complex logic]

{Below are also responsible for Technical Documentation and Planning.}

3. Web Application Developer (HTML,CSS,JavaScript, JavaScript Frameworks, Server Side Logic) [Dynamic website with complex logic]

4. Web/Software Engineer (System Analysis,Application and Web Developer, can program on any platform for UI (Mobile,Desktop,Web — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdavis07 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; its the same as Web Developer. I didnt see any reliable source for these definitions.   ARASH PT  talk  15:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Draft the article with sources, then submit it. Don't hastily vomit a one-line conjecture into articlespace and then leave because you're "very busy". page has been redirected to real page Web application development. I rescind the speedy and suggest closing. Jergling (talk) 17:10, 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erogrendel (novel)[edit]

Erogrendel (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A self-published book that was released four days ago. Fails WP:NBOOK. Bgwhite (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the article creator has been trying to create pages for this author's book since 2012. Long term promotional account, it seems. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just isn't a notable work. There's nothing out there to show that this book is notable enough for an entry at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:32, 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. Have left message with Jergling that the refs are ready to be mined and moved. Joyous! | Talk 17:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TMP Directional Marketing[edit]

TMP Directional Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Search of Google News did find sources, but not enough in my opinion to satisfy the depth of coverage needed. Related to 15miles which is being nominated as well. CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - marginally notable as the former parent of Monster.com. Article is a mess though, does the company still exist? Shritwod (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Jerling's suggestion below is better. Delete and merge references. Shritwod (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and bring good refs into TMP Worldwide Advertising and Communications. TMPDM is a promotional spinoff with no encyclopedic content, but TMP itself is notable for starting/owning Monster. Ping me if you need someone to migrate the refs upon close. Jergling (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jergling, I pinged you on your talk page. Joyous! | Talk 02:17, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15miles[edit]

15miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Search of Google News did find sources, but not enough in my opinion to satisfy the depth of coverage needed. Related to TMP Directional Marketing which is being nominated as well. CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not seem to meet any notability threshold. Shritwod (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unusual in that the press releases are expressly labeled "press release", but still entirely promotional and non-notable. Jergling (talk) 16:57, 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 21:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Burnthands[edit]

Mary Burnthands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have found no trace of a nursery rhyme with that title. The reference provided has nothing to do with that nursery rhyme, the story it tells or a character known as Mary Burnthands. There is a very simple issue of verifiability. Pichpich (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find anything at all mentioning this rhyme or any of the lyrics. As the nominator said, the reference provided says nothing about the rhyme; It appears to be a fictional novel. There's no proof that it ever existed. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possible Hoax. No sources. Created by SPA. MB 15:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protopia[edit]

Protopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism with minimal coverage in secondary reliable sources. I tagged with notability during NPP and explained to the creator my concerns, but haven't seen improvement since then. Most of the sources I could find were from blogs or the original article itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A couple bloggers picking up the term does not notability make.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Neologism that never gained traction. Jergling (talk) 16:55, 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Mizuno[edit]

Yuki Mizuno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Any pertinent details about this person (probably enough for just one line) can be adequately covered in the Akita Northern Happinets article. --DAJF (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I wish I had commented sooner for a close since this is all literally advertising and it's clear since it's only something he would be so keen to say about himself. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sports managers/presidents don't inherit notability from their team. I would not decry it as PR, however. It appears the ego-stroking content was added by an IP editor filling in B.League related pages who may just be a fan. Jergling (talk) 16:49, 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. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. MER-C 03:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ponce De'Leioun[edit]

Ponce De'Leioun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just lots of mentions in music blogs, and some local press. Snoop Dogg and Tim Westwood help lots of young up-and-coming artists, and their association with this musician seems to have been limited to that. Promotional tone of the article can be fixed, but notability is not there yet: WP:TOOSOON. Wikishovel (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_November_16&oldid=1142621210"