Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 November	24 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UrBackup[edit]

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Also, the page's current references are very weak. Meatsgains (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability whatsoever; not even a credible claim of significance. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails every test. Could/Should be CSD.11 -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:PROMO.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. → Call me Razr Nation 07:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. for now. I've dropped the article into the workspace of the creator, accessible at User_talk:BarryRGreene/Sandbox. Perhaps when it is refined and sourced properly, it can be moved to article space. Joyous! | Talk 00:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AnswerX[edit]

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

Subject has minimal coverage in reliable sources and the page does not provide enough context explaining what the subject actually is. Meatsgains (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Article fails to meet notability. There are no sources in article to explain the relevance and impact of the subject. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 23:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has zero sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is work in progress. It would list out the the history of AnswerX, references, and software details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryRGreene (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 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 Kerio Technologies. and feel free to use the article's history to access and merge any useful information to the target. Joyous! | Talk 00:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Operator[edit]

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

non or borderline notability product - press release and run of the mill news. Arguably it may (or may not) just satisfy WP:GNG but sourcing is weak, and per WP:PRODUCT company doesn't appear to be notable so can't do the correct thing and merge (hence speedy AfD relisting). Widefox; talk 21:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - extreme weak notability plus clear promotion is grounds for deletion by the community, adhering to the guideline advanced by DGG. - Brianhe (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- a vanity page on an unremarkable product. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. into the copany article. There are two substantial reviews, which justifies coverage but nott necessarily a separate article. I know the company article is up for deletion also, but that would be a mistake, since it has several significant products. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nom agree (now realises AfD #1 was right) Agree with DGG (as usual) after a second look at the products. I changed my !vote at the company. Widefox; talk 11:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any usable material into Kerio Technologies. Shritwod (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect then; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notability of this software alone is doubtful. Kerio Technologies is ideal target for merger. Pavlor (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 29 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 00:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strategies of media hegemony[edit]

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

Similarly to Media hegemony by the same editor, this essay-like article suggests it is a college piece rather than intended to be an encyclopedia article. The title,style and content, together with the duplication of Media hegemony, suggest we should either WP:BLOWITUP or move it back to draft space to completely rework and retitle it. Sionk (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (see my nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media hegemony): the two articles are close to being duplicates. Pichpich (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research. Contents could be temporarily preserved, if the author wishes to rework Media hegemony in the draft space. Ceosad (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay.TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research. → Call me Razr Nation 07:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as a duplicate. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 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 Speedied after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NISE Network - National Informal STEM Education Network[edit]

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

Frankly, I would have tagged it a G11, this might be notable. Pyrusca (talk) 18:57, 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 00:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stylematic[edit]

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

Music fest of which the world at large took no notice. The only references are the Facebook pages of promoters of the event. Searches of the usual types, as well as of eight regional newspapers, found a single brief mention of the "what's on this weekend" variety.[1] I PROD'ed it, but the PROD was removed by an IP with the explanation that the festival is emerging. Does not meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've noticed that the page creator, user Rznislam (talk · contribs), seems to be a person named Rezwan Islam, who seems to be the creative director of the company Paperfox, which organizes the festival Stylematic. So there might be a COI/self promotion issue. I've found brief mentions in "reliable media", such as this one in The Daily Star (Bangladesh), but I don't think is is sufficient to establish notability here on Wikipedia. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a likely COI case and WP:SOAPBOX. Ceosad (talk) 00:08, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick Chavez[edit]

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

Article appears to be of non notable person, except WP:1EVENT. Cotton2 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. There is nothing here that supports notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines. Sources in article appear to be from subject's own creation and Amazon.com product pages. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 23:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He is not notable. Ceosad (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear self-advertising and that's by far enough for any deletion. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – only source I could find is the Ted Talk and self-published sources, which does not meet our criteria to pass WP:GNG. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 22:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. → Call me Razr Nation 08:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Westmoreland Club[edit]

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

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Zackmann08, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Queried speedy delete as "non-notable organization". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the requirements for an entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was readily able to add more sources. Can someone tell me why in the world this was nominated for speedy deletion? It was certainly causing no harm and speedy should be reserved for cases where exigencies require us to deprive other editors of the time and opportunity to review.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At 19:04, 7 November 2016‎ User:Zackmann08 tagged the article for speedy delete as not notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about this page indicates it is encyclopedic material. Looks like a promotional page about a nightclub that just gives some big dates it its history. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A nightclub? That made it a speedy candidate?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:20, 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) 00:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local interest trivia and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources indicate this is a legitimately notable and historical social institution in Wilkes-Barre,[2][3][4][5] described as the "crown jewel" of society in the region, with a membership that "spanned the entire coal region and beyond" [6]. Of interest: A celebrated decade-long defamation case centered around the plaintiff's allegation that he could no longer get dinner reservations at this club, and ultimately had to resign, because of a newspaper's report that he was being investigated for ties to organized crime; at one point a judge awarded the plaintiff $3.5 million in damages for this loss, but a later judge threw out the case as unproved. [7][8] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable: there's coverage about it. I don't know if this speaks to what the deletion nominator dislikes, but it's broadly unfair, one could argue, that hifalutin' clubs and clubhouses (such as the West End Wheelmen's Club also in Wilkes-Barre, get listed as historic buildings and get coverage and get Wikipedia articles. That's how the world works in general though; there is a built-in bias of coverage toward the richer, dominant class of people and less coverage to lower-class. The U.S. National Register of Historic Places makes some effort to encourage listing of historic sites of under-represented groups, but still. Here at AFD we can't change that. --do ncr am 21:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep along much the same lines as above - passes WP:GNG, both per the sources above, and more avalible online. Just because there are tone issues (as mentioned above) does not mean this is an automatic delete. Mdann52 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample sourcing available per above. Remember folks, AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 21:49, 29 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 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Speaker Bureau[edit]

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

Other than a scandal with a Greek politician (all sources being more about him than about the company), all I can find are variations on "founded by X" and "in a statement from LSB". Basically, I can't find anything approaching significant coverage or an indication of meeting CORP/GNG. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

probably delete Article created by same new user who created an article about this firm's founder Tom Kenyon-Slaney. Both articles appear to be mere WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 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) 00:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any reliable and independent sources. One of the more questionable sources made an obviously false claim that "the London Speaker Bureau is the largest speaker bureau in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia". Ceosad (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs trimming. Ten seconds on Google News found me plenty of good sources, like this, this, this and this. And that's only in the last six months or so. Yes, it's clearly a COI-written article, but it needs cleanup not deletion. Blythwood (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of these sources help due to the fact that they are scandal-mongering about rich politicians. WP:ORGDEPTH states that identifying a quoted person as working for an organization is just a passing mention, and not enough for establishing notability. See also WP:INHERITORG. Ceosad (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Clean up~~ - The article is in such need of help, it's hard to sort out - and I find some good sources, and some that aren't good at all. I'm going to try cleaning up the article just to see what might really be there. I am finding references in books, HighBeam, newspapers, but it needs some sorting out. I don't have a clear view one way or the other right now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and clean-up the article - adding or modifying content based upon the sources. I am only comfortable with the charities section - and I could find no news sources for that content.

The information about the company comes from essentially a primary source. There's no good content about the company - and I could quickly tell that it was going to take a lot of searching to be able to piece together an article. I moved uncited content to the talk page - along with other questions. Based on the attempt that was made to make it appear that there were viable sources for the content - and totally missed the mark - I vote "delete" now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lavin Agency[edit]

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

Interviews with Lavin (mostly related to the Agency) and "...represented by the Lavin Agency" are the only sources I can find that even mention the company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Insufficient coverage in independent RS. MB 05:05, 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) 00:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are insufficient reliable sources with in depth coverage. Ceosad (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established. → Call me Razr Nation 08:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media hegemony[edit]

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

This is original research. In fact, it's more like an opinion piece but either way, it's not an encyclopedic article. Pichpich (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly move to draft space if the author wants to work on it. They have also published Strategies of media hegemony in Wikipedia article space, which is equally essaylike and an innappropriate title too. At least 'media hegemony' is a recognised term so has the potential to be re-written and sourced in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete. This one has some potential to stay in Wikipedia, unlike the other article. Ceosad (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half-baked simplistic attempt to write an essay.TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy for now. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Emma's Bookstore Coffeehouse[edit]

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

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

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

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

Local coffeehouse, no coverage external to local Baltimore papers. Lacks significant coverage in this regard. (?) czar 18:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This coffeehouse is notable due to its extremely rare existence as an Anarchist collective in business. There are companies in existence which practice Anarchist economics where owners and workers are not held separate. Such companies are somewhat more common in the Latin America though, despite legal challenges. Ceosad (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the latter, but for the former, sources? Right now, it's all local to Baltimore, like I can find for any major coffeehouse in any major city. czar 00:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition of the sources given by Oakshade, the Baltimore magazine has written in-depth about the coffee house for multiple times. See this and this. This book is about anarchist enterprises and it mentions Red Emma's. Ceosad (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Baltimore Sun, Next City (which is not local to Baltimore) and Baltimore City Paper have very in-depth coverage of this place.[9][10][11][12] As far as citing the essay - not policy or guideline - WP:LOCAL, even if it was all "local" coverage (it isn't) it's completely subjective as to what a reader outside a locale of a topic will find encyclopedic. I've never lived anywhere near Baltimore and I know of this place as it attracts nationally and internationally renowned authors, academics and others as speakers. Even the national guide published by The Nation, The Nation Guide to the Nation, goes into detail of it.[13] --Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL, even if it was all "local" coverage (it isn't) it's completely subjective as to what a reader outside a locale of a topic will find encyclopedic

Not really—extra-local coverage is an easy indicator of non-local notability. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Audience. LOCAL just explains it in more detail. czar 13:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking a clause buried in a single guideline page that contradicts both letter and spirit of our major guidelines such as WP:GNG is a classic case of WP:GAMETYPE. Even if we were to entertain such a specific sentence it states "at least one regional, statewide" source counts. The Baltimore Sun is one of the nation's regional newspapers with subcribership in multiple states, beyond just statewide Maryland, with bureaus in Washington, DC and Philadelphia. [14] --Oakshade (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please. LOCAL says it descends from AUD. You didn't like the essay, so have the guideline. You can't have it both ways. The point is that the coverage should be known outside the locality, such as a coffeehouse being the center of a movement or for having nationally renowned goods. In both cases, the sources would assert as much. I don't see the other links amounting to more than routine coverage of a specialty shop. czar 16:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you want to get all WP:LAWYER and continue WP:GAMETYPE, even the essay WP:LOCAL and the sub-clause of the sub-guideline WP:AUD explain that the coverage audience can be regional and the coverage in this case is beyond regional. WP:ROUTINE defines coverage as "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" which of course the coverage of this topic is beyond the scope of. --Oakshade (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you know what those things mean because you're doing more of them yourself... The spirit of the audience guideline is really straightforward: that beyond the local coverage—the coverage that you would expect a city's coffeehouse to get in newspapers related to the city—there needs to be external coverage. You could argue (I think incorrectly) that the external coverage is significant, but instead you're somewhere in the weeds in how Baltimore papers are really regional and how the letter of the policy technically allows them (lawyering). In practice, I don't think there is any dispute that Baltimore papers should be held apart for this discussion. Then we're left with the sources that remain, and they are much more sparse than they have been puffed up to be. I went through them below. I encourage you to make your point at AfD and add little else—the endless personal accusations are inflammatory and unhelpful. czar 15:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur with the nomination, this is simply one local company who has local news stories and attention, none of it establishes anything else but a local tourist guides for locally known business which violates WP:NOT policy, and it allows us to remove anything unsuitable and this is, since everything is literally trivial and unconvincing, especially since this still all is founded in local news stories. None of that is actual substance and ee should not mistake it as otherwise. Once we start becoming a YellowPages business guide, we're damned, regardless of anything else.

As it is, this article itself cares to specify only information suitable for their own company 'About Us" hence also emphasizing the WP:NOT policy concerns. Anything trivial such as "It satisfies WP:BASIC or WP:GNG" means nothing because that's actually one of the foundations of Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is not a business PR webhost" and there's nothing to suggest exceptions here. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no argument here to demonstrate WP:NOT is a reason to delete an article that passes our fundamental notability guidelines such as GNG. Never have I seen a user type, "It satisfies WP:BASIC or WP:GNG" means nothing." Coverage has been shown to be non-trivial, adhering to the essay WP:LOCAL and there's zero evidence provided that this article is just "suitable for their own company".

SwisterTwister, are you stalking me just because minutes ago I argued against your strangely identical WP:GNG-doesn't-count reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwolla? [15]--Oakshade (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - It appears User:SwisterTwister is stalking and hounding me by showing up at AfDs I'm participating in just to ivote against me. I'll be happy to provide the evidence on another page upon request.--Oakshade (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local shop. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 08:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTA? Any explanation of how a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic "Fails WP:GNG"? --Oakshade (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "just a bookshop", it is a bookshop without claim for fame or notability. It does nothing special and anarchist bookshop/restaurants/etc. are by far not so rare as you suggest. The Banner talk 19:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your subjective WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE opinion is noted, but that doesn't answer the question of how this "Fails WP:GNG" as it's beed subject to significant coverage by reliable sources. If you don't like that there's been significant coverage, I suppose you can complain to the Baltimore Sun and other publications. --Oakshade (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I complain now about your highly aggressive way of replying. You try to crush everybody who dares to have an opinion that you do not like. Very annoying and in breach of WP:AGF. The Banner talk 20:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion rationale was just "Non-notable local shop. Fails WP:GNG" and we're still waiting for an explanation that counters the multiple in-depth coverage pieces that have been presented by the keep voters or those already in the article. While you might be annoyed at such, I don't see the WP:AGF. Having disagreements with other editors is not an excuse to make baseless claims at them.--Oakshade (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unique business with a strong claim of notability backed up by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Unique" is not what gets notability or anything close to it (in that case, there would be hundreds of thousands of "unique companies"; also, the sources are simply news stories including from its own local publications, that shows nothing else but local interests, not actual notability in an encyclopedia; and it certainly is not convincing otherwise in the fact it currently exists only for "local tourist guides". SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this wasn't a notable business, then it wouldn't have received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources and passing WP:GNG. And some sources in the article that is their own publications doesn't magically mean the significant coverage from independent sources don't exist anymore. --Oakshade (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This business/organization does not get its notability solely from being a "unique" coffeehouse. There is a wide coverage about it being an "infoshop", and thus having a role in American (grassroots) politics. Red Emma's seems to be considered as a well known case of such organization. Some additional references are here and here. See also the source I linked earlier. There are various academic sources that mention Red Emma's, and they are not just "local tourist guides". Ceosad (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those two extra links fit the definition of passing mentions, and the third is indeed a local tourist guide. If it's used for significant coverage, then it follows that most other entries in the guide are notable too, but we know that they (as well) are not. czar 16:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those two extra links in which one of them is more than a "passing mention" are in addition to the in-depth significant coverage on this topic, thus even further establishing notability. --Oakshade (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's coverage. It's relatively unique and interesting, too. Note, even if it were not individually notable, "Delete" would be the wrong decision as a good wp:ATD would remain: merging to List of independent bookstores in the United States would be superior, saving the edit history at the redirect left behind and enabling re-creation of the article with more material. Why are there so many AFDs when decent alternatives-to-deletion exist? --do ncr am 16:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Search more broadly to find more sources not yet in article, i.e. try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, yielding:
this in Baltimore Sun in 2016 about minimum wage
this in 2014 Baltimore Magazine
this in 2016 Johns Hopkins Magazine (if this is the alumni magazine of JHU, it is most definitely a national, not local, source
this at MHPBooks.com
this at PublishersWeekly.com, sounds not local to me.

I'll stop with those. There's lots of coverage. It's notable. --do ncr am 17:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. As the same links, previously discussed, are being reposted, I'd like to recap the coverage unturned. (1) A variety of local news from local Baltimore papers (local coffeeshop opens new location, is rated best in the area, etc.) and a local travel guide. (Yes, Johns Hopkins is local to Baltimore too.) This is the regular coverage we would expect any city coffeehouse to get from its local papers/guide—we don't create articles on recommended coffeehouses in every city of the world, only those with external coverage with which we can write an article. (2) Limited coverage from papers outside Baltimore—best of which is the Next City article on co-ops, but the rest are passing mentions or nothing with enough depth to write a detailed article (such as the Nation blurb, infoshop links). The Publisher's Weekly short article about the store opening during the Freddie Gray protests doesn't have enough meat for more than a sentence and the Melville House article is a retread (MH is a publisher, not the same editorial process). A pile of mentions in a Google Books link does not make significant coverage under the GNG. You would need to show what exactly outside papers have said in depth about this place in order to warrant writing an article about it. If all we've got is that it does things for Baltimore and is an example of a co-op, we're looking more at a redirect to an article about prominent co-ops than a separate article on a bookshop. czar 15:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is irritating to be dismissed like this. It seems to me that the deletion nominator is FALSE in their assertion that the links are the same as previously discussed. The links are not the same as earlier posted by Oakshade, anyhow.

And statement that "Johns Hopkins is local to Baltimore too" is useless. What I said was, if JHU Magazine is its alumni magazine, then it is a national (in fact it is an international) magazine, which is a true fact. --do ncr am 23:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WALLOFTEXT aside, we've already discussed the merits of the sources - national, regional and local. Just repeating an argument in longer form isn't going to change anything. It's time to drop the stick and move on. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/me looks at the stick in Oakshades hand... The Banner talk 22:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was Czar who began a new thread of a rehash of the same argument. If you want to comment on everyone continuing a needless argument, I'll actually accept that as this AfD has gone on way too long. But you can't single out just the one editor you disagree with. --Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the others uses such an aggressive style as you do. And that style is not a style that encourages discussion and debate. Every time somebody comes with another opinion than the one you desire, hoppa: you come down like a ton of bricks. The Banner talk 22:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep commenting at me, even when I'm responding to another editor. Classic do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. Not only is it aggressive, it's kind of creepy. --Oakshade (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is about ready to be closed Keep or No consensus, and ask for someone to do that, just to end this misery. Waters are getting a bit muddied, but it appears to me that the deletion nominator is more responsible than anyone else for bringing down the quality/civility/enjoyability of this AFD discussion, FWIW. The deletion nominator started out fast with comments on other people's comments. Tip for winning AFDs: don't do that. :) Another editor has commented as many times (but don't count their replies to deletion nominator's comments on their !vote). And another tip for winning AFDs: don't make false statements in your comments about others, or be too glib in dismissing them. :) --do ncr am 23:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. for promotionalism. This is a clear G11, though I'm reluctant to use it this far into the discussion. Notability is irrelevant when an article is added for the purpose of advertising, or of promoting the views of the organization. Sympathy with their views is irrelevant. Propaganda for worthy causes is no concern of an encyclopedia . If the organization were very highly notable it might be worth rewriting, but this is at most borderline. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the article was started with the purpose of advertising. It was created in 2005 by User:Nihila who is no longer active but mostly had edits to radicalism-related articles and who's brief history doesn't seem to indicate they were a promoter/advertiser of some kind nor connected to this topic. Through the next 11 years it has mostly been edited and expanded by the typical mix of established editors and some IPs. If somebody at some point in those 11 years added promotional elements, that can can be corrected through regular editing and doesn't change the significant coverage demonstrating passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Red Emma's is the largest worker cooperative in the state of Maryland, and one of the largest horizontally-managed, consensus-based businesses in the United States. This particular coop's model is a point of reference for a lot of other coops and cooperative hopefuls. Article could be made more useful by focusing on these structural elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:4004:E553:2C95:DCD3:852E:237E (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More nonlocal coverage: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13140 (just for informational purposes, as I am involved in the project in question as a cofounder.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfduda (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage cited demonstrates that GNG and WP:ORG are satisfied. I am not impressed by DGG's claim that the article must be deleted despite coverage satisfying GNG because "Notability is irrelevant when an article is added for the purpose of advertising, or of promoting the views of the organization." Notability is not irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia covering notable subjects. Anyone can edit an article about a notable subject and correct any bias introduced by a fan of the subject, or any opponent of the subject. Edison (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon significant coverage in reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on above evidence of notability that this article is notable. The article does have some issues with promotional language, so I have flagged it and started working to update the language in the opening paragraph for NPOV. Here is a diff of the work I've done so far. Siankevans (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - None of these have actually acknowledged how WP:NOT is relevant here, general notability guidelines mean nothing compared to policy. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The merits of applying WP:NOT were acknowledged in detail and there hasn't been a convincing argument that it merits deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need a policy based reason to delete, and NOT advertising is basic policy. That advertising may be about a notable subject doesn't keep it from being advertising. Rejecting fundamental policy such as this is a repudiation of the basic principles which distinguish an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Five pillars, first pillar. The Banner talk 00:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this article could be considered advertising since it has been clearly started for good faith reasons, as Oakshade already pointed out above. There is no reason to keep repeating these same old arguments for over and over again. Yes, the article is crappy and badly written but AfD is not cleanup. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:GOODFAITH. Ceosad (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again WP:NOT applies because it explicitly states "Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, tourist or local guide or webhost of services", and the fact this article cares to go to specifics about amenities and what you can get "services" there, that's best for only their own websites or local advetisements, not an actual encyclopedia. WP:NOT is the highest that policy can get and we use said policy every day, so anything else means nothing. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you haven't given a convincing argument of demonstrating that WP:NOT means this article that easily passes WP:GNG has to be deleted. As with any article, any advertisement element that some user over the years might have added can be corrected through regular editing. As Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which is also policy, states, if regular editing can improve a page then that should be done instead of deletion. In this case, Siankevans has already made improvements removing what looks like advertising elements during this AfD. Just repeating you think WP:NOT means this article should be deleted isn't going to change anything--Oakshade (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage provided by Oakshade (talk · contribs). The significant coverage in The Nation Guide to the Nation published by Vintage Books demonstrates that Red Emma's Bookstore Coffeehouse has received nonlocal coverage. Per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, that the article has some surmountable defects does not mean it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT still applies in that this is still a business listing and as was suggested earlier (thus "perfection is not required!" means nothing when this is and solely exists as advertising), the company itself is in fact asking for help about this article, so notability honestly be damned, as WP:NOT is specifically essential when the company itself is footing advertising. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this article was not created as "footing advertising" and most certainly our policies of Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Deletion policy apply to all articles. "WP:NOT" aren't magic letters you can summons to delete articles you don't like or just because at some point over an 11 year existence somebody might have added verbiage that you interpret as advertising, which you've offered zero case that this was created as such in this entire Afd. --Oakshade (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you now come up with a version of "Ignore all rules and keep this article". The Banner talk 10:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man argument as the reason to keep has been the in-depth national and regional coverage thus easily demonstrating passing WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and that WP:NOT hasn't been at all demonstrated as a reason to ignore all rules to delete this article.--Oakshade (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a curious place, with local notability. But doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. On top of that, the blatant POV issues with the article would alone call for its deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this topic having received significant coverage from multiple national and regional sources not pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH? I, as well as most people here, just don't see the "blatant POV issues" being claimed, which of course deletion policy stipulates should be corrected through regular editing instead of deletion if it exists anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promo sampling: "The space also provides free computer access to the Baltimore community, wireless internet and a variety of socially aware and radical events including film screenings, political teach-ins, and community events." (right out of a sales brochure), "Collective meetings are open to the public every Sunday (except the first of the month) at 7pm at the store." (blatant advertising), "The classes are taught along the principles of "horizontal organizing, collaborative learning and participatory education", and it's guaranteed that the teachers are not "y'know, fascists", etc., as well as phrases like "stringent academic tradition". And then I'm done discussing. You've made your point, I've made mine. Put the stick down. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't care for that tone which was added years after the straight-forward article was created, not because it was advertising but it was un-encyclopedic and not sourced anyway so I've removed that.--Oakshade (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lonergan[edit]

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

The notability of this subject is being challenged Kerm1120 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the WP:CSD#A7 tag I added that was removed without explanation. An under-18s rugby player is clearly not notable and the only coverage are short pieces in local press. Joe Roe (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joe Roe. Clearly fails WP:NRU. Ceosad (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while patently not eligible for speedy deletion, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NRU. Hack (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, schoolboy player who is not (yet?) notable for a biographical article. Mattlore (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above statements. WP:NRU is not met, and nothing evident that GNG is met either. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. → Call me Razr Nation 08:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bleep Bloop Records[edit]

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

No signed notable artists, the two "blue links" are to completely unrelated topics. No sources in article, and none found. Rather promotional. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. It certainly does not help that none of the artists is notable... Ceosad (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only consisting of its own clients, no actual information beyond that, and nothing to suggest there would be enlarged significance from improvements, because there isn't even any to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. → Call me Razr Nation 08:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S & R Smith & Son[edit]

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

Non notable haulage company, Nothing on Google either, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 17:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a small small haulage/transportation family owned company. They exist since quite some years but that's basically it. They fail WP:NCORP completely. There is not even a claim of notability in the article and WP is not a directory for companies. I tried to find some sources about them but there is literally nothing. I dont think hat sources exist offline since the company has 0 reception and the article and as well as the companies history (can be found on their page) do not give any indication that some coverage may have been occurred in the past. The article should therefore be deleted due the absence of reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dead Mary (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ceosad (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising, simple as that, since there's in fact not even actual significance here and that's especially enough for deletion there. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. → Call me Razr Nation 08:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This seems to be the consensus after relisting. I personally have no opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Lytess[edit]

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

Delete: again. Non-notable failed actress. AFDed and deleted in August 2015 based on salacious speculation, which could contravene libel, which is why it was stricken by the previous admin, @Timotheus Canens (see [16]). Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. Quis separabit? 01:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited Cbs527 (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the article fails WP:GNP in the applicable categories - Any Biography, Creative professionals and Entertainers. Article seems to fall in the "Non valid general criteria" category. Cbs527 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable. Fails WP:NACTOR --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC

Keep Lytess was best known as an acting coach, not as an actor, so our notability guideline for actors does not apply. A simple Google Books search shows that Lytess is discussed in dozens of books about Marilyn Monroe and Hollywood of the late 1940s and early 1950s. The article can be improved and should not be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: " A simple Google Books search shows that Lytess is discussed in dozens of books about Marilyn Monroe and Hollywood of the late 1940s and early 1950s" -- that sounds like she derived any claim to notability almost entirely based on a purportedly intimate, never acknowledged, relationship with another party, failing the threshold for notability. The Lytess article should be SALTed and any mention of Lytess should be to the Monroe article and limited strictly to sourced facts, not speculative innuendo. To quote one of these transom peering displays of journalistic priorities:
"Lytess claimed Monroe was 'always naked' in the house but 'hated sex'" and "author Lois Banner wrote: 'Natasha and Marilyn lived together as husband and wife, although Marilyn often simply wanted to be held.'" (see here) -- so Monroe was an asexual lesbian and Lytess her frustrated (in more than one sense, apparently) Svengali?
(NOTE: This should be stricken by the closing admin.) Quis separabit? 12:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "Lytess was best known as an acting coach" -- can you name me any of her other clients? She certainly was not a particularly successful one based upon any evaluation of the metrics of her brief U.S. career, which is not to say she had no talent or that her early demise from cancer is anything less than tragic but editors shoudl see where I am headed with this. Quis separabit? 12:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Quis separabit?: I mentioned actual books as future sources for the article, and certainly support removing the Daily Mail from the article, as well as any unproven speculation that Lytess and Monroe had an active sexual relationship. There are things that are clear from a quick review of over a dozen biographes of Monroe as well as biographies of Joe Dimaggio and Otto Preminger: Lytess was a major influence on Monroe for about seven years. They shared a home for several months. Lytess was on movie sets during shoots and several famous directors actively resented her influence. Many Monroe biographies devote dozens of pages to a detailed ongoing portrayal of their relationship. Although it is clear that Lytess was sexually attracted to Monroe, it is far from clear that those feelings were reciprocated. There is one well-known quote by Monroe to the contrary. At least one source mentions that Lytess coached other Hollywood starlets. As for success, she coached one of the most famous movie stars in history for seven years. In conclusion, this biography should be built by summarizing what the highest quality book sources say, while excluding tabloid-style sensationalism, whether in newspaper, magazine or book form. I am prepared to begin that work but am deterred by an appeal to salt the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:GNG In ictu oculi (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerebellum (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lytess was at least modestly notable as an acting coach, and an important figure in Monroe's biography. Invocations of potential "libel" here are inappropriate, since everyone involved is dead; editors can use the usual processes to decide by consensus what to include and what to exclude, and there is sufficient legitmate material in reliable sources to sustain a biographical article. I don't think deleting this article and excluding verifiable content would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes#4. The Buzz Aldrin Show (or: An Apology). Sandstein 12:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bishop (Monty Python)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of every sketch Monty Python ever produced. Unlike, say, the Argument Clinic, this article is largely unsourced and basically completely the wrong way to write something on Wikipedia, trying to cover an off-hand silly sketch in serious encyclopedic detail. I'm not convinced about a redirect or merge to any other article (per this discussion), other than retaining a brief entry in Bishop (disambiguation) referring to List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes, which doesn't affect this article being deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You really got my hopes up with that first blue link. I was hoping there was an essay dedicated specifically to fighting the meticulous cataloging of Monty Python sketches. I guess our own input will have to do. This sketch is not notable for lack of significant, independent coverage. Wikipedia is not TVGuide. Jergling (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent notability. Bondegezou (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage in sources such as If You Like Monty Python which describes it as "one of their more memorable sketches", Monty Python's Flying Circus and All the bits. The Python oeuvre is covered as extensively as the Bible or Shakespeare and so deletion is quite inappropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give details and add citations to the article if possible? If You Like Monty Python only appears to have one paragraph on it, which hardly satisfies WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I could but you'll have to pay for another five minutes. In the meantime, here's a link to a general survey which is worth noting for the next one of these perennial events. The Bishop only seems to make it into the comments but it seems to be somebody's favourite. Andrew D. (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The principal difference between this article and Argument Clinic is that the latter cites sources that do not have Monty Python as their main topic, indicating that the sketch is known and talked about independently of its origin, making it a genuinely notable topic for an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine notability? Well, I'm afraid we don't get much call for it round these parts, sir. We only have the ordinary sort. With no shrubberies. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes#4. The Buzz Aldrin Show (or: An Apology) (and by all means add an entry in the disambig page). Even judging by the mentions discovered by Andrew Davidson, I'd maybe expect Monty Python's "most memorable" sketches to have a write up, but not their "more memorable" ones. Despite having watched much Monty Python, this sketch doesn't register to me. Sionk (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Surely there is only one Monty Python Sketch which is "Most memorable", even though there might be different opinions as regards which sketch this might be. Thus such a page would require listing the variety of sources which have provided claims for this or that sketch as warranting this title. Although it would be impossible for Wikipedia to definitively determine which sketch actually is the most memorable, we could summarise the evidence and discuss the different methodologies by which the claims have been made. No doubt we might find the odd pedant who argues that as the "most memorable" sketch is essentially unknowable, that in fact all the contenders for the title could only ever be verified as being "more memorable", in that although in principal it might be possible to compare the memorability of individual Monty Python sketches, and thus establish some are more memorable than others, or in fact that all the known sketches are actually more memorable than the unmemorable ones which no-one actually remembers, and thus the matter can simply be resolved by having [[Category:Monty Python sketches]] rather than pusuing a line of enquiry which gets too silly.Leutha (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My cat is now badly confused by that comment. Oooh, thankyou sir, how can we ever repay you? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is appropriate here. It really does not meet our notability guidelines. The suggestion that "The Python oeuvre is covered as extensively as the Bible or Shakespeare" is one of the most inappropriate comments that I have ever read. It is indeed pythonese! --Bduke (Discussion) 20:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It really does meet our notability guidelines as I have very little trouble in finding substantial sources. As for the Bible and Shakespeare, please note the extent to which Python pervades our culture here at Wikipedia. I have already mentioned WP:SHRUBBERY while other examples like WP:SPAM and WP:TROUT are used daily here. I don't notice Biblical or Shakespearean references to the same extent but YMMV, I suppose. See also Monty Python, Shakespeare and English Renaissance Drama; The Complete Works of Shakespeare and Monty Python; Uses of Critical Biblical Scholarship and Non-orthodox Views of Jesus in Monty Python's Life of Brian; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Poet from Omaezaki[edit]

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

Fails ~~WP:BLP~~ WP:GNG, May be prod-blp material. Kleuske (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see how this meets the requirements of WP:BIO. If kept, the title should be changed to Marcelo Tibana. Pichpich (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant to say, fails WP:GNG. But BLP is a problem, too. Kleuske (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, though I think we should adopt the necessity of knowing how tall our poets are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:10, 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 00:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of current heads of state and government of Ibero-America[edit]

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

This article is basically a mere spinoff of List of current heads of state and government, albeit with all non "Ibero-American" countries excluded and with Puerto Rico (a state that isn't sovereign) included for whatever reason. On top of that, the article has neither been maintained nor updated by many users in the past number of months (in contrast to the aforementioned list). --Nevé –selbert 16:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A strange definition of Ibero-America that includes Andorra, Spain, and Portugal. Smells like a POV-fork. Kleuske (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per comments from Kleuske Spiderone 13:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary content fork. List of current heads of state and government is not so very long as to require spinoffs for regional subsets, especially when the regional subset is being arbitrarily redefined to include countries that aren't actually covered by the title. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bun-sgoil Ghàidhlig Loch Abar[edit]

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

Primary school, with only scant local coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some further information and references to the article. This school opened relatively recently and so, for example, a commendation of the architecture was reported only two weeks ago. Of some significance, it is a newly-built gaelic medium education school in a country where this language had suffered a decline that had almost been terminal. Some of the coverage of this school is in local newspapers, although articles in the Stornoway Gazette and The Oban Times are examples of local papers based in areas that are beyond where the school itself is located. There are a couple of articles about the school that were published in the Press & Journal, which is a regional newspaper title. There are multiple articles about this school that were published on the BBC News website, a national source of news. This coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drchriswilliams great rescue efforts mentioned above. The claim of being a purpose-built Gaelic school means it is notable, and with the sources it appears to pass WP:NSCHOOL. Mdann52 (talk) 21:22, 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 no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 00:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WGPG-LP[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki now appears to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Site is a FCC Licensed broadcaster in historic city with 50,000 residents. Wiki has "Significant coverage"; "Reliable" and verifiable sources include the federal government and photos; "Secondary sources" used through the article and listed in sources; "Independent of the subject" content; therefore it is "Presumed" that the wiki should remain and not be deleted. "TelcoTodd" (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references cited in the "Sources" section of the article are (1) an entry on a listing site, giving such information as the name of the radio station, its incorporation date, its address, and so on; (2) a page listing an application for a "Minor Modification to a Construction Permit", including details such as the station's call sign, its address, latitude and longitude, etc. In addition the "External links" section contains links to (1) a Federal Communications Commission listing for the station, which again gives information such as the call sign, the name of the station, its latitude and longitude, etc etc; (2) a listing on a site called radio-locator.com, with the same kind of information again; (3) a page which gives no information about the station except the single statement "No Fall 2016 data found for WGPG-FM." This is nowhere near to being the sort of significant coverage which is required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The kind of city the station is located in and its number of inhabitants has no bearing whatever on notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets NMEDIA guideline Actually James, the size of the audience CAN IN FACT be used to determine notability for a radio station, although 50,000 is small by full-power FM standards a LPFM station with 50,000 is unusually large by LPFM standards. Wikipedia:NMEDIA says: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." This stations does appear to have "UNIQUE PROGRAMMING" specifically the Burmese Refugee population in the area, and perhaps a large audience by LPFM standards. TelcoTodd" (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2016

Weak keep See WP:BCASTOUTCOMES "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." This is true at least of licensed low power FM stations in the US. This is not a claim of "inherent notability," but an observation that if an article's subject has certain characteristics, coverage can be found. If they broadcast to a city and originate programming locally, I have never found an instance where they did not get sufficient press coverage to satisfy general notability. I did not find online sources for this station other than listings in government files and directories, which are sufficient to verify its existence but not much more. However, many or most US newspapers are not covered in a Google search. It might require checking regional papers and magazines to find the required multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. We editors do not have infinite time and money to drive to the station's area and check newspaper back issues for coverage everytime someone puts a radio station up for deletion.If this discussion eventually points to deletion, I suggest merging the station to the article about the school which operates it. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 12#Are radio stations inherently notable? for discussion of the notability of radio stations. Edison (talk) 01:26, 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 no consensus. with borderline delete. Since this AfD has been running for more than a month now, not sure if re-listing is going to give us any other result. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pim Haselager[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Woring academic but seems nothing beyond that. This has been tagged for notability for over 8 years; hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep -- His Cognitive science and folk psychology: the right frame of mind (from an academic publisher SAGE Publications) is held by 200 libraries, which may or may not be sufficient (WorldCat identities). Would be nice to see some reviews of his works. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A GS h-index of 18 is probably enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete in this case as the 200 libraries is still not significant and not in this specific field, his citations also show nothing significant and with there finally not being an honorary or otherwise special professorship, I'm not seeing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete All of the sources are written by the subject. Generally, to establish notability, we look for references about the subject. He is also not "known for" either of the things listed, although he has a vague connection to EEC. I'm on the fence because of his h-index and the non-peacockiness of this article. Jergling (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peacockiness, which I don't dispute, can be reduced by editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Journal publication citation rates not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. A single academic book with no reviews listed (I can't check library holdings because worldcat is currently down for me) not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. And no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis of citations. An article with 230 gScholar citations and others of 74, 49 retc. The book is in 185 libraries, which is not spectacular, but sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass GNG and you really need to stretch it to have him pass WP:ACADEMIC #1. One article with 200 cites on GScholar should not really by itself cut it, especially when he's way down the list of 11 co-authors for that article. Surely, even 3000 (and counting) citations for "Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC" will not buy a Wikipedia article for every single one of its 1000 authors... Also is there a single reliable (even if it's not in depth) independent source that could be used to actually source the article (which should be the point)? Because I'm not seeing it. No longer a penguin (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ENTROPY GENERATION MINIMIZATION IN LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER FLOW[edit]

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

This probably could be merged to another article, but as it stands, Wikipedia is not a journal for publishing scientific papers or other scientific material. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Speedy delete as close paraphrase with copyvios.: There is a genuine subject here, but cited only to Bejan's work, and with a title taken directly from a chapter of his book 2.10 of Convection Heat Transfer by Adrian Bejan, 2013, it looks unsustainable. It doesn't seem to be a direct copyvio, nor a piece of self-publishing. As nom says, it could redirect or merge somewhere, perhaps Boundary layer or Laminar flow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chiswick Chap, but the closing sysop should make sure to delete the old link. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:IINFO. First of all, if kept, this would need a significant rewrite since the reader must guess the meaning some of the notations. As far as I can tell, this is a calculation in a specific case under fairly restrictive hypotheses (for instance, "heat flux perpendicular to the plate" sounds dubious - I think it is only valid for low flow speeds compared to heat diffusion, but I should not have to guess). Notability is a problem.

I also am uncomfortable with single-sourcing such an article. I know plenty of physics articles (including some where I made significant contributions, mea culpa) lack sources but are tolerated, probably under a stretch of the "common knowledge" (WP:CK) exemption of sourcing (everyone who graduated in physics knows that calculation, no need to cite it). While I can see merit in the view that verifiability is not a big concern in such topics, I think notability should be a big concern though (and that requires citing a textbook). Not every textbook calculation should be kept on WP. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a textbook. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)>[reply]
Speedy Delete - copyvio of [17]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: - if this is a copyvio then of course you'd be right. But I can't see any direct copying from that book, which I already named above. Which part(s) are copyvios? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All over but slightly scrambled, I think not scrambled enough. I'll quote sections:

The heat flux {\displaystyle {\ddot {q}}} {\displaystyle {\ddot {q}}} is assumed to be uniform on both side and free stream is parallel to the plate as shown in fig 1.

Fig 1.Laminar boundary layer flow on a flat plate with uniform heat flux on both sides.

Is the material at and directly above figure 2.14. Equation 1.1 in the article is equation 2.144 in the book, and the next paragraph in the article copies the first sentence from the following two paragraphs in the book. Then the article just copies from the book, starting with [18]. The conclusion in the article is the material immidiately before, including, and after equation 2.148 in the book.Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then in theory we have the option of paraphrasing, pruning, or speedy deleting. Since the first two won't work here, I suggest you CSD it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 29 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. Some sources were presented, but the general consensus is that while they meet WP:V, they do not satisfy WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Arguments that we have articles about other, less notable, roads, carry no weight. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beechwood Avenue[edit]

(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 04:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. If deleted, Template:Attached KML/Beechwood Avenue should be deleted as well. Imzadi 1979 → 12:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep maybe passes WP:GNG, just barely. I see:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-streetside-spot-pilot-program-patio-parklet-1.3630158

http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/beechwood-village-merchants-worried-about-proposed-changes-1.2842084

http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2016/09/08/businesses-fear-impact-of-beechwood-bike-lanes.html

It's also singled out as a key walk, http://ottawacitizen.com/travel/5-worth-the-drive-urban-walking-in-ottawa

But I agree with the nominator that these refs don't amount to "valid relevant citations for the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth," as required by WP:ROADOUTCOMES.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 15:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete due to the article not making any claim that would give a reason to believe it to be notable. Unlikely to pass WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a manor road in canada's capital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 November 2016(UTC)

Wikipedia articles about roads are kept or deleted on the basis of whether the road has reliably sourceable political, social or cultural context that would make it something the world needs an article about, not just on the basis of being asserted, in an unsourced manner, as locally important to their own neighbourhood. Every road that exists at all could always claim to be locally important — the question is whether it's RSable as more than just locally important. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By any standard there appears to be far less notable Ottawa roads within the navbox at the bottom of the page. Deleting most of those and keeping this (with a couple decent sources) seems a better option. -- Acefitt 19:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Those need to be deleted too. Do you have any sources that would show this road is notable and would pass GNG? MB 19:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If somebody could properly source some context for the road's political, social or cultural significance as demanded by WP:ROADOUTCOMES, then we'd have a notable road that qualifies for a Wikipedia article. But as written, all this does is describe the road's physical characteristics — which is the kind of article that fails our notability criteria for roads. It's not enough to just assert that a road is important to its own neighbourhood; the notability of a road is determined by reliably sourcing some context for the road's political, social or cultural significance, not by just unreferencedly stating that it exists and has stuff on it (one or both of which things could be said equally of every single road anywhere on the planet.) Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources form which an article can be built about this street exist [19], [20], [21], [22] plenty more. major street in capitol city of major country.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:ROADOUTCOMES does not support deletion, in fact, it supports keep."An article that explains and provides valid relevant citations for the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AfD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics." since such sources do exist for this major city street. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Social, cultural, historical or political context" is not equivalent to "any sources exist at all for anything whatsoever about the road". Bike lanes and summertime replacement of parking spots with lounge-decking for pedestrians are both remarkably common things that a lot of streets in a lot of cities have, not anything that makes a road "special" in any substantive way. "Named in a listicle as a lovely local walking spot" doesn't really cut it either — and the final source isn't really about the road, but just namechecks the road in the process of being about a community festival in the neighbourhood. So no, none of those sources are particularly compelling evidence that ROADOUTCOMES has been fulfilled here. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing amounting to actual substance at all, and this is naturally best part of an actual list, not each their own articles. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is a run of the mill road unfortunately. The sources do confirm that it exists, but there doesn't seem to be any particular social, cultural or historical significance. WP:WHYN specifically requires that we have enough third party sources so as to be able to write an article on it. I don't see enough sources discussing this in detail. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eloomi[edit]

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

unremarkable company that brings up nothing notable on a search. Domdeparis (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Gnews turns up two hits (but I can't find the company name in the article); first few pages of Google hits are promotional/PR/corporate website fare. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a soapbox etc. WP:SOAPBOX. Ceosad (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only is there no actual need to search as it's quite obvious this is advertising and they're advertising it because it's so new, hence a need for advertising and hoping to catch clients, this could itself in fact been speedy deleted, but naturally it may be restarted later, so delete and let's hope the "No Advertising" message is clear. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nom. Fails our nitability standards. → Call me Razr Nation 09:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzidul Islam[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO South Nashua (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This individual is not notable. Ceosad (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The depth of coverage in the two cited sources is far short of what is needed to satisfy WP:BASIC. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, and ProQuest found nothing that would help establish notability.

I have no idea who editors Tamzidul.islam and All.that.jazz are, but their combined output: articles on the dubiously-notable Imago Sports Management, its founders (Tamzidul Islam, Ahmed Raqib, and Quazi Sabir), an event it managed (Masters’ Cricket Carnival) and an organization it worked with (Wheelchair Cricketers Welfare Association- Bangladesh) are what one would expect if the company's naive marketing intern had mistaken Wikipedia for advertising space. This discussion will probably need to be followed by more deletion discussions. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. → Call me Razr Nation 09:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Domdeparis (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frantic Assembly[edit]

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

unremarkable company; the article reads like a promo Domdeparis (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator owing to a spelling mistake my initial search for notability came up with nothing and the article had no sources. --Domdeparis (talk) 12:59, 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 Speedy Deleted per CSD G12 as a copyright violation RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Miami Beach Public Library[edit]

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

Doesn't claim any signifiance and doesn't meet the criteria WP:ORG no links no coverage. Domdeparis (talk) 12:35, 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 01:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afshin Nasseri[edit]

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

Doesn't meet criteria WP:BIO. Domdeparis (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domdeparis,

Dr. Afshin Nasseri is an experienced Internist known for his expertise in the field of Internal Medicine and Aesthetic Medicine in Warwick, RI. He has also done non-profit contributions to several international Community Medical Camps in rural India. He has won lots of awards as mentioned on the page.

Medical Licenses

License Number: MD10174 (Rhode Island)

NPI: 1316924897

Apart of that I have mentioned different authentic external links, too. If there is any issue within the page then please guide me to make changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekkush1983 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Vivekkush1983 have you read WP:BIO ? I'm sure that Dr Nasseri is a great doctor and has lots of qualifications but that doesn't as such make him eligible to having his page in Wikipedia. Domdeparis (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Not notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete medical doctor who does not pass our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnpacklambert,

I have updated some more authentic links also the image of Dr. Afshin Nasseri to make the content more efficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekkush1983 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phone safety[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per the result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mobile phone safety. result: keep. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither:

a) A dab (all entries are WP:PTM or guide/howto angle rather than ambiguous titles)

b) nor a WP:BROADCONCEPT as one entry is about driving safety not mobile phone. (nom moved here) Widefox; talk 12:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping editors User:Rajni rethesh, User:NJA, User:Malcolmxl5, User:Dcirovic Widefox; talk 13:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acceptable BROADCONCEPT article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe (the problem with a BROADCONCEPT) is that one entry is driving safety, not mobile phone safety, so it's not obvious to me what the scope is? Mobile phone in the second article is a driving distraction, so the topic is driving not safety of mobile phones. Playing Pokemon Go is also a risk whilst crossing the road etc, but is that "mobile phone safety" or "pedestrian safety" broad concept? Widefox; talk 13:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost nothing there. Verges on a speedy. South Nashua (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SmokeyJoe. Ceosad (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate please, for instance what the topic or scope of the broadconcept is? ...driving safety? Widefox; talk 01:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the onus is on your to substantiate your case for deletion. The title is a used phrase, and it is used to mean either of the two listed topics. It is not PTM. I think it is exactly what DABCONCEPT is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded my answer a) as a dab - Doc James below b) to SmokeyJoe above for the option b) as a BC where "safety" of what is the crux, the risk is from driving whilst distracted, so it is "driving safety" as a topic (similarly, driver rubbernecking isn't part of a broad concept "looking safety"). Widefox; talk 12:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not seeing the issue. Mobile phone safety can refer to two different things so what is wrong with a disambig? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As dab entries, "Mobile phone safety" as strictly interpreted per WP:D / WP:MOSDAB... The articles don't have alternative, bolded titles "Mobile phone safety". It's one or two PTMs, arguably the first one could be a synonym, so a good candidate for this being redirect. The second is "Mobile phones and driving safety" is a subtopic of driving safety, not synonymous with the ambiguous term "Mobile phone safety" so is a PTM, leaving a dab with a primary topic and one other - a WP:TWODABS. Widefox; talk 12:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of what could "properly" be referred to as "mobile phone safety", a user typing this phrase can be looking for either of the two articles listed. A case could be made for redirecting to Mobile phone safety and leaving a hatnote there, but I don't think it's a good idea: the convenience of the couple of readers who type this phrase every day isn't balanced by the added inconvenience (because of the hatnote occupying the primary spot of the article) for the thousand or so users who view that article. – Uanfala (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as a) a dab, agree scope isn't important but I'd say it's got a primary topic TWODABS (above). Widefox; talk 02:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Proposal:_keep_two-item_dab_pages, while these things are not necessary, or encouraged, when they happen there is no imperative to remove them. Their usefulness is a grey zone, and they do no harm. The biggest advantage of deletion I think is that entering the phrase int the search box will lead to pretty good search engine results [23]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(offtopic: in that proposal discussion I detail why they can do harm, so the assertion that they do no harm is no conclusion to a still ongoing unclosed discussion) This dab is the end-result of editing away a poor article. We're left with a poor dab that isn't a good candidate for a BC, and as you say, the search is a better option when deleted. Widefox; talk 04:00, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India Online[edit]

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

This is not a notable company and it does not meet criteria outlined in WP:CORP. All the references are non-independent and/or trivial coverage: 1) the Financial Express news article is written by "Rahul Jalan, Director Indiaonline.in", 2) the SME World reference was also written by Jalan, 3) the third reference is a press release from the website, with Jalan listed as a media contact, 4) 4th reference is a short, trivial mention of the website. The article creator's user talk page indicates that other editors perceive him as a paid editor, so there is an apparent conflict of interest here as well. Deli nk (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PR and trivial coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 16:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as in fact not even any genuine attempts of significance and not only that, there's no ingenuity of actual substance since everything here was clearly only paid and republished advertising, that summarizes it quite clearly. SwisterTwister talk 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet, WP:Corp; promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the required guidelines, aside from reading like a promotional piece. → Call me Razr Nation 09:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songs in the Key of Animals[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. (article is result of COI/promo activity) Widefox; talk 11:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long anticipated [24][25] album from cult figure Benji Hughes. The first few pages of a basic Google search show that this album has been substantively covered and/or reviewed in reliable sources such as NPR [26], PopMatters [27], FLOOD Magazine [28], Charlotte Observer [29], and a negative review from Pitchfork.com [30]. The article appears to be factual and neutral, showing no objective evidence of any "COI/promo" edits as far as I can see. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be improved by listing more sources, but clearly there has been significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plentiful amount of reviews by Pitchfork, PopMatters, and Allmusic. It needs formating improvements but still passes in coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheGracefulSlick's comments. The article needs work, but there seems to be plenty of sources out there for you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 29 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Love Extreme[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Metacritic ref links to Rolling Stone which is a deadlink, so quick WP:V failed. (article is result of COI/promo activity) Widefox; talk 11:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted in the Benji Hughes article, this album was reviewed by Chuck Klosterman of Esquire[31], Jon Pareles of The New York Times[32], Spin [33], NPR [34], Rolling Stone [35] (viewable at archive.org, 4/5 rating, just as Metacritic said), Slate [36][37] Despite poor sales, it has since remained a subject of discussion in terms like "cult classic" e.g., The Believer[38], Vulture.com [39], NPR [40], Charlotte Observer [41][42]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This quote from the above mentioned Vulture.com [43] article sells it for me. How often is something like this said about a record?: "A Love Extreme is one of those rare records that merit the overused designation “cult classic.” It was released in 2008 by New West Records...the label didn’t know what to do with A Love Extreme...The album has sold just over 6,000 copies. Very few people have heard A Love Extreme, in other words, but some inordinate percentage of those who have adore it." I do agree the page should have more details beyond the track list and may take a shot at it when I have some time. Lacivi (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider the sources presented above as enough evidence to establish notability. → Call me Razr Nation 09:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Unnecessary; simply redirect the article which is less detailed. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 16:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaparada[edit]

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

Kaprada need to rename as Kaparada. So, this page need to remove first. Kartik Mistry ^talk 11:12, 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 01:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee consumption in Uruguay[edit]

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

Edit history

The article was first written with the name "Coffee production in Uruguay", about the fact that there is no coffee production in that country.
Someone then came along and moved the page to its current name.
Besides tags, fixes, templates etc., there has been only one content edit.

Reasons for deletion

The informantion no WP:SIGNIFICANCE
The article is an orphan, barring one page where it apppears mentioned only under "See also".
Could unleash a wave of article creation on vertical and horizontal directions: "Coffe consumption in Poland", "Coffe consumption in Bolivia", "Coffe consumption in Tanzania", "Coffe consumption in Malasya", "Coffe consumption in Macau", "Coffe consumption in London", and "Tea consumption in Uruguay", "Wine consumption in Uruguay", "Beer consumption in Uruguay", "Butter consumption in Uruguay", "Maize consumption in Uruguay", "Fish consumption in Uruguay". Such articles, would be a magnet for IPs living in those places adding the ususal anecdotal, unsourced, hearsay, popular wisdom type of content that is a headache for more serious editors. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel rather conflicted on this. On the one hand it does seem rather parochial to be talking about the trade in food commodities in individual countries. I'm doubting that coffee is even a particularly large part of the Ugandan econony. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that there is a level of cultural bias going on. We have pages on Coffee in Seattle, why shouldn't we also have pages on consumption in African countries? We have pages on Tea in the United Kingdom, why shouldn't there be an equivalent about coffee culture in Uganda? I don't know how to process this, but simply saying it is "popular wisdom type of content" doesn't seem to cut through the bias which says the beverage culture in the United Kingdom or Seattle is important but the equivalent in Uganda isn't. JMWt (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above comment: Yes, you are absolutely right that we have similar articles and I had meant to make a note on that, but forgot to do so as I typed up my thought. However, it is a question of scale and propotionality, as you correctly pointed out "I'm doubting that coffee is even a particularly large part of the Ugandan econony". But it is not about cultural bias, more a question of how significant something is a specific country — no-one would bat an eyelid seeing an article on "Manga in Japan" or "Anime in Japan" or "Bacalhau in Portugal", "Charcuterie in France". Likewise, I would be happy to see an article on "Protest music in Uruguay", or "Barbecue (Asado) in Uruguay" or "Consumption of yerba mate in Uruguay". However I would do a double-take if I saw an article on "Rugby in Mali", or "Bocce in London" or "Consumption of arak in Belgium". Thanks for your input. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the mere consumption of coffee on a by-country basis has no encyclopedic value from what I can see. (Actually, I see WP:NOTSTATSBOOK does not cover this, as the info here is properly presented -- but it's still unencyclopedic imo. Wikipedia is a gazetteer of certain things, such as all species or named places, but the logical extension of this for a multitude of "Fooian food consumption in Fooian country" articles is clearly not a good idea). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Consumption of a drink is unlikely to be notable unless it has a significant social impact. For instance, English coffeehouses in the 17th and 18th centuries is an article with encyclopedic value and a similar scope. Ceosad (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BULLOCKS. The citations are 90 years out of date!!! Coffee is not drunk as much today in Uruguay as is mate for breakfast, beer for lunch, and wine for dinner. I've been there, and by the way, their beer is excellent. ;-) Bearian (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Bridget[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the WP:ORG notability criteria Domdeparis (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Never heard of this person/company. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the policy that states your own ignorance of a topic equates to it not being notable. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the three sources one is promotional and the other only mentions this company in passing. This is not the level of sourcing needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in news or newspapers, just commercial links on the net. Alaney2k (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White (band)[edit]

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

Although founder Alan White is certainly notable, it does not follow that every project of every notable musician is also notable. White seems to have had a limited impact as a project and does not seem to merit its own entry. Shritwod (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou managed to fill out the citations and it certainly looks better now. I had a look myself but White is such a common word finding that album eluded me. It seems to me to meet notability criteria, so I would like to withdraw this nomination. 10:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep Clearly meets WP:BAND criterion #6, "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians" in that the band contains Alan White and has contained Geoff Downes. Bondegezou (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a bit of work on the article this morning, adding four citations. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the very least it should be merged to the Alan White article. That seems obviously preferable to deletion. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 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 no consensus. There is certainly no consensus to delete this article. Most of the discussion revolves around the question of whether Craig Gill is notable enough to justify a stand-alone article, or whether the article should be re-directed to The Inspiral Carpets. As that is a discussion better suited to the article's talk page, I'm closing the AfD. Joyous! | Talk 01:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Gill[edit]

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

Not independently notable other than his involvement with Inspiral Carpets. Should revert to a redirect. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major newspapers think he is notable enough to run major stories about his death. See [44], [45], [46] etc. --Racklever (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But not one of the articles gives any in depth coverage to any activities outside of being the drummer for Inspiral Carpets. Per WP:SUBNOT at WP:Notability (music): "material about individual members of a musical group are normally merged into larger articles about the group"". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article can, and should, be expanded to include his knowledge on Madchester etc. More than just a drummer, as newspaper coverage shows doktorb _words^deeds 10:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please could you advise what further information you would intend adding to the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Death alone is not a reason for deletion. Gill was more than a drummer for a successful band - he was part of Manchester's wider cultural scene with his tours, book and DJing. Every newspaper and many music sites have carried obituaries of Gill - that makes him important enough to retain his entry here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleprose (talk • contribs) 10:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? What does "Death alone is not a reason for deletion" mean? The other other activities you list are not notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - countless reports of his death support his notability as the ex-drummer with one of the most prominent musical acts ever to come out of Manchester. It's also hard to believe that an article fully 9 years old would suddenly be nominated for deletion, and I'd question the rationale behind that action. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The "article" has been a redirect for some time as the subject is not independently notable. It was changed to back to a stub article yesterday in the event of his death, but nothing new, other than his death, has been added. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely positively keep. The Inspiral Carpets are a well known band, and Craig was certainly a part of that and Manchester music culture. The rationale for deletion is bizarre. 'Nothing new' has been added on countless pages for all manner of reasons. Is there a stopwatch running on each page to check if nothing new is happening, before the delete button is pressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.124.0 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing new has been added to justify changing it from a redirect to an article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band. None of the Keep statements above have been able to point to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Until such coverage is found, the subject of this article cannot be presumed to be notable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inspiral Carpets. Under the criteria of WP:MUSIC an artist needs to have had a notable career outside of the band. This is always a difficult proposition when it concerns drummers. A quick check at discogs.com shows that his output is all with the Inspiral Carpets. There is a hint of him being an author, but that book was written together with a well-know local journalist. All obits describe him as the drummer of the band. Karst (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Was already one beforehand as there wasn't any sufficient info. His death doesn't make him notable either, so it's best to restore the redirect. Rusted AutoParts 06:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What makes the Muse drummer Dominic Howard notable enough to have a page dedicated to him, outside of the context of his membership of that band? Nothing at all (according to the article), yet his page isn't up for deletion. It is also notable that Craig Gill is now the subject of a reasonably well publicised campaign to get an Inspiral Carpets song to number one in the UK at Christmas 2016, in his memory. — added by AtheistMT (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AtheistMT (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Howard has nothing to do with this AfD. If you feel that his article is a candidate for AfD feel free to submit one through the usual process. That fans are trying to get one the songs into the UK Top 40 is a great gesture, but only serves to confirm that the individual is not notable outside of the band under the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you answer my question? What makes Dominic Howard notable outside of the context of Muse, so as to warrant a dedicated article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheistMT (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, a more pertinent question would be now that the authorities have been notified of Dominic Howard's 'non-notability', why hasn't his article been nominated for deletion, as well as countless others where musicians are not notable outside of their work within a band or group? Could it be that there is a subjective test applied to the notability/popularity of the band itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.124.0 (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Drummer of a seminal Manchester band and a well known on the Manchester cultural scene. Plus many national papers ran obituary columns. Quentin X (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? At the moment there is only a local BBC News Manchester reference. Karst (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mirror - a large UK tabloid news outlet - http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/inspiral-carpets-craig-gill-dead-9308839

The Sun - probably the largest UK tabloid news outlet - https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/2239423/who-was-craig-gill-inspiral-carpets-drummer-dead-44/

The London Evening Standard - evidence that there is national coverage of the subject - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/craig-gill-inspiral-carpets-drummer-dies-aged-44-a3401961.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheistMT (talk • contribs) 19:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that tabloid newspapers are not considered to be reliable sources here. The London Standard is generally fine. The one thing the article *should* mention is Gill's Manchester Music Tours, a company he established in 2005, according to this. If enough third party sources concerning that could be added, I would be minded to change my declaration to weak keep. Karst (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree that if the article is expanded sufficiently, to include further references to Mr. Gill's other works outside of the band and also the various references in both mainstream and social media post-mortem, it warrants keep status? This will include information regarding the Christmas number one campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheistMT (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These sources still do not evidence any real notability outside of being the drummer in Inspiral Carpets. Running a music tour of a city is not notable in itself. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Official UK Charts Company considers it notable to mention on their website that the campaign to get their track to Christmas number one, enough to include it in its contenders list. http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/christmas-number-1-2016-the-contenders-revealed__17110/ - The Facebook page created in support of this campaign has attracted over 25,000 followers in one week - In response to the view that tabloid outlets are unreliable (which I generally agree with, however in this case they have reported factually), the Guardian ran this https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/nov/22/inspiral-carpets-drummer-craig-gill-dies-aged-44 and The Metro ran this http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/22/craig-gill-drummer-for-the-inspiral-carpets-has-died-aged-44-6275696/ - The fact various high profile individuals within the music scene (Liam Gallagher to name one) saw fit to comment publicly about his passing, demonstrates he was recognised widely and well regarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheistMT (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He also contributed as a 'talking head' in a section of a recent BBC programme called the 'People's History of Pop', broadcast on BBC4, which presumably means the BBC considered him noteworthy of inclusion - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b083dj11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheistMT (talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And any of this information can be included at Inspiral Carpets. None of this demonstrates notability of this individual outside of his work in the band. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This isn't about the entire membership of the band, or indeed the band itself. This is about an individual member whom has died suddenly and the ground swell of feeling, widespread reporting, recognition and proactivity generated as a direct consequence. The subjective approach to deciding what to keep, delete or redirect would be fine, were it consistent. If it were, the 'drummer in X' in every band on Wikipedia would have the same rules applied. And in actual fact, the rules would apply to practically every member of every band that didn't do anything 'notable', such as simply turn up and play. Larry Mullen Jnr, Paul Kodish, Dominic Howard (as previously cited) or Stephen Morris. As drummers in their respective bands, they are no more or less notable in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.33.147 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twinjet[edit]

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

no sources Timothy Robinson12345 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Twin-engine aircraft as I can't find any evidence that they're ever officially referred to as "twinjets". Please don't PROD/AfD "common knowledge" articles, find the sources of that common knowledge or submit it to relevant project pages instead. This was clearly written by someone with aviation knowledge but a poor understanding of Wikipedia's citation policy. Jergling (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternatively, rename to Twin-engine jet aircraft or something to keep it specific to jets) Jergling (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I do see that Trijet does exist, mirroring this naming structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources have been added. Sources do exist regardless of whether they're on the article or not. A move to a new article name doesn't require an Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Just for the record, I added those sources and consider them relatively weak. They loosely confirm the two main claims of redundancy and efficiency. "Trijet" appears to be industry vernacular, unlike "Twinjet", but I am not an expert. Jergling (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well another option is to redirect and selectively merge to Jet airliner itself, maybe. Which is not overly long and seems to mainly discuss aircraft by decade rather than configuration. But again, a merge doesn't require an Afd either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources have been added. - BilCat (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still needs considerable work and referencing, but I have no doubt it could be improved. I don't agree with merge/redirect to Jet airliner because that article is about passenger aircraft only. This article covers the design of two-engine jets of all types (small, military, cargo, etc.) I also note that there are dozens of incoming links to twinjet from other WP articles so it should probably stay at the current title. MB 16:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Widefox; talk 11:59, 29 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 topic appears to satisfy WP:GEOLAND requirements. Thanks for the detective work, y'all. Joyous! | Talk 01:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liciada, Bustos[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The barangay is not that notable. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs sourcing for WP:V, which seems to be available from cursory googling. But from my understanding of WP:GEOLAND, even the tiniest populated areas (including barangays/villages) have inherent notability, as long as they are legally recognized.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Problem is, if barangay is being used colloquially -- as the article says may be the case -- then this could be a neighbourhood rather than a legally recognized place, in which case WP:GEOLAND states the notability is not inherent. I'm not casting a !vote, just pointing this out. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's official. It has its own elected administration (a barangay captain and councilors). It's also listed as one of the 14 barangays of the municipality of Bustos in the official website of the Province of Bulacan.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also tangentially: to clarify, a "neighborhood" is actually also usually legally recognized in the Philippines, as barangays are usually that in dense urban areas (instead of discrete villages). That said, some "neighborhoods", like gated communities, suburbs, or housing projects can be informally referred to as "barangay", despite not having a separate local government.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a legally recognized place (thanks Obsidian Soul for confirming this), this subject plainly satisfies WP:GEOLAND standards. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:24, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Myanmar[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia is not trip advisor. Ajf773 (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; despite what the article says, most of the hotels in the list are not notable at all Spiderone 20:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ceosad (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:23, 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King Cecilia of the Emerald Isle[edit]

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

Unverifiable, likely hoax. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. During this timespan Ireland was divided into quite a number of Gaelic kingdoms. The existence of a king who ruled the entirety of Ireland, as the article claims, for so long (50 years) seems to be pretty unlikely and it seems to overlap with some other rulers who definitely existed back then too. High King of Ireland was a thing but as the article notes it was more like a an artifical construction without real power over the whole of Ireland. I tried to find something on this obscure name by checking through some refs which are given in other Gaelic kings articles, but I could not find anything. Thats obviously also not his real (Gaelic) name, if he really existed, so it will be hard to find more about him this way. The article does not give any source so it fails WP:VERIFY. I would not completely rule out that this person existed, but since there is no source to work with I would go for delete now, as we cant be sure that he is real. Dead Mary (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too have searched and been unable to find anything at all about him anywhere other than this Wikipedia article. Frankly, I just don't believe such a significant figure as "the first king to control all of Ireland" and who "frequently appears" in legend would not be findable somewhere. I don't regard the idea that this is not the original form of his name as a convincing reason for not finding anything about him, because if this name has had any significant amount of use for him then it ought to be findable somewhere, and if it hasn't then there is no justification for using it as his name in the article. I would have speedily deleted it as a hoax, and I am still not ruling out the possibility of doing so, but for now I'll wait and see what anyone else can say about this article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it's likely a hoax. List of High Kings of Ireland seems fairly comprehensive and well sourced and there isn't a name remotely similar to "Cecilia" on it as far as I can see. "of the Emerald Isle" also sounds like anachronism, considering Ireland wasn't referred to as such until the 18th century. Joe Roe (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. In any case, Ireland was not completely unified until 12th century. Ceosad (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per other comments, would seem to clearly meet WP:G3 for speedy deletion. At best, meets WP:GNG as apparently no coverage of subject (either offered in article or available anywhere independently). Guliolopez (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely hoax; definitely no sources appearing and therefore not notable if true. Can we also ban the creator for bad faith editing? Chris Troutman (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources either. Zero^talk 08:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 18:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unisex public toilet[edit]

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

There are several reasons why this article should be deleted:

1. This "article" has been extremely biased since it's creation 8 years ago (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unisex_public_toilet&oldid=52002038). This article has never existed in an acceptable state, and any reasonable person can infer that it will never exist in an acceptable state without a complete rewrite.

2. All paragraphs based entirely on biased sources

- - The lead of this article puts undue weight on Unisex toilets being gender neutral, when in actuality, most public unisex toilets are in small public buildings where there is only one restroom (and also one toilet in that restroom), or where that restroom is only for a certain group of people (like a staff restroom). This is based on a "source" from the University of Delhousie, which is only talking about toilets on their campus.

- - The first paragraph immediately starts with NPOV, this article is supposed to be about unisex toilets, not "Unsegregated Toilets". And of course, the sources used are definetly biased. Just by googling Clara Greed you can immediately tell she is biased. Also, what does racial segregation have to do with unisex toilets??

- - The second paragraph actually doesn't look that bad, but as I have stated before, this is supposed to be an article on unisex toilets/bathrooms/restrooms in general, not on LGBT rights, that belongs in it's own article.

- - The third fourth and fifth paragraphs are all talking about Transgender rights, not unisex toilets. They also as said before, put undue weight unisex toilets being gender neutral, when they were not designed for that purpose.

3. The article fails to mention single occupancy toilets.

4. Since a public unisex toilet is a type of public toilet, and doesn't differ very much, it would be better described as a paragraph in the public toilet article, rather than it's own article.

Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 01:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a decent enough article, with 28 reliable sources and several external links. It is also part of a whole project. Plenty of reliable sources are readily available. This is nowhere near so bad as to be destroyed on sight. Truth, reality, science, and the humanities have taken hits lately as being "biased" against personal opinions and soapboxen. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is full of sourced, accurate, relevant content, which is especially notable and timely given recent controversies in the United States (for instance, the recent North Carolina governor's race revolved in no small part around gender-neutral bathrooms). Now it certainly is true that the article requires either broadening (to include the full breadth of unisex bathrooms beyond and outside the issue of gender-neutrality specifically) or an overall shift in focus: for instance, I could imagine splitting it into two articles for gender-neutral bathrooms and unisex bathrooms respectively. But to throw the article out entirely would be such a waste. The right answer here is *clearly* improvement, not wanton deletion. Vivisel (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is reliably sourced and the subject is notable enough to have a standalone article. In its current state, there are multiple reliable sources supporting the many existing claims. Of course unisex toilets are gender neutral, and I don't understand how that would be in violation of WP:NPOV, I mean, that's the whole point! Article could take some improvement, sure. Good instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and a big no no to WP:TNT. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects can be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate A Dream Come True Parade[edit]

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

plain advertising The Banner talk 21:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While opting to delete a Disney parade makes me a Grinch (at Christmas time!) The reality is that the only reliable sourcing I can find for this parade is from the Orlando Sentinel, a local source. Here: [47].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking a look at the editors is also interesting... The Banner talk 22:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, clearly PROMO; thing is, some PROMO articles are about stuff that is actually notable. This doesn't seem to be.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Magic Kingdom Parade - It absolutely could be deleted for the reasons mentioned above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Hicks[edit]

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

A staffer on a political campaign born in 1988. While the candidate is notable, it doesn't confer notability on everyone who works on his campaign. Tataral (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the candidate's notability doesn't transfer to her. Her coverage establishes it for her. Town and Country Mag, GQ, WaPo, NY Post, Cosmo, Marie Claire, NY Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Direct Matin. Her age is irrelevant, don't know why you mentioned it. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has her own coverage in numerous major reliable sources, and certainly qualifies. Rjensen (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep she has her own coverage in numerous major reliable sources.--ML (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Hope Hicks Springs Eternal. And per above comments. Randy Kryn 14:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per multiple sources found like the New York Times, WP:Before might've helped. GuzzyG (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous profiles establish notability. Instaurare (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with nominating statement. Spokesperson for President-elect is notable by position alone. But even if it weren't, notability is established in references. Politico16 (talk) 18:17, 29 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, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Gina Turner[edit]

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

non notable musician, unreliable sources, written in a promotional manner. - John Dane Benelli (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Niche/in passing coverage, doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO. Not everyone connected to music business is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writing with Authority[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like an essay. South Nashua (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted by User:RHaworth. Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

System Dialing Records[edit]

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

No independent evidence of notability. (Only sources are their own.) Contains promotional language which could be cleaned up if the article were worth keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deleted as per WP:G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Born Country (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation, spent one week at the lowest position on the chart. Only one review, no other third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Moved from talkpage.) I think it's beneficial to have at least this page up as opposed to nothing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.156.172 (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Minimum activity over many weeks, closing with WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (Steve Angello song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Non-notable song. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is clearly a notable song. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 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. The "keep" opinions are unconvincing, since they do not address the policy-based WP:CFORK deletion rationale, but boil down to WP:WAX. It is, however, accepted that all articles are evaluated on their own merits and not because similar articles have also been deleted or kept. The "keep" opinions must therefore be given less weight. Sandstein 12:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Living First Ladies of the United States[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced, just a whole load of WP:TRIVIA you can make this really long but the title suggests only the First Ladies that are presently living, and we have List of First Ladies of the United States for that. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding list for Presidents exists, under the corresponding name. You could argue that this article should be merged with List of First Ladies of the United States, but then you would have to do the same for the Presidents, for conformity. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The positions of president and first lady of the US don't have conformity, so there is no need for our coverage of them to aim for conformity. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content not consistent with title, trivia, WP:OR, unsourced. MB 16:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with trivia? It is one of the strengths of Wikipedia to be able to include interesting trivia in an easy-to-read manner. The sources for the birthdates can be derived from the individual articles of the persons in question, and calulating who were alive at a given point in time cannot be classified as research. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might not classified as research in the traditional sense, but it seems fairly close to WP:OR's definition of original research on Wikipedia being "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". –Matthew - (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume that the birth dates are adequately sourced in the respective individual articles, that argument fails. It is just calculations, which noone can question (if they are correct, of course). --Marbe166 (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since an article for Living Presidents of the United States presently exists, I do not think this article should be deleted. However, it's certainly in need of citations. On a side note, both articles have slightly confusing titles that may need to be changed to coincide with the articles' content, or vice versa. –Matthew - (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we treat an article about US first ladies the same as we do an article about presidents? The positions are far from comparable, one being the most powerful person in the world and the other being a ceremonial role. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the First Ladies are married to the Presidents. That's a bit of a connection. –Matthew - (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's a connection, but such a connection doesn't mean that we should cover first ladies to the same depth that we cover presidents. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Ladies can still be considered important, however. Even according to the article for "First Lady of the United States", those holding the position are involved in "political campaigns, management of the White House, championship of social causes, and representation of the president at official and ceremonial occasion", and that they "frequently remain a focus of attention long after their husbands’ terms of office have ended". –Matthew - (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The depth discrepancy is taken into account by the fact that the corresponding page for the Presidents also has a list for the Vice-Presidents, wheras this one doesn't have one for Second Ladies. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody has offered any evidence that any reliable secondary sources list first ladies in this way, and I can find no such evidence. Whether such a list should exist for presidents or vice-presidents is beside the point, and can be discussed separately because the position of first lady (I wish we could call it something like "first partner" or "first spouse" to avoid the inherent sexism in this term) has nothing like the importance of that of president or vice-president. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good point. I searched ("living first ladies" [48], and found almost nothing, and very, very little even on "former first ladies" [49]. Former Presidents [50] , on the other hand, is a topic with scads of coverage. The two are not comparable at all. And the term "living first ladies" hardly exists aside from this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...which is an argument for keeping the article, as the First Ladies are not insignificant people from a historical point of view. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marbel166: I am trying to understand your perspective. The problem I hm having is that our standard for determining what is notable and encyclopedic is that multiple RS use the term/concept. Current living first ladies have a section on the page List of First Ladies of the United States. What this page does is to present a table of first ladies, with a column that keeps a running tally of how many were alive at the time each new one was inaugurated. Followed by a section headed Statistics with entries on such things as the fact that in 1886 11 first ladies were alive simultaneously. But there are no sources. I think that sources showing that factoids like that have been discussed might make editors see this differently, given that a parallel article exists on Presidents. Although the trend at Wikipedia has been (see:Barron Trump) to treat the First Family as being of less public interest than they used to be.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(If you want to ping me, spell my user name correctly) Again, the birth and death dates of the first ladies are in their respective articles, and that is where all facts in this article are derived from. Making statements based on time calculations (Example: "The longest period between deaths of First Ladies was 16 years and 359 days, between the deaths of Eleanor Roosevelt on November 7, 1962 and Mamie Eisenhower on November 1, 1979.") are not disputable and therefore do not need explicit sources saying the exact same thing. These are the kind of facts that are interesting and might not be easy to derive from the table, let alone from the individual articles. That is one of the strengths of Wikipedia, you can stumble over facts that are interesting but that you might not have made the effort of finding out in a more "traditional" research way. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a sort of fancruft; unencyclopedia trivia. WP:WHOCARES?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Per MatthewHoobin, the parallel Presidents article is equally unsourced, pretty much mirrors this one. Now, maybe a joint deletion of both on grounds of excess trivia, maybe that's an argument, but to toss one and not the other with the reasons presented smacks of systemic bias. Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To differentiate our coverage of presidents from that of partners of presidents is not systemic bias, but a reflection of the real world. Yes, it is a Bad Thing that all US presidents elected to date have been men, and their partners have all been women, but we can't fix the world's problems by pretending that there's any equivalence between the two positions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as 86.17.222.157 says. Note that President lists ≠ First Spouse lists. We have many, many Lists under Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency, because the position is extremely significant. We don't even have a Category:Lists Relating to First Ladies of the United States, because the positions are far from being equal in significance. This has nothing to do with systemic bias. (It has everything to do with cultural attitudes towards gender; but that's a topic for a different discussion).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No one has produced any evidence that this is a subject that has received coverage to justify the article existing. In the case of Living former presidents of the US there is more than ample evidence to justify that article. Such does not exist here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. We already have List of First Ladies of the United States which has a list of the current living First Ladies. This page is just trivial overload. Ajf773 (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First ladies of the US are among the most prominent categories of women in history, which justifies having this kind of information in an article. Again, it could be merged with the List of First Ladies of the United States, but the information should stay. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First ladies are only among the most prominent categories of women in history if you judge the importance of a woman only by who she is married to rather than by what she does herself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a strange unwieldy concept for a list. Don't see the importance of knowing what first lady/ladies were alive per each presidential term, nor do the sources support such a thing. Hesitate to label it trivia since trivia is actually, er, interesting. ValarianB (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"what first lady/ladies were alive per each presidential term" is not what the article lists, it lists which first ladies were alive at any given moment in time. What is not interesting to you might be interesting to someone else. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's even sillier, as which First Ladies are living at any given moment in time is of no historical importance whatsoever; it doesn't matter if it is interesting to you. Being able to say "who are the First Ladies still living right now", that's noteworthy. Listing which ones were alive in 1835 or 1921 is trivia, unless you ca produce sources to the contrary. ValarianB (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively (indifferent to redirect, since it's an unlikely search) to List of First Ladies of the United States. It seems we have a list of first ladies and then a lists of trivia about first ladies of the united states. Some of it seems like it could be included in the main list, for example as additional columns in the main table and/or even a timeline, but I don't know why this is separate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 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. the argument for keeping is that the case involving him might become notable. It isn't yet. And even if it does become notable, it will be the case, not him. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Stockwell[edit]

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

NN individual known for a WP:1EVENT, a suit against Microsoft. The musical career does not seem to have the support need to provide notability. There is nothing in the Reuters articles that even implies, "The Microsoft Lawsuit may have significant impact on employment retaliation laws in Washington State."Has multiple Reuters articles on the suit, but they are essentially all the same article. Also some local coverage of the suit. Even so, this would be WP:CRYSTAL event or at best WP:1EVENT. reddogsix (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello reddogsix - This page should remain in Wikipedia for three reasons 1) The Microsoft Lawsuit may have significant impact on employment retaliation laws in Washington State, and is important for residents of Washington State. This in turn may have impact on employment laws on other states as retaliation laws have been the subject of increased Supreme Court action, including rendering an opinion on this case. With the case coming up soon (see reference of June 12, 2017), this subject will only get more interest. Reuters and the news media have covered this and it has been in newspapers globally. How Microsoft navigates employment law is notable for Microsoft as well as technology firms in general. References [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] refer to some of the press coverage available on the net, but do not reflect the number of front pages it received globally on print newspapers. Also while Reuters may indeed have put out essentially the same article, that they published 4 of them is in itself noteworthy. With a trial involving a multinational, any news service must be vigilant in its reporting, erring on the side of caution. At this point in history, while the media may not report on the scale of the trial, the legal community is aware of it's gravity. Finally, that this lawsuit is still moving forward in the next 8 months is relevant. 2) This individual has written and created music with other celebrities through his work in the music field. He is referenced on 3 other existing Wikipedia pages including Alan White, White (Band), List of Progressive Rock Supergroups. I'd appreciate your thoughts on how best to remove the "marked for deletion" warning. Any and all help is appreciated. Cheers! Sdbrown69 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, Sdbrown69. The tag showing this Article for Deletion discussion will not be removed until the AfD discussion has been concluded. Articles are not kept on the basis that they might become notable in the future. The discussion needs to be based on coverage now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sdbrown69 , the article creator, says current pending lawsuit is notable. Which would mean the lawsuit might be justified for an article but not necessarily a biography of a plaintiff. Canuckle (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, Bondegezou. Thank you for your help in ensuring that this article can be as complete as possible. What makes Wikipedia a useful destination is that it provides a compete picture of interactions of event/people, it provides context for A-Listers in any field by providing information of those relevant in their careers or causes. In the case of this subject, there are already other wikipedia pages mentioning this subject in the music context. There exists media for public consumption now. In terms of the lawsuit, that it was the subject of 4 Reuters stories and in multiple print publications also makes it relevant now. That the supreme court of Washington State weighed in on this makes it notable. However, the combination of interaction with music notables, mentions on existing Wikipedia pages, impact on Microsoft and the tech industry and involvement of a Supreme Court on this individual is notable. That there may be impact in the future is a separate discussion.There are existing wikipedia articles with much less impact. I'd appreciate any help you can offer to ensure this remains page available. Cheers! Sdbrown69 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, Canuckle. That's certainly an option. However I would argue that lawsuits typically are not a named affair that is easily searchable, rather those involved become keywords to discovery. I also believe that the mix of topics make the individual noteworthy. I have seen other wikipedia pages that have no references, no other wikipedia mentions or link and are of far less interest to the global community. Cheers! Sdbrown69 (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are lower quality articles of less notable things, but those are arguments for deleting those arguments, not for keeping this one: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. You need to concern yourself with meeting WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Bondegezou (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)::Thank you, Bondegezou. This WP:GNG and WP:BAND is very helpful.Sdbrown69 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I should begin by saying that I have every one of Stockwell's albums, being a fan of Yes-related stuff! I think this is a marginal case, but there was a certain amount of RS coverage of the law case. I take Canuckle's point that an article on the law case may therefore be more appropriate, but I think there's enough other coverage of Stockwell, including his music, that an article on him is warranted. Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt please, because this was literally PRODed by me not only past a month ago and here it is once again, with only considerable puffery, regardless of whether it's neatly formatted and sourced, because there's still quite honestly nothing actually substantial. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 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 02:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the lawsuit is of note then it should have its own entry. I don't think being associated with White infers any notability (I don't think that band itself is notable despite the involvement of Alan White. That really just leaves him as being some Microsoft employee and that certainly doesn't infer notability. Shritwod (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While the arguments for deletion are convincing, coverage in Tempo and the fact that there is material available in Indonesian, I would like to give it the benefit of the doubt. If the fact about the Maya awards can't be verified and doubt persist about its notability, it can certainly be nominated again. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 19:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi5teria[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NFILM. Sources mentioned are not independent. ronaz ^Talk! 09:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note IP 111.94.115.22 removed the AfD template twice.ronaz ^Talk! 14:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Can't find any substantial coverage of it online in WP:RS, English or Indonesian. Can't find any evidence online that it won the claimed Maya award. Just reviews on film blogs. Fails WP:NFILM. Wikishovel (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply by virtue of the very large number of known notable actors with en.wp articles taking part. I haven't hunted for the Maya award, but then there's so much material in Indonesian. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like someone improved the previously sketchy sourcing. While I still have my doubts about the blog post in Viva, the coverage in Republika and Tempo seems to satisfy WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Rolling Stones discography. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar 05:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Stone Unturned (2013 album)[edit]

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

No indication of independent notability, no secondary sources. This "compilation album" is part of a bigger "Complete Collection" box set; it's not considered an independent release by AllMusic or the Rolling Stones themselves. Huon (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should a page of the Complete Collection box set be made instead, with this article merged to it? --WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's no point in discussing this further at the present time. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanbe10[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:BAND. All of the sources are social media and blogs even, as far as I can tell the Persian ones. There is not even a claim they have charted on a national chart and the Top50songs.org caused my computer to open an email window to send some bogus "virus report" so if there is a legitimate claim there, which seems doubtful, it should be referenced elsewhere. Jbh ^Talk 17:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 17:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 17:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Underground music in Iran is a forbidden act in the country due to political and religious laws and keeping good record of the history of these kinds of movements is not as easy as in other places. there are very few lucky Iranian underground musicians that made their way abroad to be able to tell their story in reliable sources. But, that being said, as the writer of the article, I did base the article on some good sources too like SPICEE media or TV interviews and I will do my best to find better sources as I complete the article. I will also include links to charts and albums from Radiojavan (the number 1 source of Persian music). Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia so I also think that people will contribute to this article by providing better sources by time. Thank you. Pourya fa (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pourya fa: I thought a lot before nominating this article. I agree that it is a significant achievement for any pop music band from Iran to be known outside of the country. It is, however, the fate of most underground music to be, well, underground and not get much mainstream coverage. The issue is none of their coverage, as far as I can tell, meets the criteria for being reliable sources. The requirements that the source have good editorial control and have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy disqualifies the blogs, Instagram, Facebook, portal, etc sources. Much of the other material links to copyrighted works on sites like YouTube so it is hard to assess whether these are RS or Vlogs.

If you would make some specific arguements pointing out two or three independent reliable sources which have signinficant coverage (say a few paragraphs of text or three or so minutes of comentary) I would be more than happy to reconsider my nomination. Jbh ^Talk 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Thank you for the answer. It is not the fact that they are underground musicians like other places, in some countries like Iran, hip-hop is forbidden and can not be signed. it is a political movement that I am trying to track down for everybody in the world who seeks the history of these movements, and this is just the begining. I understand wikipedia's policies so I added new references and edited the article a bit. there are links to other significant artists like Alireza JJ, Atour, Bahram Nouraei, Erfan that fled the country...some of the sources were translated like the interviews. not all of the references were blogs and facebook pages and as I am writing the history of these bands and musicians I think that they are really significant and we can not compare them with other underground groups from around the world. they introduced Justina, a rapper girl. she is famous now because singing is forbidden for women in the country there are documentaries about her. there are links to her interviews and articles about her that she points out the begining of her fame and Tanbe10. I propose you to give this article a chance if possible and other RS will be added by time. thank you again.Pourya fa (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article is well written, neutral in tone, and does bear some measure of cultural and artistic significance. The artists do seem to have achieved some notoriety and the sources do seem to support the material, albeit of somewhat dubious quality. A closer examination may be justified. I do think the article would be less a candidate for deletion if it had been written in the larger context of, say, political persecution or the underground movement as a whole. As currently written it comes off more as a sober sales pitch than an encyclopedic entry. Despite this subjective flaw I do think it meets minimum standards, barring any future revelations about the truthfulness of the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C: Thank you for your kind contribution. I agree with the flaws that you mentioned and made some changes to the article regarding the "political persecution and underground movement" relations to the matter. Also added some other sources and references. I will continue to improve it over time. still waiting for this nomination to be withdrawn and not be relisted forever. thank you again. Pourya fa (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think a fair amount of leeway should be given to band foreign bands -- it's hard to get English sources for Iranian bands. That doesn't mean they're not at least somewhat notable in Iran. WP:BAND #5 wants two albums, and they have two. Whether those are major-label albums I'm not sure. It's hard to know what is a major label in Iran. But let's give them the break and assume they meet WP:BAND #5. And you've got a decent article with a fair amount of refs. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortionatly lets assume is not a reason to keep an article. We are not here to provide a promotional vehicle or to act as a legitimizer of either bands or political movements. Unless and until they get some coverage in reliable sources we do not have any ability to know what is true, what is spin and what is just something a blogger feels like writing at the moment. Even the Persian sources do not seem to pass the bar of being independent reliable sources.

As we tell people all of the time at AfD, it does not matter how important you are or what you have done in the world. Wikipedia only cares about whether independent reliable sources have written about those accomplishments. Jbh ^Talk 01:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Thank you for your kind contribution.

@Jbhunley: Thank you again. Happy to see that Wikipedia is putting so much hard work in the process of accepting an article as much as we put on writing them. that's a pity that it is still not considered as a reliable peer reviewed journal itself. regarding your final point, it is not about us writers to be notable but the subjects, and I think I tried to point that fact out enough in the text. Nevertheless, I will continue to improve the article and find better sources for your consideration. Thank you again. Pourya fa (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pourya fa: Personally, I would like to see this article be kept, I just can not see a policy based way for that to happen. Blogs are just not reliable sources no matter how many are cited. In fact, all of the material cited to blogs needs to be removed because they are simply, by policy, not acceptable. It is better to have a short, properly sourced, article than a long, detailed one based on unreliable blogs. Two or three solid sources are all that are needed to pass GNG but they are needed.

This AfD has been open for well over a month, which is exceptional in my experience. Likely the issue is that no one has given a policy based reason to Keep even though all the !votes are Keep. This puts the closing admin in a pretty tough position. Technically they should close as Delete because they are supposed to weigh the policy based arguements not the number of !votes but I have never seen that happen when there are no Delete !votes other than the nomination. If you can please just identify a couple of true reliable sources - independent publications with solid editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - that give them a couple paragraphs of coverage and link to them here I will withdraw my nomination and close this as Keep myself. Jbh ^Talk 15:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally closed this as a NAC keep, but I have undone my closure after the nom posted his concerns on my talk page. Natg 19 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Diff of request [51]. Jbh ^Talk 20:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19 and Natg 19: Thank you. after reading the nom's request to reopen the AFD I am surprised a bit. so much insist on deleting an article. not even one delete or comment against the article except the nom. I will still stay positive and wait another month to see if others opinions will break the ice. thank you very much. Pourya fa (talk) 21:50, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quisk[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Light2021 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC) From company Promotional writing of an article to references used for press or news coverage. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. company only mention the Investment news where thousands of company gets seed, angel or any kind of funding on daily basis on each part of the world. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. It will be flooded with thousands of worldwide funding company daily. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I work for Quisk (and am biased) but agree that the previous entry, last updated in 2014, was extremely promotional, PR, and investing focused, as Light2021 points out. Where I disagree is notability: As this entry outlines, Quisk is a mobile-also, number and PIN electronic payment system rather than a device-only system like ApplePay. This makes it a unique and new type of payment platform, the only mobile-also payment system that we know of. It is not our intention to create a company directory or encyclopedia entry, but simply to factually inform others about a new payment type. --Mary Garfein, COO, Quisk — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGarfein (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Attention: Auto signed name itself as North America¹⁰⁰⁰ . Is it him really? As an admin, I am doubtful, as it is being Relisted and other companies are made contributions for such. If it is true. It is a grave concern and case of COI not for this but also relative companies or even others. Light2021 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the previous erroneous signature above (diff) and added the unsigned template above. Perhaps it was some sort of copy/paste error by the user; it wasn't my post. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This Vote must be Deleted immediately. It is compromised on the ground of COI and Misuse of Possible creating false impressions and building false credibility in the admin name. I am still doubtful, it was an error. It seems intentional. As it was relisted by you earlier. this user seems new and in a hurry to Keep vote. no earlier contributions are made as per my understanding. Light2021 (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total novice at this--I don't have a user name so copied the format of a previous entry and signed my post. Apologies for any mistake in formatting. --Mary Garfein, COO, Quisk — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGarfein (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 07:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; an unremarkable private tech company. WP:TOOSOON & WP:PROMO apply. Wikipedia is not a catalog for unremarkable minor companies. The copy includes:

In 2012 Steve Novak was appointed as CEO of Quisk.

This inticates to me that there's nothing better to write about than its non notable CEO. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 1 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and although I've been watching this since the start, I missed commenting before the relist, everything here is literally advertising and there's even as far as no actual significance, let alone something of substance. The history shows this also has only existed for advertising and therefore there's nothing to compromise with that. We can only save ourselves from such advertising, if we're firm and take care of it by deleting as quickly as possible, chances of notability or in the future, be damned. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister and K.e.coffman. Ceosad (talk) 01:29, 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 keep. Keep / no consensus. No delete !votes after over a month at AFD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FESOM[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources: all the sources cited are by the creators of FESOM. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :@JamesBWatson: According to the WP:NEXIST independent sources should not be necessarily cited on the page itself. It is natural that in the description of the model the cited sources are from the model developers.(Koldunovn (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

In answer to your first sentence: Absolutely, and if you can provide suitable sources then I will withdraw my nomination, but I haven't been able to find any. On the subject of just saying "there must be sources somewhere" without providing them in a deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources; however, you haven't even said that there are, or must be, suitable sources that are not cited in the article, you have merely pointed to a guideline which says that if there are suitable sources that are not cited in the article then that is OK.

In answer to your second sentence: Wikipedia's notability guidelines require substantial coverage in sources independent of the subject. Whether it is "natural" or not, the existence of writing about a subject by the creators of that subject is no evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if it sounded as if don't want to address the the issue, I was just trying to constructively answer the direct concern (as I understood it, of course). To the question of the the independent sources. Here is the list with several recent scientific publications where FESOM is used and authors of FESOM are not the first authors or not involved at all. Please note, that in geosciences the largest contribution (sometimes the only) usually comes from the first author, it might be different in other scientific fields.

Hellmer, H. H., Kauker, F., Timmermann, R., Determann, J., and Rae, J.: Twenty-first-century warming of a large Antarctic ice- shelf cavity by a redirected coastal current, Nature, 485, 225–228, 2012.

Nakayama, Y., Timmermann, R., Schröder, M., and Hellmer, H. H.: On the difficulty of modeling Circumpolar Deep Water intrusions onto the Amundsen Sea continental shelf, Ocean Modell., 84, 26–34, 2014.

Haid, V., Timmermann, R., Ebner, L., and Heinemann, G.: Atmospheric forcing of coastal polynyas in the south-western Weddell Sea, Antarctic Science, 27, 388–402, 2015.

Ionita, M. , Scholz, P. , Lohmann, G. , Dima, M. and Prange, M. (2016) Linkages between atmospheric blocking, sea ice export through Fram Strait and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, Nature Scientific Reports, 6 (32881). doi:10.1038/srep32881

Scholz, P. , Kieke, D. , Lohmann, G. , Ionita, M. and Rhein, M. (2014) Evaluation of Labrador Sea water formation in a global finite-element sea-ice ocean model setup based on a comparison with observational data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans doi:10.1002/2013JC009232

Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A., P. G. Myers, and J. D. Pietrzak (2010), A finite element sea ice model of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Ocean Dyn., 60(6), 1539–1558, doi:10.1007/s10236-010-0356-5.

To add to that as a supporting evidence here is a list of notable scientific programs and projects where use of the FESOM is explicitly mentioned (proved by the external link at the end of the line):

* CMIP phase 6 (this is the basis for the IPCC reports) [[52]]

* WCRP | High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP) (as AWI-CM)[[53]]

* CLIVAR | Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments - Phase II (CORE II) For evidence of participation see the list of models (at the same page). At the same page there is a list of scientific publications with only one that have leading author from the FESOM development team (Q. Wang). One can see that in this publications the rest of the authors go alphabetically, which in practice usually means they are just credited for providing the data.

* Horizon 2020 program Primavera. Here only some presentation from the official website as a prove.

Sorry for ugly formatting. Please let me know if this is enough. (Koldunovn (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

* Wikipedia's notability guidelines are, in my opinion, rather a mess of bits and pieces, and I think they could benefit from being substantially cleaned up and rationalised. However, the central point is that a topic is considered notable if it has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. "Substantial" means that brief mentions are not enough; "independent" means (amongst other things) that one does not confer notability on one's own work by writing about it; "reliable" does not seem to me to be relevant in this case, as I see no reason to doubt that all of the sources are reliable. You are perfectly free to propose changing the notability guidelines for scientific methods, so that any method which can be shown to have been used by quite a number of people is considered notable, but at present that is not so. The sources you link to merely indicate that writers of some papers mention very briefly that they have used FESOM: they do not give us any information about FESOM itself. In one case, the full and complete text of the mention of FESOM is "We have successfully run FESOM (Finite Element Sea ice Ocean Model), which was developed at AWI." In another one, FESOM is merely included in a long list of acknowledgements. In the other, FESOM is listed in a table, and in a list headed "Frontiers integrations", in which the full text of the list entry for FESOM is "Unstructured mesh FESOM ocean/sea-ice coupled to ECHAM6". None of this is substantial coverage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I can not agree that the notability guidelines can be applied, even in the present state, similarly to the articles about pop stars and about scientific methods. There should be some discretion in interpretation of the basic principles ("substantial coverage", "independent" and "reliable"), which seem reasonable enough, depending on the field.

The story of the scientific method/software is usually similar. There is at first an in depth description of the method/software by the authors in the manual (worst case) or peer reviewed scientific journal (better case). If the method/software is accepted by the community people start to use it, but there is no point of repeating the description, you just reference the original publication. The using usually imply that people spend days or sometimes years working with the tool, but in the resulting publication it would be only briefly mentioned and the reference to the original work will be given. So, behind the phrase "We have successfully run FESOM (Finite Element Sea ice Ocean Model), which was developed at AWI" there is much more work and though than behind any, say, review of mobile app or computer game that can be done in half an hour.

What I am trying to say is that in my opinion the "substantial coverage" in case of the scientific method/software should be interpreted differently compared to pokemon description. And this is could be done even with the present state of the notability guidelines, just by applying them less formally, taking in to consideration differences between the fields of human activity. Otherwise most of the articles listed here or even more general here would not have a chance to exist. I don't think it would make Wikipedia a better place. Koldunovn (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Koldunovn, has FESOM been independently reviewed/criticised?, this would contribute to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Thank you for taking part in this discussion and for your suggestion, Coolabahapple. Yes FESOM has been reviewed. I guess the first thing to mention is that two publications out of three presently mentioned in the article are published in the Geoscientific Model Development, which is not only peer reviewed, but also have the whole review process available to the public (keeping reviewers anonymous if they want). Here is the discussion for the Q. Wang et al., 2014 paper and here is for Danilov et al., 2015. As one can see there is a fair amount of criticism in the initial reviews, especially for the Q. Wang's paper, but the fact that papers were finally published mean that the criticism were addressed and reviewers and the editor are in general happy with the author's answer to the review. The third mentioned paper (Sidorenko et al., 2014) is published in the Climate Dynamics and went through the same peer review process, but in the closed mode (as majority of the scientific journals do).

One more evidence of the independent review/criticism are the papers resulted from the Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments - Phase II (CORE II) project. During this project ocean models were run with the same boundary conditions and then several aspects of the model performance compared to each other. There is quite a good number of papers on the project website and each of them have multiple figures of different ocean model metrics with direct comparison of models against each other. At most of this figures the FESOM results are present, so there is a way to directly compare its performance to other ocean models. All those papers are not just blog posts, but publications in a peer reviewed journal (Ocean modelling), which mean they all went through the above described peer review process.

And last but not the least all papers that I have mentioned on this AfD page went through the peer review. Moreover most of the things that can be found by querying Google Scholar for FESOM went through the peer review (excluding conference abstracts, reports and similar things). So my more general point is that even if the paper is written by the authors of the model/method but published in the respectful scientific journal it is peer reviewed, so at leas two independent professionals in the field have agreed that methods used in the paper and the results are fine.(Koldunovn (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since it is a some kind of a computer simulation software/model, with scientific articles written about it, I guess notability requirements are just barely fulfilled. Ceosad (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Model of the World 2009[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner is already included in the Miss Model of the World article. Richie Campbell (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 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. Assertions that sources exist are meaningless. Identifying specific sources is what counts. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf Abrahamson[edit]

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

No real sources or indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 22:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, checked swedish wiki here, unfortunately no additional sources listed there, in fact, this looks like a direct copy, Vannucci, translation tag required? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This artist might be notable locally, but I found zero Google hits in news, newspapers, or books. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG requires multiple sources, there is 1, I am not sure it fits other GNG requirements, but it is not multiple.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Svenska konstnärer. Biografisk handbok that is cited is available online at http://runeberg.org/svekonst80/ It mentions several people with the last name Abrahamsson, but no Abrahamson, and none named Ulf. However, a google search for "Ulf Abrahamsson" konstnär yields some results. Perhaps his name wasn't spelled correctly? Mduvekot (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Delete !votes above are based on the notion of a bad shape article. such things can be improved. also sources, there are plenty of sources available.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ if you have sources, please provide them. I have been unable to find anything that would support a claim to notability. Mduvekot (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, I tried to find sources and found nothing. FWIW, I have a sister-in-law from Kiruna, Sweden. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches did not turn up anything which would show they pass WP:GNG. If someone comes up with some in-depth coverage, be more than happy to change my !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not been able to find any independent, reliable sources.Mduvekot (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources at all - the source in the article is a directory that gives only a few lines to each entry and does not cover subjects "in detail", as required for GNG. Also, no indication it would qualify under WP:ARTIST. Note that most sources (that are all trivial mentions) refer to him as Abrahamson, but some use Abrahamsson (e.g., what I presume was used for the date of birth), so might not even be about the same person. No longer a penguin (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberlea Berg[edit]

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

Non notable actress, The article's been unsourced since its creation (2007) and there's nothing on Google - not even 1 mention, They appear to meet NACTOR however they fail GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG - no reliable secondary coverage of the subject.Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending more research. The argument "They appear to meet NACTOR however they fail GNG" is illogical, the NACTOR guidelines explain how an actor's credentials establish the presumption of notability to meet GNG. Here, we have quite a number of credits and a continuing, consistent role in a series. Just because she may have only been a child actor does not mean she is insufficiently notable to have a WP article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was talking source wise, Starring in tons of programmes is great but if there's nothing sourceise that confirm this then it shouldn't have an article - Tagging it under "unsourced" is great but again it doesn't make anyone cite the article nor does it magically make sources appear online, Ofcourse if you or anyone can find anything I'd be more than happy to withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 04:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing establishes that she exists and voiced these shows if that is what you are asking. IMDb isn't RS for us, but it does verify, add to that what looks like another database that is shows basically the same credits: [54]. Looks like she had a leading role in the UK version of this Disney series, working for Disney is nothing to sneeze at. I'll acknowledge that we don't have a lot here, but I'm in the states and I'm having difficulty getting my searches to turn up UK instead of US sites (a different child voiced the character of Darby in the USA) Voicing cartoons is an area of acting we should not be dismissing out of hand here, but it is frustrating to dig up the database info. Montanabw^(talk) 08:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately IMDb cannot be used in articles and this article cannot rely solely on one source (technically it can but it ends up at AFD eventually anyway). –Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per Montanabw's comments. If there is sourcing that verifies the WP:NACTOR-meeting claims, then it is notable.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just this minute said the article cannot be dependant on one source, if there's not even so much as mentions then this BLP doesn't warrant an article at the moment (I'm more than happy for it to be redirected which would preserve the history but as it stands they're not notable at the moment). –Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Ok, then it fails WP:GNG. I'm satisfied. Delete this article.--Mr. Guye (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person appears to be notable, this person should be notable, however, there's nothing out there in the sourcing to show that she actually is notable. She's a working actress. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, but could definitely be improved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Peralta[edit]

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

On Wikipedia, we have high standards for WP:BLP subjects, and this one does not meet them. All coverage is from either affiliated sources or WP:MILL coverage. Fails WP:NATHLETE, as well. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Soccer-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject appears to pass WP:NATHLETE easily, by virtue of appearances in Categoría Primera A, a fully professional league. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having played in a fully pro league, the Categoría Primera A, the article passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - stub article passes WP:NFOOTY having played at a fully-professional level of football. --Jimbo^[online] 21:16, 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 01:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Cole[edit]

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

Non-notable newswoman. I only see non-independent coverage, routine coverage, and unreliable coverage. I'm surprised; for a news figure, she has little coverage online. Unambiguous WP:MILL journalist. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very likely fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Unable to find any sources about her. Anup [Talk] 03:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. The only thing I could find was an article on the death of her mother. MB 03:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this quite noticeable to something only listed for her own journalist bio at the news website itself, not something that Wikipedia accepts which needs actual substance, not only simply self-sourced to bio and trivial mentions. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 29 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 01:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major J. Jones[edit]

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

This is hard to AfD because this is a well-written article, kudos to the author, but Mr. Jones does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Not as an author (they may have been good but don't appear to have been especially notable), his association with the SCLC/MLK doesn't matter per WP:INVALIDBIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator, notability is not inherited. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated, notability is not inherited. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's nothing at all here for the applicable notability despite its size. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the basically identical Draft:Major J. Jones, consider whether it should also be deleted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the article creator had it in AfC but it was rejected, then they created the article directly on Wikipedia instead of working with AfC on sources. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is indeed what happened. If this article is deleted the draft should also be deleted, if the article is kept the draft should be redirected to the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the entry in this print encyclopedia from a major publisher. And, according to its index, Jones has coverage on six different pages of ISBN 9781608330355. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:13, 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 01:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otis James[edit]

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

Looking at the sources they are all either trivial (small mention alongside many others[55]) or part of what looks like an ad[56][57]. Potentially the only source of note is a win in the fashion category of 2011s made in south awards in the Garden & Gun magazine.[58] That does seem to be quite specific when it comes to awards. Also the article in the magazine appears more ad than anything else and I haven't found many reliable secondary sources (i.e. outside the magazine) that mention it.[59][60] There is also a Southern Living mention,[61] which includes 51 other designers. Most of the article is unsourced and given the level of detail probably written by someone close to the subject. All in all I don't think this meets the WP:GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of indepth reliable source articles to establish that James is a notable designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bangtan Boys. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Park Ji-min (BTS)[edit]

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

No evidence to suggest the article is notable outside of Bangtan Boys. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable seperate from band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about the band. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to band article; no demonstrated individual notability. Fylbecatulous talk 00:02, 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. , but with a WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation. Joyous! | Talk 01:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abou Moussa[edit]

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

A respectful humanitarian career, but nothing newsworthy, and no press coverage exists to back anything. --Qwacker (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 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 16:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 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.