Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 November 8 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. Cavarrone 12:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Jordan[edit]

Mic Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • @Yadáyiⁿga and KATMAKROFAN: Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Really bad speedy call. Meets WP:N with the sources in the article. (BBC, Wisconsin Public are the best). Hobit (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 03:21, 7 November 2016‎ User:KATMAKROFAN tagged Mic Jordan for speedy-delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the references are there, as Hobit says, and it's quite a nicely written little article. The reference in The Advocate for me resonates slightly with the Featured Article on yesterday's Main Page – From The Doctor to my son Thomas. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and the source above is still not substantial enough for genuinely convincing this article of both keeping and meaningful improvements, the article itself barely has any claims of significance and none of it amounts to substance, thus notability has not been established. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SwisterTwister: Could you comment on the two sources (in the article) which I mention? Between those 3 sources, I don't see how we aren't well above WP:N but I'm curious about your thoughts. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hobit. Expand and merge into anything about the Redskins naming controversy. South Nashua (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per G5 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sor Piseth[edit]

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

Article of a Footballer that fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Inter&anthro (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Inter&anthro (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Inter&anthro (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:52, 7 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 02:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rozen Maiden characters[edit]

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

No notability. The notable characters have been effectively merged into the main article. Three years has passed since my last nomination, and of course nothing has been done to improve this article. All of the "good writing" here were taken from the main article when Ryulong restored the article from a redirect in his opposition to having romajis placed in footnotes. This AFD needs eyes outside of A/M project which contains loads of terrible and non-notable character lists. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The purpose of having a subarticle is to detail info of the characters that are otherwise wasting too much space on the main article. There is a total of three anime adaptions and two manga series. There is hardly enough space to merge all relevant info of the characters into the main article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any convincing arguments here, this character list is an extension of the plot that otherwise couldn't fit on the main page. There are characters for example that are anime/manga only. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing my opinion to Delete, Dragon did a great job at condensing the characters into the main article here. Lets face it... the article IS all WP:OR meaning that even if it is recreated the info would still be re-added in another shape or form. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I request that the nominee be barred from starting a 3rd AFD of this subarticle if the result is KEEP. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith here, I may disagree with the deletion but do not think it is in malice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I implore you to check the archive of the previous AFD one more time. Weren't you a participant on the 1st AFD as well? Clearly, I don't think the nominee understands that the concensus for this AFD is not going to be different than the first one. In short, he is wasting everyone's time when there are much more articles out there that have way more grounds for deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The way you're counting the media adaptation sequels as separate medias to justify the existence of this list is incorrect. Asides from that, only one "anime only" character is notable enough to be kept in the character list. You haven't dealt with enough non-notable fictional character lists to see how the merge is beneficial; like how I was able to take only the main characters from List of The Irregular at Magic High School characters (111 kb of text), and placed it within The Irregular at Magic High School. Are you an expert on the series, do you know the plot well enough to know what characters should be kept or not? Have you seen the history when Ryulong just overturned the consensus of February 2014? I am free to nominate this article for AFD since much time has passed; this is not disruptive and I am doing this to improve the overall quality of the Rozen Maiden articles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand that regardless of what justification you might have had, this nomination will turn out to be exactly like it was from 3 years ago. Good luck with trying to waste space. Nobody's gonna buy that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if you are so dedicated in "improving" the content, you might as well just copy whatever edits you made on the main page into the subarticle. After all, that is what subarticles are for. Instead, you just chose to waste even more time in making an AFD that is 99% guaranteed to fail, based on the last nomination. If you failed to delete it last time, you will surely fail this time, too. It's common sense. Only push for a 2nd AFD if you feel that the arguments presented in the previous AFD were weak and irrelevant, like these nominations, for instance. Bear in mind, most of us do not agree with your idea of "improvement", so I suggest that you withdraw this AFD to save yourself from embarrassment. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeesh, tone down the aggression Sk8erPrince, we're all here to work together on an encyclopedia, not yell at each other. Consensus can change and three years is plenty of time for a re-nomination. On the other hand, you should take your own advice with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takaya Hashi (2nd nomination), where you nominated an article two days after the last one failed. Opencooper (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It did not fail. No consensus is an unacceptable outcome, especially if there's barely any participation to begin with. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DragonZero is correct when they say that eyes outside WP:A&M are needed. Offshoot articles might be a precedent, but like here they quickly devolve into dumping grounds for original research. One thing that used to happen in the past was that we had "X in popular culture" articles because the authors of the main articles would rather not deal with such content. However, that is what is needed and here DragonZero has merged any usable information on the main characters into the parent article. While main characters of series are often notable, side characters usually lack any coverage to write about them without devoting to original research or synthesis. This is the case here. Lastly we should remember why articles are split off in the first place: because of size; the content of this article would have been deleted in the main article because it is OR, or else the article would have never gotten to GA. Opencooper (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I think it's something our project (A&M) should debate further and thoroughly (some time ago I had a brief debate with TheFarix for the sake of record [1], [2]). Most of these lists are just "let's get rid of content we don't want in the main page". Our policy on stand-alone lists says "being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." I think most lists are written in a completely WP:IN-U perspective and don't comply with WP:WAF#Accuracy and appropriate weight as it can be said they are "disproportionately long plot summaries" about characters. To justify a stand-alone list I think there should be significant content to create a "conception" and a "reception" section so it will be balanced between in-universe and out-universe content (ex. here and here). And to justify the inclusion of a character in the list it should be considered the screen time the character has within the series or if the part it plays within the series is important. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator put some character information into the main article early last year. [3] Then on the day he reverted someone's attempt to remove it three times, he decides to nominate this article for deletion, since the argument made in the edit summaries by the other guy was that all the information should just be linked to here. That is what is normally done. Dream Focus 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Characters were there since Rozen Maiden existed in my Sandbox (2013). [4] Nothing was taken from the list because it was all OR. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This list article was created on March 2007 [5] Characters were added to the main article in one of the first edits there on May 2005. [6] As the article got larger, people just shifted the character list to a separate article is as common. A character section seems to have been added and removed from the main article at various times by different people over the years. Dream Focus 06:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So let's settle this dispute once and for all and decide whether or not it's ultimately the best to keep this article and fix it, or merge it with the main article. Reverting edits like this is extremely tiresome, and honestly, I just want to get it over with already. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article does not establish notability, so it has no reason to exist at this time. TTN (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable WP:SS breakout of characters from a notable fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gabriel Yuji's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fancruft, no third-party sources, in-universe content only (WP:NOTPLOT).  Sandstein  22:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just want to remind editors that every "list of characters in x series" is a different case. These articles should be handled on a singular basis. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy keep, and the fact that "no third-party sources" is being used as a legitimate deletion rationale here leads me to suspect that somehow everyone was too lazy to WP:BEFORE when !voting. Found in just a 5-minute Google search: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. There's definitely more out there, including Japanese sources, and the vast majority of anime reviews also include analysis on the characters. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing sources: Most of those links are merchandise such as dolls. This is a classic for anime/manga characters. Even though the characters of Tales of Graces also have merchandise, it's not notable enough to establish their creation. Those two character polls you listed were from ANN readers, and the second is from the streets of Akihabara. These polls were not from significant sources, and is something I've left our of various articles such as No Game No Life (It's been a while but I believe there were also street polls with the characters). Instead, it's better to focus on big polls in Japan, such as those hosted by TV networks or those yearly polls by Animage??? (What is it called again?) and Kono Light Novel ga Sugoi!. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merchandise helps establish notability as it demonstrates that the character has achieved real-world popularity and recognition, as opposed to just in-universe mentions. While the polls may not be from a "significant" source, it was reported upon by Anime News Network, a WP:RS. All RS coverage counts towards notability (some a bit more than others), you can't just pick-and-choose what is usable and what isn't. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to userfy the article to work on it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in fixing up the article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly Weak Keep I almost always vote to keep lists of characters from notable fiction franchises as I think the benefits are clear both for readers and the encyclopedia. This one is a little less clear as the main characters are adequately summarised on the main article. Still, I think deleting this would not benefit the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to the main article's Characters section. Firstly, I've been through numerous character list AfDs like this. I first noticed how the main article already has a very large section for the characters: Rozen Maiden#Characters. That alone would probably be reason enough to delete. Then add to that the classic character list crux: the list has almost no sourcing. That too is usually enough for deletion. Thirdly, like mentioned, the depictions written are heavily plot and best fit for a fan wikia like always. Adding to the insult is the fact that there actually exists a comprehensive fan wikia with very detailed character bios. I've never seen a character list begging to be deleted more than this one. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean from an archivist's point of view, the information is all there at the fan wikia. If someone wants to find out about the characters or just googles them randomly, they'll find the comphrehensive fan wikia articles. In fact, our descriptions are substandard in comparison. We are doing a disservice to the people with our descriptions and list. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC
    • Changed vote to redirect, as there of course was the section listing the characters at the main article that the term should redirect to. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to main article characters section. All the character lists publicized by the anime focus on the 9 or so main characters already mentioned, not the 20-30 possible ones like some series publicize. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Looking at the entries for individual characters, most of the ones not already covered on the parent article seem to be struggling to show their importance. Generally I'm in favour of separate character lists but in this case there doesn't seem to be any compelling content reasons for a separate article based on the text of the article. There is always the scope for improvement of course, but let's be honest character lists have never been a priority and by and large never attract any serious attention from experienced editors. I'm not against recreation if an editor can prove it's merits, but experience suggests that it won't happen.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:05, 13 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 Kanga Cricket League. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanga League 2009[edit]

Kanga League 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS, the competition isn't first-class cricket and most of the article is just stats/tables Joseph2302 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:51, 7 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 Kanga Cricket League. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2013-14 Kanga Elite League[edit]

2013-14 Kanga Elite League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS, as there is no prose about it and the league does not play first-class cricket Joseph2302 19:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't even have an article for the league itself, so individual seasons certainly aren't notable. If there were a league article, this should be redirected there per WP:NSEASONS but there isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Redirect To Kanga Cricket League per WP:NSEASONS which says that is preferable to deletion. I didn't realize the league had an article, but it's still not significant enough for individual seasons to be notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. No attempt at a prose summary to make it keepable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of India One Day International matches[edit]

List of India One Day International matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with the other similar lists, if you want to find a result from any ODI India have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Joseph2302 19:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - not a valid reason for retention. Ajf773 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Espncricinfo isn't Wikipedia. And Wikipedia isn't Espncricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sdm2211 You're only allowed to vote once, and please stop repeating the same thing. The India test page is also up for deletion. Also, do not remove valid votes from other people. Joseph2302 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and by all means provide an external link as part of a section on ODIs on the Indian team page Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:10, 9 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 05:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fire & Flesh[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a band that doesn't meet WP:BAND. Was removed from WP:PROD BLP due to WT:BLPPROD. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as absolutely nothing here for substance and this is in fact speedy delete G11 material considering how advert-formatted it is, overall nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was unable to find any potential references. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, no sources, written like a promotional piece. I'm from the SFBA and bands like this are a dime a dozen. sixtynine • speak up • 01:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 9 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 VocaLink#Zapp. MBisanz talk 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zapp (mobile payments)[edit]

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

Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company Light2021 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin451 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Martin451 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was able to find a lot of sources for the company, including at least four in-depth sources that are very reliable [7], [8], [9], [10]. I could possibly be convinced to !vote merge into VocaLink but I don't see anything in the nomination other than a recommendation to delete based on promotion at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect to VocaLink#Zapp where the subject is already being discussed in sufficient detail suitable for this otherwise unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 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 18:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this service to the existing subsection on the provider page at VocaLink#Zapp. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 05:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Knowles[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article tagged for more than 8 years regarding notabilty and sources. Apparently dead too, but nothing to source that either. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He sounds fairly notable from this extensive obituary in the Fulton County Daily Report and this one issued by the Georgia State University College of Law (which helps with WP:V, if not WP:N). Even though the article as written focuses mostly on the Dow Corning case, it seems like his civil rights work and his prisoner advocacy are at least equally important, if not more so. There is extensive coverage of his college time at Alabama, including his opposition to George Wallace as student body president, in this book, this piece and this book discuss his civil rights work, and there are articles describing his work on behalf of prisoners, including his time as director of the National Prison Project, here and here and here and here and here and here and here (in the "Judge Orders Reforms at New Mexico Pen" article on p. 3). And that's just with a fairly cursory search of five or ten minutes. The sourcing in the current article is inadequate, but this does seem to me like a legitimately notable subject whose article needs improvement, not deletion. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the logic of the other voter above. The article needs work, yes, but it definitely seems to me this person is notable. --Krelnik (talk) 18:22, 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 18:32, 7 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Fifth Indian Expedition to Antarctica[edit]

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

This article is virtually just a list and seems poorly titled after seeing what the content on the page is. I may be jumping ahead with this but I feel like this type of article may not fit with Wikipedia's notability policy. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:32, 7 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 Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Gregory Wilmot. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character)[edit]

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

Two episode character without any notability. Fram (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Gregory Wilmot doesn't exist any more. There were errors, sorry --ColeB34 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to merge? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please see the image in Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Images aren't allowed in List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Please save the article Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character) and the image of Gregory Wilmot in Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 05:34, 14 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 Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Jack Dyson. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. Jack Dyson RFC (Upstairs, Downstairs character)[edit]

Lt. Jack Dyson RFC (Upstairs, Downstairs character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Character which only appears in one episode. Lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Jack Dyson doesn't exist any more. There were errors, sorry --ColeB34 (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to merge? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please see the image in Jack Dyson (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Images aren't allowed in List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters. Please save the article Jack Dyson (Upstairs, Downstairs character) and the image of Jack Dyson in Jack Dyson (Upstairs, Downstairs character). Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you see three episodes you will understand --ColeB34 (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are making less sense with every reply. So, let's say I watch the first three episodes of UpDown, I will then understand why Dyson is an important character who is notable enough to have an article here? Really? Fram (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
please see also Jack Dyson in "Upstairs, Downstairs Season Four". Thank you --ColeB34 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Transformers. Keeping the history in case any material can be copied over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maximal (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. The sources in the article appear to be pure fluff that do not provide significant coverage on the topic. TTN (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Merge any content if needed. Avoid redlink bait to recreate the article again, preserves history if ever needed. Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question@Montanabw: what is your suggested redirect target? I'm in agreement with you in principle. I'm just not as familiar with the Transformers universe to know if there is an article other than the main article that would be a good target?
  • Delete and then Redirect as these have been established, as it is, as not convincing for their own articles because we're simply not a series-focused encyclopedia, and there wouldn't be anything to suggest an otherwise better article. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Redirect to Transformers. My take on these types of articles about toys and cartoon-type characters is that deletion just leaves a redlink that is bait for the article to be recreated (and AfD'd) again, and again... it is actually wise to keep the bluelink and do a redirect. There also appears to be a fair bit of content here, and some of it can probably be added to the main article. Montanabw(talk) 05:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Transformers per Montanabw. I agree with the reasoning. Redlinks on relatively popular subjects such as this invite recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bareos[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Almost no independent coverage; I found one source. Largoplazo (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability and sources:[edit]

  • Bareos was already mentioned in at least 5 articles on en.wikipedia, before the Bareos article itself was started, now linked to the article.[1]
  • Bareos article on French Wikipedia exists since April 2016[2]
  • External media coverage include (listed on the links / reference list of the article):
    • Admin Magazine[3]
    • Admin Magazine[4] (German)
    • Bareos coverage at Linux Magazine (German edition), several print and online articles since 2013[5]
    • Bareos 16.2 review at iX (magazine), issue 11/2016, p. 25[6]
    • Bareos coverage at de:Pro-Linux, since 2013 various articles, last about 16.2 release[7]
    • Bareos review at Russian habrahabr technology site[8]
    • Bareos coverage at Russian Linux.org.ru with several articles 2014-2016[9]
    • Ubuntu Server 16.04 LTS - Das umfassende Handbuch, Rheinwerk Verlag, ISBN 978-3-8362-4260-8, Pages 831-910: Backup heterogener Umgebungen mit »Bareos«, [10] (German)
    • Linux-Server, Galileo Computing (by Charly Kühast and de:Peer Heinlein), ISBN 978-3-8362-3020-9, Pages 262-278: Backup und Recovery mit Bacula/Bareos. (German)
  • Other references
  • Other references
    • In December 2015 the inter-ministerial working group on free software of the French government (Socle Interministériel de logiciel libre) included Bareos on their recommendation list among 130 other open source programs.[11]
    • Numerous (video-)blog posts about Bareos, here just some examples[12][13][14][15]
    • Google search for 'bareos' lists > 60k results
    • Independent open source platform Open Hub affirms "High Activity" of the project.[16]
  • International conferences (excerpt) with presentations about Bareos:

Gul.maikat (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Notability for inclusion in Wikipedia can be based only on reliable sources, not number of Google hits. Admin Magazine, Linux Magazin and OpenNet news may be reliable sources - I will review these later and try to find more, if there are any... Pavlor (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source mini-review:
      • Linux Magazin - seems to be reliable source, several short news about article subject = useable source
      • iX/heise.de - behind pay-wall, if most of the article is about Bareos = good source; if passing mention only = weak source
      • pro-linux.de - few news about article subject, seems to be one-man news page = somewhat weak source
      • Admin magazine - written of authors of Bareos = weak source
      • habrahabr.ru - seems to be blog = weak source
    • Conclusion: No good reliable sources - or only one (iX, hard to say, how broad coverage is there) and several short news (Linux Magazin). There is some coverage in reliable sources, but still too few, I fear. Pavlor (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The number Google gives at the top is meaningless. If you page through the search results, you find out how many distinct sources Google will actually show you. In this case, at this moment, it's 169. As for the presentations, notability doesn't come from people presenting their projects at conferences, but from evidence in independent reliable sources (not, generally, blog posts) that others have taken note of them, possibly as a result of those presentations. Largoplazo (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added another magazine and online-site(s). The wide range of international conferences with Bareos presentations (not only by Bareos project members) but also by recognized speakers from companies like Red Hat, Universities[22] or Max Planck Society[23], shows that the experts at the conferences' program committees see Bareos at least at 'notable'. Gul.maikat (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the admin-magazine piece is a detailed one, but look at the authors: two guys from Bareos, not an WP:INDY source. The fr wiki points to [11] which (although a passing mention) is a list of free software that the French administration is encouraged to use (by opposition to proprietary software); but Bareos' status in there is "O, in observation" which probably means the "administration modernization guys" are considering to use it in the future, not even recommending it right now. And the Linux-Magazin hits seem to all be very passing mentions. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see. Shame on me, I missed authors of the Admin Magazine article. Pavlor (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem Pavlor, that's the kind of thing AfD is supposed to dig up. Also, may I respectfully suggest you take a look at WP:REDACT, which you do not seem to be aware of? TigraanClick here to contact me 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tigraan: Thanks, I know WP:REDACT, I only forget to use it... I think I will leave it as it is now. With my weak skills, I could add even more mess. I will be more careful next time. Pavlor (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, too, didn't think to check the authors on that article, which is the one I did cite in my deletion proposal. Thanks for catching it. Largoplazo (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added 3 more references, all German. An Admin Magazin article by an author not from Bareos, and two books, both with chapter about Bareos (80 pages and 16 pages) joerg.steffens
  • Keep Looking at the references above, I see among others:
    • iX as IT professionals journal has a small but dedicated article about Bareos version 16.2.
    • 2 articles in Admin-Magazine (1 from project members but accepted by the editors, which shows that editors find the subject 'notable', plus another dedicated and multi-pages article by an independent author)
    • small, but dedicated and continuous (2013-2016) news-articles in Linux Magazine (online)
    • broad coverage in 2 printed books (both referenced above, written by recognized open source authors / journalists)
    • continuous news-items and articles in the two leading Russian open source portals OpenNet (website) and Linux.org.ru.
    • Program committees of several international recognized open source conferences accepted Bareos presentations from project members and others (IT Professionals, Universities, Max-Planck-Institutes, Red Hat)

Gul.maikat (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Bareos&namespace=0
  2. ^ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bareos
  3. ^ http://www.admin-magazine.com/Articles/Free-Enterprise-Backup-with-Bareos
  4. ^ http://www.admin-magazin.de/Das-Heft/2015/06/Workshop-Aufbau-und-Inbetriebnahme-von-Bareos
  5. ^ http://www.linux-magazin.de/content/search?SearchText=bareos&x=0&y=0
  6. ^ https://www.heise.de/ix/suche/?q=bareos&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&rm=search
  7. ^ http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/24126/bareos-162-freigegeben.html
  8. ^ https://habrahabr.ru/company/simnetworks/blog/313124/
  9. ^ https://www.linux.org.ru/tag/bareos
  10. ^ https://www.rheinwerk-verlag.de/ubuntu-server-1604-lts_4197/
  11. ^ http://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/SILL-2016-socle-interministeriel-logiciels-libres.pdf
  12. ^ http://linuxpitstop.com/install-bareos-backup-solution-on-centos-7
  13. ^ https://blog.giuseppeurso.net/installing-bareos-bacula-fork-web-front-end-debian-wheezy/
  14. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oox9nZi-gDU
  15. ^ https://nobudgetadmin.blogspot.de/2016/05/how-to-install-bareos-web-ui.html
  16. ^ https://www.openhub.net/p/bareos
  17. ^ http://osbconf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Scale-Out-backups-with-Bareos-and-Gluster-by-Niels-de-Vos.pdf
  18. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8zgkDMuP2o
  19. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrDCMdPonSM
  20. ^ http://programm.lpice.eu/lpi-ce-partnertagung-2013/events/204.de.html
  21. ^ https://devconfcz2016.sched.org/event/5m0S/bareos-backup-python-plugins
  22. ^ http://osbconf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-Backup-Report-of-the-Friedrich-Schiller-University-Jena-Thomas-Otto.pdf
  23. ^ http://osbconf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Bareos-in-scientific-environments-by-Dr.-Stefan-Vollmar_.pdf
  • Delete as still all only advertising this software, and none of it amounting to actual notable substance hence nothing to suggest acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 13 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 J._B._Priestley#Social_and_political_works. Nothing sourced to keep. Useful as redirect target. czar 05:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margin Released[edit]

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

This is a book review of what appears to be a non-notable book of reminiscences. No claim of notability, no notable content. KDS4444 (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the reminiscences of a notable person carry notability by association. Valetude (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that notability is generally WP:NOTINHERITED. KDS4444 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a sefl-cited essay with no indications of notability or significance. Optionally redirect to the author's page J. B. Priestley. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:00, 12 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) –Davey2010Talk 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Kalman[edit]

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

Does not seem to fulfill WP:GNG when you look at his "notable design" it seems anything but notable. Domdeparis (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the problem may be the first name. When I searched for him as Myron, I did find this long obit in the Globe and Mail. (I see the G&M lead called him "Mac" Kalman, but didn't find much more.) The Globe and Mail is Canada's leading national daily, and it's an impressively long article. Taken with the fact that he was given a centennial retrospective by McGill University prior to his death -- a feat more of longevity one might argue -- and his prolific work as listed in the Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950 ref, I'm inclined to say keep, if barely. He did a lot of mid-century residential and commercial buildings, schools, synagogues, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 8 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. Eventual merge could be discussed in the article's talk page, obviously. Cavarrone 12:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special Tactical Squad[edit]

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

No indication of notability and completely unreferenced. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is a valid one though, this unit does exist and does get news coverage, and presumably even more coverage in Chinese. I've pinged the originator asking them if they want it moved to Draft so they can take their time adding sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 8 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. Hut 8.5 17:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dasein Executive Search[edit]

Dasein Executive Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A recruitment agency taking inspiration from Heidegger is unusual but I am not seeing evidence of notability. Reviewing the references provided: the O Tempo item is a routine announcement (see later comment on IMD), the Exame item is a brief Q&A with one of the company's principals, the Infomoney and both Hoje em dia items involve brief quotation from company officials in articles also quoting others in their trade, the Época item is a brief routine announcement and the IMD reference is a deadlink press release (IMD's website now lists another firm and not Dasein for Brazil: [15]). These aside, I can also see that a piece of their survey research was namechecked in The Economist  – via HighBeam (subscription required) in 2011. These are all examples of typical business-media coverage for a firm going about its business, but are not the in-depth coverage of the firm itself needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Papua New Guinea One Day International matches[edit]

List of Papua New Guinea One Day International matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI PNG have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTSTATS again in a cricket article. Jack | talk page 19:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOSTATS. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no attempt at prose and the list can be better served by being an external link on the team page to a specialist directory website which is going be far more reliable and up to date. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australia One Day International matches[edit]

List of Australia One Day International matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much to say, I think the nomination hits the nail on the head. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Sdm2211 Thanks for pointing that out. That page should not exist either under the same guidelines. I will nominate for deletion. Domdeparis (talk) 11:03, 8 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) Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nepora[edit]

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

No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:55, 7 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) Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isoo[edit]

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

No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reads like a slightly poorly written encyclopedia article, not a poorly written tourist webpage. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've cited a source confirming a pass of WP:GEOLAND. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Legally recognised populated village should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be dealt by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page. Anup [Talk] 10:42, 8 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 Train Simulator (Dovetail Games). Don't usually close on one !vote however participation is low and far as I can tell all prev years so far redirect back to the above target so am closng as redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Train Simulator 2017[edit]

Train Simulator 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable game with no sources or any indication of notability. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States One Day International matches[edit]

List of United States One Day International matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is just a list and fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Domdeparis (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI USA have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Also, they've played 2 ODIs, and a list of 2 is not worthy of being on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 19:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTSTATS again in a cricket article. Jack | talk page 19:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOSTATS. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and by all means provide a link to an external reference site which keeps these things in a much better state than we will ever do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 06:51, 10 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) Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sifan[edit]

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

No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Legally recognised populated village should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be fixed by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page. Anup [Talk] 11:11, 8 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) Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shalwan Pora[edit]

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

No references or sources of any kind. Reads like a poorly written tourist webpage. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have cited a source confirming that this passes WP:GEOLAND. These deletion nominations with a total lack of WP:BEFORE, and with the untrue statement that the articles are written like tourist webpages, are very tiresome and border on the disruptive. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @86.17.222.157: well you are certainly welcome to your opinion but as an annonymos IP that refuses to make an account your accusations don't matter much to me. These were 4 articles that were complete duplicates of one another. The only things changed were the names of the towns and the numbers of people. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I have the same concerns about the lack of BEFORE work, or understanding of all that WP:GEOLAND requires for named populated places, and I am not "an annonymos" (sic) account. Second, the notion that IP accounts somehow have less rights here is bollocks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: didn't say they have less rights. Also love how you made sure to point out my spelling typo to give yourself a leg up. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you lied when you said that this article was written like a tourist webpage you also just lied when you said that you didn't say that we unregistered editors have less rights. What else does "as an anonymous IP ... your accusations don't matter much to me" mean other than you consider me to have less rights? You have been advised on your talk page by an admin, Ritchie333, to avoid passing judgement on other people's work until you you have familiarised yourself with the basics of how things work on Wikipedia, but have obviously chosen to ignore that advice. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Legally recognised populated villages should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be fixed by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page. Anup [Talk] 11:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The article is currently linked from the main page, so please re-nominate when this is no longer the case. If you believe the problem with the article is urgent, please make a post at WP:ERRORS.(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Water bottle flipping[edit]

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

There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about this article. Water bottle flipping is a trivia at best if not only a fad. I cannot see how this article participates in human knowledge in the encyclopedic sense, I don't even understand how this reached DYK and the main page. This is making Wikipedia look like any random internet website on social trivia. If we let this kind of article stay on Wikipedia, we are effectively opening the floodgate to any and all fad with no discernible end to what should be included. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nov. 7 DYK – This inanity was extremely annoying as a Main Page DYK. Sca (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sca I guess you support the deletion then? Iry-Hor (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete. Sca (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More than 50 different unique authors of the article found it notable enough to edit. That should speak volumes, even if I do find the appearance in DYK a bit odd. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We have articles for things like the Ice Bucket Challenge, that was just a one time viral "fad", and while that did raise money for charity, it is the same concept. MBlairMartin (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 7 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 Jat people. MBisanz talk 16:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dahiya (India)[edit]

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jat people. Save what little editing history there is. Someone can always expand it later. Montanabw(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, North America1000 16:35, 7 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 as WP:G4. Just Chilling (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Asher[edit]

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

Recently deleted via AfD. Non-notable artist/composer/writer etc etc with only one notable source in article, being "Rolling Stone" magazine. Google search comes up with nothing, other than website of said artist. Nordic Nightfury 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for exactly the same reasons as before – I said "Fails WP:COMPOSER as it all appears to be inherited notability: the song being notable and charting doesn't make him automatically notable. And even most of the songs listed in the article fail WP:NSONG notability themselves, despite their blue links (often to an unrelated article): "Mood Ring" is just an extra track on the Japan-only version of the Britney Spears album, "I" is one of five tracks on an EP, the Aaron Carter song didn't chart, etc." I don't see anything to make me change my opinion, there is no major coverage of Mr Asher himself apart from the occasional passing mention (the Rolling Stone article and second Billboard reference make no mention of Mr Asher at all). The author is an SPA who just works on getting Jon Asher-related articles onto Wikipedia and is quite possibly Mr Asher himself. Purely WP:PROMO. Richard3120 (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is another AfD for this really needed? I did not see the previously deleted version, but from the comment given by Richard3120 it looks as if this is just a recreation of a previously deleted article which probably could have just been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for reasons of recreation; I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per G4 and also does not meet GNG. Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 11 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 05:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshore Drive (Ottawa)[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—fails to meet the burden of WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable road. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 21:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bayshore, Ottawa as a search term mentioned in the article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although Baywater Drive is mentioned in the article it's only mentioned once and it's not very informative, Usually I would go with Redirect but in this case it's just confusing & IMHO it won't serve any purpose so best off deleted. –Davey2010Talk 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 13 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 05:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stittsville Main Street (Ottawa)[edit]

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

There is no notability claimed and no sources. Domdeparis (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson Side Road[edit]

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

Not notable in anyway whatsoever! Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—fails to meet the burden of WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable road. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 21:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with nom. I verified it exists on the map, but why is it notable? MB 02:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 14 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. No consensus on a redirect, but definitively in favour of removing the page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Yan (executive)[edit]

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

Non-notable, WP:MILL executive. Also WP:NOTCV. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. I don't think a redirect is necessary at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Peekskill[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICT and specifically WP:GNG sigcov and secondary sources guidelines. Only link attributed to WP:NWSRC is hand-keyed data related to article in Variety magazine, and googling article title, magazine and date does not produce a WP:RS to verify quote.

Topic significantly detailed in List of The Facts of Life episodes article. AldezD (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar WP:FICT/WP:GNG issues:

AldezD (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America1000 15:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. These may have been important episodes in the show's story line, but there's no coverage that I can see in reliable sources. Of course, it's a lot harder to find any kind of mention 30+ years later, but there's usually some kind of mention in Google Books or the Google News Archive. I did find this retrospective on the series at Entertainment Weekly, which briefly mentions a few episodes. There's also this brief critique of how the pilot tackled a tomboy character. These sources are certainly promising, but there isn't really enough to go on for an entire article. I think these sources can be used in the main article and the list of episodes to expand them without problem. If someone locates offline sources, I don't see any reason why we can't recreate these articles. Right now, though, I think they're best left to Wikia and TV.com, which aren't saddled with the requirement to find significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimiter Marinov[edit]

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

Lack of general notability, complete lack of sources, semi-translated, concerns for self-advertising - not to mention it is also Dimitar, not Dimiter. Either way, this is a reality TV participant and not a politician, and lacks any notability for a separate article. For comparison - among the other candidates running in this election are a clairvoyant and a former criminal. Skycycle (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Skycycle (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article is poorly written article about a person who has no notable status as a politician. Domdeparis (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced article on a person who has been regularly defeated in his runs for political office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 9 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) Mhhossein talk 10:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Skillicorn[edit]

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

I know the election will only be a couple weeks away, and I know that there is probably a 99% change of Skillicorn winning the election. However, he has not yet been elected, and he has done nothing, as of the moment, that is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Until he wins, the article should be deleted. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: As others have already pointed out, Skillicorn has won his election. Now he is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time I first saw this article a couple of weeks ago while nominating several of the creator's other new articles about unelected Illinois legislative candidates for deletion, this article contained the claim that Skillicorn is a former member of the legislature who left office but is now running to return for a second kick at the can. I'm not an expert on Illinois politics and had no substantive reason to doubt that the statement was true (I'm Canadian, so there's just one state legislator in the entire United States that I could name off the top of my head without consulting a list to do the "oh, wait, yeah, I think I have heard of that one before too" thing first), so on the basis of that claim I left it alone with some maintenance tags — but now that 1990sguy has disputed the claim, I googled Skillicorn and indeed can't find any confirmation that he ever served a prior term in the legislature, because even the legislature's own list of its own members in the 2005-07 term doesn't include him. As always, however, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates: if a person does not already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then they do not qualify for a Wikipedia article until they win the seat and thereby become a holder of a notable office. And even if he does win the seat and become notable on that basis, the article will still have to be significantly rewritten from the quasi-campaign brochure format it's following right now. So no prejudice against recreation on or after November 8 if he wins, but nothing here gets him an article today. (Prior discussion, for the record, is about a different person of the same name, so has no bearing on this at all.) Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Didn't notice that. Is there a way we can change the article to make clear that the two Allen Skillicorns' are different people? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this context it's not necessary. The first one got deleted, so as long as the fact that they're two different people is clarified in this discussion so that people know that "Speedy G4" won't work as a deletion argument, we don't need to do anything special to the article. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Due to low participation, this discussion was still open as of election day, and Skillicorn did indeed win his seat. Accordingly, this does now need to be kept, and merely flagged for content and referencing repair. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Bearcat says, he did win the seat. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:24, 11 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 Deleted after I speedy tagged it (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EShakti[edit]

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

May not be notable; no reliable secondary sources. Reads like an advertisement and is not possible to fix. Okamialvis (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam; an overly detailed product brochure in the guise of a Wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:35, 9 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 02:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stock Canadians[edit]

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

This is an article about a phrase used once by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The phrase has not been used by ethnologists. Ground Zero | t 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Non notable IMO.   Aloha27  talk  15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a phrase that was used once and is not used to describe an ethnic group in published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge a redacted version to Canadian federal election, 2015 or elsewhere. Although presented as an article about ethnicity, this is clearly not an ethnicity article. If a suitable target is found, use of the term and its relevance should be merged into that target (perhaps Canadian federal election, 2015), but the original research and synthesis present in this article should be excised. Mindmatrix 17:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. It's a specific example of a generic expression, defined here at the Oxford online dictionary:
old-stock: adjective, Designating a person or people whose ancestors have lived in a certain country or area for several generations.
Origin - Late 19th century ; earliest use found in The New York Times.
We don't have articles about Red-headed Canadians, or Guitar-playing Canadians, why Old stock? The only reason this article exists is because it garnered a few days of media notice when used by the then Prime Minister; see (WP:NOTNEWS) and (WP:PERSISTENCE). I have added a single line for (September 17 under "Conservatives") to the appropriate section of the appropriate article: Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies, which I propose is proportional to its significance. If the decision here is keep I will go back and link it. nerdgoonrant (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP cant believe no one here is actually looking for sources. I see age makes a differences here...very common term when I was young (1960-70s)......very old term ....not a new Stephen Harper term at all. Its used by our historians/ Not sure how deletion over correction will help our readers.Very bad idea to redirect this to 2015 elections. Best to get real sources to educated people here and our readers. --Moxy (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Moxy: I, for one, wasn't trying to suggest that Harper had coined the term. I was suggesting that no one would have thought of creating the article if it weren't for the brief furor that erupted after his use of it during the leaders debate in 2015. And while it wasn't in common usage in Manitoba in the 70's and 80's when I grew up (here - preceded by Extra - it referred to a brand of beer, if anything), I don't doubt that it was in use elsewhere. I would observe, however, that most of those who use it in the references you cite above (many of which are cited in the Old Stock Canadians article) still feel the need to put it in quotes, indicating that it isn't all that common.
My main reason for supporting deletion is that I don't see what insightful or nuanced analysis an encyclopedia article could provide. Or why Old Stock Americans and Old Stock Canadians would merit separate articles. With the increase in immigration throughout Europe, there could conceivably be an Old Stock article for any country with a significant number of New Stock citizens. It's a straightforward concept easily understood in any nationalist context from a generalized dictionary definition, and (WP:WINAD). I agree with you that redirecting to the 2015 elections is a bad idea, because it does then give the impression that Harper had something to do with coining the phrase, but I respectfully disagree that it deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia. nerdgoonrant (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This pretty much sums up my feelings, too. Note that we do have a Old Stock Americans article, created by the same editor, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for a better redirect target, I was looking at Immigration_to_Canada#First_wave and Immigration_to_Canada#Second_wave? The difficulty is that an "old wool" Quebecois has little or nothing in common with an "old stock" English Canadian, with immigrations often separated by century or more, and a vast cultural divide. Again, Quebecois/French Canadians are descended from a group that would have basically stopped arriving by the Conquest of 1760, whereas we're told old stock English parentage continues until the dawn of the 20th century. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a unified ethnic group, but simply refers to anybody of British Isles or French descent whose ancestors arrived in Canada before a certain specific arbitrary cutoff — while strangely ignoring the aboriginal peoples who were already here before the Europeans started arriving. Basically, it's a dog-whistle for "white Canadians of European descent", not a unified ethnocultural group with anything in common beyond census statistics. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge into 2015 election article. You could mention it in the Racism in Canada article. But, by itself, I don't see the merit of the stand-alone article. Alaney2k (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to strong sources on page and above. Although the term appears to have gone out of fashion (Bernie Sanders got caught in a similar way, using a term that was mainstream when he was young), the category: people whose ancestors have been in Canada for generations, is a valid one. i would be willing ot consider a redirect if someone can source a contemporary term for this concept (something parallel to "first nations") but the deletion arguments appear to me to be a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT indicating repugnance for the term, but leaving us with a a well-sourced term for a significant category of Canadians. We can't just delete them. Or this reliably-sourced but archaic term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And which of those sources define "old stock Canadians" as an ethnic group? If you wish to rewrite the article so that it makes sense then go right ahead, but right now it defines the term, in one sentence, in a way that appears not to be supported by the sources used, and then the rest of the article is a discussion of the recent political controversy over the term. If this is about hte controversy then either the article should be redirected somewhere, or the title should be change to reflect the actual topic. If this is to be an article about the concept of "old stock Canadians" then it should be completely rewritten. Amusingly, approximately one-quarter of the article's content is actually an argument against the definition of the term as used in the lede. Meters (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I agree that the material shown in this thread seems to justify some type of article. I'll try to help out. Meters (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. The article and can certainly use all the help we can get.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made a start; only a start. Sources certainly exist, "old stock" as a term for Canadians of long-standing Canadian descent has been discussed in Academic sources for decades, although perhaps not until after the middle of the 20th century. I have no doubt that this is a valid topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEYMANN I have revised lede and written/sourced a section on the definition and use of this term, that I beleive to be objectively worded and to satisfy NOTABILITY. I have not touched the existing section on the 2015 political brouhaha. I leave others to deal with that. @Meters:@Moxy:E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice job. I suggest every editor who !voted to delete or redirect should take another look at the new version. Meters (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irwin Smigel[edit]

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

Delete: irreformable business/personal promotional article. Quis separabit? 02:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 99% of dentists are not notable. Smigel is one of the exceptions. The New York Times published a 20 paragraph article about him signed by a staff writer when he died this month. Back in 1981, New York magazine published a "Irwin+Smigel"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvwNnYw4HQAhULs1QKHWxpAyIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Irwin%20Smigel%22&f=false several page article about Smigel and his innovations. A Google Books search shows that he is discussed in many books. So, he is notable. How can the article be personally promotional? He is dead. Yes, the article has problems, such as uncited quotations, excessive red links, and overenthusiastic language. As for being "irreformable", I disagree. We have editors here on Wikipedia for a reason, and there is no reason why this article cannot be improved dramatically through a logical series of edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per TNT. There may be a Wikipedia article in here somewhere but this is not it; this cannot remain in WP. If somebody actually does the work to find the WP article that might be here I will change my !vote but this is an embarassment to WP and cannot remain. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article isn't great at the moment, but the sources above provided by Cullen328 (the NYT obit in particular) prove he passes WP:GNG easily. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:50, 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 14:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs to be updated, and the references need to be fixed, but it meets WP:GNG; I don't see any compelling reason(s) to delete it.
N. GASIETAtalk 15:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and improve. Article is poorly sourced, Smiggel is notable as sources borught to AFD by editors above establishes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before this is closed out, I just want to reiterate that I believe this is pure business promotionalism. Quis separabit? 12:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and improve after closing. This article passes WP:GNG. However needs to be improved. But that in itself is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Ramsay[edit]

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

WP:1EVENT. Everything seems to stem from Matilda and the Ramsay Bunch, Matilda and the Ramsay Bunch being the article creator. I would suggest that this be redirected, though I'm running it by here just in case I've missed something. Launchballer 23:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only replace once this person is really notable.BSc600 (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any notability she has is inherited from her father, and notability is not inherited. 1 series on a childrens tv channel that is basically 3rd or 4th choice for this genre in the UK is WP:ONEEVENT. No third party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:01, 7 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. It seems like the sources provided by E.M.Gregory and Unscintillating have not been contested beyond perfunctory "not notable" arguments. There does not seem to be enough support for a WP:TNT based deletion, either, and the article is already tagged for cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval Tal[edit]

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

The notability is that of the companies, and is covered adequately there. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standard her is not what sources are currently on the page, but, rather, Do good sources exist?E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to just need someone to source the page to the many articles that cover him in substantive detail in articles about his companies. And ther are profiles of him Here's [16] a juicy profile in the New York Observer. Another in a 2006 book Makers: All Kinds of People Making Amazing Things in Garages, Basements, and Backyards'. E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note in particular, that Tal drew wide attention when one of his companies pre-paid cards was used in the Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. Wall Street Journal, Hamas Killing Shines Light on Payoneer, Prepaid Cards, [17].E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here is another reference.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  The vague arguments of the delete !votes clearly ignore the alternatives to deletion.  Why try to get this edit history deleted?  And as for the redirect that could have been done without a deletion discussion, Payoneer barely mentions this CEO, and the article here is the only coverage we have for BorderFree.  Another article involved here is Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, where readers would have good reason to want to know what reliable sources have to say about this topic, just as the Wall Street Journal saw fit to write a related article, as referenced by E.M.Gregory.  Also as E.M.Gregory has noted, this topic is sufficiently established to be referenced in a book.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:57, 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 14:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clear advertising and I concur with the nomination as it fluidly and noticeably shows the concerns, I see no compromises of which would not affect both substance and its considerable advertising-formatted, hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment fails to address either notability of topic or the substantive sources that have been found by editors here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a vanity page on a businessman not notable outside of the companies he was affiliated with. Payoneer itself is only marginally notable, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raf Jansen[edit]

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

Autobiographical entry fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC entirely. Karst (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:35, 7 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 Metasploit Project. Seems to have a notable product, which it can be redirected to. If there are issues with article creation, this can be addressed in the future. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid7[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rapid7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this pages adds no encyclopedia value. It is claimed as public company. still only 1 paragraph to write about like its a Bloomberg business profile. Light2021 (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt as especially for advertising, note this has literally been deleted 3 times in the past few years, including the 2013 AfD itself, since 2013 was still a troublesome where advertisements were still noticeably accepted and not deleted as they should've; therefore, it's not surprising that not only the 1 involved account was an advertising-only account tied to another, now both kicked, this article's contents are all still PR advertising, none of it coming close to actual substance, and we shouldn't expect any since the actual author was an advertising-only account.
When we start accepting such blatancy and question whether company-initiated advertising is compromisable, we're damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- it looks like the company could be notable, given that it's public, but I was unable to find any sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Perhaps too soon (as shown by the relatively low revenue of $100M). K.e.coffman (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: inexplicably the article doesn't mention their best known product, Metasploit which is one of the most widely-used tools of its type. Of course just because Metasploit is notable, it doesn't infer notability on Rapid7 but IMO it makes it worth keeping.. just. Shritwod (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Metasploit then; this would preserve the article history and could be reverted to a stand-alone article should the company become more notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect makes sense. -- HighKing++ 17:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT. Between 2010 and now, this page has been deleted three times and keeps on coming back. Article is purely promotional, company is just not notable and fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

War Pain[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Did not chart. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC) To say the song isn't notable because the article isn't extensive is unfair. I personally remember a lot of buzz about this song, though the article needs SEVERE expansion. I still feel there's reason to keep the article, but it needs major expansion. Aleccat (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it hasn't charted, it has significant media coverage. Here's a few to get the article back on track:
Billboard http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/6859416/meek-mill-4-4-part-2-listen
The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/31/meek-mill-finally-beats-drake-with-vicious-diss-track-war-pain.html
The Boombox: http://theboombox.com/meek-mill-drake-war-pain-4-4-part-two/
Idolator: http://www.idolator.com/7621913/drake-summer-sixteen-meek-mill-response-war-pain
International Business Times: http://www.ibtimes.com/drake-meek-mill-feud-nicki-minajs-boyfriend-responds-summer-sixteen-new-diss-song-2287467
Radio.com: http://radio.com/2016/01/31/meek-mill-responds-to-drake-on-war-pain/
Oxygen: http://www.oxygen.com/very-real/meek-mill-finally-gets-back-at-drake-with-war-pain
Complex: http://www.complex.com/music/2016/01/meek-mill-drake-diss-war-pain
Stereogum: http://www.stereogum.com/1856863/the-drakemeek-mill-beef-enters-its-conspiracy-theory-phase/franchises/status-aint-hood/
Uproxx: http://uproxx.com/smokingsection/meek-mill-44-part-2-new-mixtape/
Pitchfork: http://pitchfork.com/news/63243-meek-mill-disses-drake-again-on-another-44-ep/
—SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:33, 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 14:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage identified above, passes GNG. Cavarrone 12:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ontarian Penpal Program[edit]

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

No indication or evidence of notability. PKT(alk) 21:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any references to this program outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Of the two external links provided, one is a broken link and the other doesn't mention this program. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, no reliable secondary sources listed nor available. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 13 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  22:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who historical characters[edit]

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

This article has no sources cited. It is fancruft and listcruft of the worse kind. Take it to a Dr Who wiki if wanted, but it's not encyclopaedic. Bondegezou (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Like stated, this article is just completely unsourced fancruft. I'm not finding any sources that back up why the idea of "historical characters" appearing on one specific show about time travel is particularly notable as a group. Additionally, the article itself is not especially great, as its title claims its about historical figures, and then goes on to include a huge amount of completely fictional characters. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (warning extremely tongue-in-cheek), above editors obviously Star Trek fans. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list cites the episodes in which these historical figures were dramatized, and those episodes are reliable for their own content. So while it would be correct to note there are no secondary sources, it is not correct to say there are "no" sources. This is a persistent point of confusion among editors when dealing with articles about cultural works. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, you are right that MOS:FICT does allow the use of the work itself to act as a source for basic information about the work. I was using a shorthand to refer to reliable, independent, secondary sources, which is what is needed to satisfy notability criteria. I also note that this article fails MOS:FICT in almost every other way. 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondegezou (talk • contribs)
      • "No sources" is not a clear or appropriate shorthand to use for "no sources supporting notability", because it instead suggests you're claiming unverifiability. Keep also in mind WP:BEFORE; the present lack of sources in an article is not relevant to deletion, rather what matters is if no sources can be found. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The use of historical characters in Doctor Who was one of the original points of the show, and has received substantial attention in reliable sources, including books about the show (e.g. [18][19] )and other media (e.g. [20][21]). Even if there is some debate about the extent of RS coverage of this subject, I'd view this article as a valid spinoff in the overall structure of Doctor Who coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The use of historical characters in Doctor Who is certainly an important part of the show and its own history. That Doctor Who did this is something that should be and is described in the Doctor Who article, with some pertinent examples. That's where your first two references come in. However, that's not a reason for an unreferenced, WP:INUNIVERSE-style list here that makes no distinction between the very different uses, from an WP:OUTUNIVERSE perspective, of historical characters in the William Hartnell era with Barack Obama appearing in The End of Time or Nefertiti in "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship". Your third reference fails RS (not independent), so only your fourth reference directly speaks to an article like this, and it's not the job of an encyclopaedia to replicate a lazy listicle clickbait article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic trivia. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  15:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Buddha[edit]

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

The content of this article, including its context appears unsuitable for Wikipedia, for not being encyclopedic. ♥ Shri Sanam Kumar ♥ 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article reads more like a promotional piece. If the necessary changes where made, I'd change my vote to keep.

Keep and Revise, as suggested by the article's original author. Though, why he didn't do that earlier, is beyond me. (Not an attack, but genuine puzzlement.) N. GASIETA|talk 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Revise. The article refers to a popular website entity with a large world-wide following, covers relevant topics which include publications of said entity. It goes without saying that the article must be revised to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone but to go from that to a full-on deletion would be unwise. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revised History section to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone. Any other revisions would be more than welcomed. --Omer Toledano (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not convinced with the sources. We require significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All I see are passing mentions or articles written by the author of the site. I do not see any secondary coverage and we specifically require that. I would be glad to change by !vote, but after extensive searching I was unable to find any. Please not that the Forbes and HuffingtonPost sources are contributor articles (not staff article) and hence count was WP:SPS - not good enough for notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable web site; sources are not there for GNG or CORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur with the comments above, nothing actually convincing and there's nothing to suggest the current sources aren't PR or republished PR and triviality, because they in fact are. A keep vote acknowledging the concerns is enough to suggest this is in fact deleted, regardless of any notability, and that's clear enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JTVNews[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. WP:CSD#A7 wrongly declined even though the lead sentence clearly states "JTVNews Is The News Division Of JTV". - MrX 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are NO signs of notability, based on what's in this article. If there are any reliable sources, subject needs to add. Otherwise, this article needs to be deleted. Scorpion293 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  15:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricket batting averages[edit]

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

Delete. A list like this will not be maintained long-term. I notice the "current" stats have not recently been updated. Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Anyone wanting to see a list of these averages is better referred to one of the two main specialist sites that publish cricket statistics or, better still, to the latest Wisden or Playfair. Jack | talk page 13:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same problems arise:

List of List A cricket records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No maintenance or update. Fails same criteria. Jack | talk page 14:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - just seems like a massive and overly vague topic to be considered notable. JMWt (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to List of List A cricket records - Which section here isn't up to date? As you will see looking at the page history, I update this article regularly, as do others. If a section has a date last updated of over a year it is likely because no one has entered the top 10 or the top 10 hasn't changed. Jevansen (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given that the deletion rationale doesn't apply to the above list and it has no connection to List of cricket batting averages other than being another cricket related list, can you please make this a separate nomination like you have with the others? Jevansen (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I was mistaken to include List of List A cricket records so I'll request its withdrawal. Thanks. Jack | talk page 06:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn request. Please reinstate List of List A cricket records as it does not merit AfD. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. As Jack noted, these sorts of lists are never updated to the standard they should be. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a (poor-quality) duplicate of other websites. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list of batting averages one. Impossible to keep up to date reasonably for starters, but more pertinently it's just stats. A summary of key examples could be used on the page about batting averages. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If, as Jevansen says, there are people out there maintaining this, then it seems a reasonably important list to have, although its title really ought to include the words "Test", "LOI" and "T20I", and perhaps the word "highest" would be useful. With all these lists, my view is that if it doesn't do any harm, is well-maintained and answers a question about cricket that someone might reasonably ask, then I see no need to delete. Not every user of WP can wander into their local bookstore to locate a copy of Wisden or Playfair. Johnlp (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editors responsible cant't even be bothered to find out who has the 10th best T20I average among retired players. It is just a copy of 3 pages on ESPNcricinfo WP:NOTMIRROR Spike 'em (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And looking into who was 10th, I realise all has been done is the move of 1 column in the cricinfo list. I can see no rationale about who appears on the retired list other than they haven't played for a year or 2. Have Cameron White and Misbah-ul-Haq really retired from this form of cricket, or just aren't being picked anymore. I've also gone and added Ravi Bopara, though I don't think he has retired either. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Jevansen. GreenCricket (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic theism[edit]

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

Ten years later, the reasons offered for deletion in 2006 are now easier to establish because the use of the terminology remains insignificant. This article appears to represent an abuse of Wikipedia's crowd sourcing practices to promote a term activists only recently coined as "agnostic theism".

Though the general concepts have been discussed on rare occasions in philosophical publications, such as two cited in the article, the citations establish the discussion of concepts, but they do not establish a historical or significant use of the term "agnostic theism", which was only recently coined. Outside of the discussion on a blog or two, the term does not appear to have caught on in popular use and the the term has no significant philosophical history. This may be because the terminology is contradictory to most readers understanding of "agnostic" and "atheist" where the term is seen as a contradiction.

There are, multiple criteria supporting this article's deletion.

6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including *neologisms:...

My detailed investigation show that this article promotes a neologism.

7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

I cannot find reliable sources showing this terminology is used or accepts with ssignificant frequency or context.

I have been unsuccessful in establishing legitimate sources in academic philosophy to support the idea that the terminology "agnostic theism" is widely used, or even known.

The term "agnostic theism" (and "theistic agnosticism") is found in a couple atheist blogs and an activist author Austin Cline writing for about.com. Cline cites no history or sources to establish the use of the terminology, or that it is in significant use.

The article citations refer to sources discussing an idea that there may be an overlap between theism and one form of agnosticism, but they do not establish nor propose to establish "agnostic theism" or 'theistic agnosticism" as terminology their philosophical peers should adopt to describe the overlap they discuss. That is, the sources don't support the use of the term.

8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines WP:N and WP:GNG

The terms the article calls a philosophical concept appear neither as subject titles nor in the content of the three accessible internet philosophy encyclopedias: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism. This contradicts the articles lead statement saying that "agnostic theism" encompasses both theism and agnosticism.

One of the citations is a broken link. The title referred to cannot be found.

Credible and meaningful citations to the term "agnostic theism" with as described in the article do not appear to exist.

The objections to deletion in 2006 included claims that 'agnostic theism" is a "widely used term." Its use appears to be negligible on the whole, and may only appear to be "widely used" by those who search out and read the blogs and about.com.

KSci (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The sources currently in the article, though they are few, are strong enough for the concept to meet the general notability guideline. Part of the argument in the nomination would apply to agnostic atheism as well (i.e. "the meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism"). Furthermore, I disagree; agnosticism isn't an alternative to theism and atheism, nor is it mutually exclusive with atheism, one can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. In regard to "One of the citations is a broken link": per WP:LR, "Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online", but rather merely that it exists.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MRD2014 and @Godsy, thank you for providing your comments. Here are the applicable rules.
The WP:RULES case for deletion: I came to edit this article to add citations and detail, but I couldn't reliable sources for "agnostic theism" or "theistic agnosticism" being a notable philosophical term. Yet the first line of the lead:"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism." I believe this article from line one is in need of support and violates the following WP policies. unless reliable sources can be found for all of the content, which appears to be original research. Our article needs reliable sources showing that "agnostic theism" is a noteworthy topic of discussion. Here are the relevant Wikipedia "nutshell" descriptions with links to the relevant section.


From "WP:Original Research" WP:OR

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

Another concern I have is with the existing sources. The sources support the idea, but they do not show that the concept has ever been noteworthy or that the idea of "agnostic theism" is actually in noteworthy use.
From "RWP:Reliable sources" WP:RS

This page in a nutshell: This guideline discusses how to identify reliable sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

From "WP:Verifiability" WP:V

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.

It may be that those calling to "keep" will be more successful at finding reliable verifiable sources for "agnostic theism" as a noteworthy and support for the article's content.

My research on this term found no authoritative sources showing that there is notable philosophical use of the therm "agnostic theism" in philosophical resources. I also found no noteworthy sources stating that they or someone else is regarded by philosophers to be an "agnostic theist". The article only speculated that some people were "agnostic atheism' by relying on original research. With so little support and no verification that there are reliable sources discussing the topic of 'agnostic theism' the term is a neologism.

From "WP:neologism" WP:NEO:

Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.


Taking a look at the first citation, for example, where the lead defines the term "agnostic atheism" of the article. The following is not supported by the citations:

"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."

The single referenced source, George Hamilton Smith, is not a reliable source. He was a lay "political philosopher" without the academic credentials required to be seen as authoritative on this topic. Even if he were reliable, the citation doesn't verify because he does not tell us anything about the meaning of the term "agnostic theism," the term the citation is saying he defined.
At best, the way it is now, the article builds the definition using original research from a single lay source and no sources on 'agnostic theism". A valid citation must be someone with credentials in philosophy telling us the meaning of agnostic theism'.
If you think I'm wrong on the above please straighten me out. I'm very open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. If reliable verifiable sources can establish that this is a term with notable use rather than a neologism, I'll withdraw the deletion request.

KSci (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see only three references, one of which is dead. The two that work reference agnosticism... just agnosticism, not "agnostic theism." The fact that there does not seem to be enough notability for the specific term is sufficient grounds for deletion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. There are plenty of scholarly papers that talk about Kierkegaard's agnosticism - and he was certainly a theist. Also see section on religious agnosticism in https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism . Also, wikipedia articles are about concepts, not terms. JimWae (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the forgoing 'Keep' opinion, there are no third party sources that tell us about the meaning of the term 'agnostic theism'. The term and its definition appear to be a synthesis of ideas to produce a neologism. Nothing in the article is supported by reliable sources making describing a topic with this name.

From: WP:3PARTY

Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.

See also WP:Synthesis of published material

I thank you all for your replies. I think we still need to address the question concerning compliance with Wikipedia policies about original research, reliable sources, and verifiability. It would be sincerely appreciated if someone requesting 'keep' either add the missing citations, or tell me how you think this article complies with our WP policies.

@JimWae We think we need a source saying Kierkegaard was an 'agnostic theist', we cannot draw that conclusion ourselves. I think it is original research if we coin the terms "agnostic theism' or 'theistic agnosticism' and make up our own definition for the terminology. We need reliable verifiable third party sources establishing the existance of the philosophical terminology and stating what the term means. If we make up the term and its meaning, I think we'll be creating a neologism. Please let me know why you disagree. or even better, add the citations.

@Godsy @MRD2014 I don't think the existance of agnostic atheism addresses the problem that this article cannot be supportaed by reliable, verifiable, third party sources that can bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies. I would greatly appreciate your views on this topic. Adding citations that address the problem would be even better and put the discussion to rest. How does this article meet notability guidelines if we can't find the requisite sources.


Thank you all for your participation.


KSci (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Summary of the delete rationale: The article creates two neologisms, 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' using original research; there are no reliable verifiable sources using these terms or stating their meaning. These neologisms can be found only on a couple cause-related blogs and a cause-related interest writing for about.com. No independent reliable third party sources can be found using or defining these supposedly 'philosophical' terms. The article body describes the original research needed for a step by step synthesis citing controversial philosophies implied to be mainstream. No opposition views can be found representing the opposing view because the terms are too new and unknown outside of the cause. Wikipedia is the only available encyclopedia source with an article on these terms, including philosophy encyclopedias.

From "WP:Original Research" WP:OR - "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

From "RWP:Reliable sources" WP:RS - "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception..."

From "WP:Verifiability" WP:V - "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."

From: "WP:Independent" WP:IS - "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses." "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."

The following quote from the article text defining the topic is contrary to the above policies, a condition that cannot be corrected:

"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."

At this time, none of the editors responding 'keep' has argued that these deficiencies can be addressed:

KSci (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shitty writing is not a rationale for deletion. SOFIXIT. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


@Patar knight, if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that there are a notable number of people using this term or it would not have 600 hits on Google's hit counters. The problem is that this doesn't address the problem I think we must address. That problem is that we cannot use Wikipedia voice to open up an article telling readers "Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism," without reliable, verifiable, sources, including third-party independent sources that define "agnostic theism" and "theistic agnosticism" and specifically define these terms to attribute the meaning the article claims. The one citation cited doesn't use either of thes terms, nor does it define them. Without the requisite sources we are not in compliance with the important Wikipedia policies and guidelines I listed above. We can't use our own reasoning to arrive at conclusions, we can only say things when they are properly sourced. KSci (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC) KSci (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced original essay about a non-notable neologism, as nearly as I can tell. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hmmmm... Although Patar knight's "but it gets 600 hits" argument isn't as effective as actually putting up three or four book links for us to examine here, a quick glance at the Google Books hits for the term quickly verifies that what they say is true: this is a readily used, scholarly term appearing in multiple published sources and seems a concept about which an article can readily be moved past a simple dictionary definition. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is a thing on social media; I've seen people labeled themselves as such. Our core readership might be looking for this article. If it is not kept, the closing sysop should take serious consideration to redirect it or merge instead. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the sources: Thanks for your comments, and I apologize for this repetition. I'd like to redirect our discussion back to addressing the actual problem. This article's subject terms 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' and their meanings must be attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. What I found is that these terms and their meaning cannot be so attributed, but instead appear to be neologism. Neologisms are often in use by their promoters, so showing that the terms are in use doesn't address the concern that matters. Wikipedia's policies require that the terms the article is about and everything in the article must be directly attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. I think there aren't any such sources for these terms. In this discussion nobody has yet to address this particular concern. Also, combining this article with another article would not address the sourcing problem either. Thanks again for your patience. KSci (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to agnosticism - There are enough sources to mention it somewhere on Wikipedia, but I fail to see a compelling argument for why we need a stand-alone article for a neologism that seems to so clearly be a flavor of agnosticism. Indeed, that article touches on atheism and theism, quoting e.g. Kierkegaard. I'm surprised not to see anyone else suggesting a merge. If, in the future, this concept begins to take up an undue portion of the space in the agnosticism article, and/or if the body of literature on the concept sufficiently distinguishes it for a stand-alone article, then I wouldn't be opposed to spinning it off again. At this point, however, merge. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites in addition to the points you raised, a merge into agnosticism would give the content visibility to more editors so it would no longer be neglected as it appears to have been as a separate subject. What you suggest appears to be a workable alternative. KSci (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Tours[edit]

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

references provided give no indication of notability-mostly trade paper mentions. this appears to be a nonnotable travel business. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article by a blocked user whose contributions were almost entirely on this article. The given references are routine announcements and a company conference report. My own searches are finding nothing better. A company going about its business but not notable. AllyD (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin O'Kelley[edit]

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

O'Kelley is not only notable for winning Miss North Carolina USA, but so much so only notable for that that the article is stuck in time. The article still says O'Kelley is a junior at North Carolina State University, which she was in 2006-2007 when the article was created, but clearly is not 10 years later. Yet she is of so little note that not only do no editors bother to change this statement, but there are no sources to update it either other than a linkedin profile, that I am only mostly sure is for the same person. Her previous win in the teen competition is so minor, we do not even have contemporary sources on it, and it appears to me that the Charlotte Observer article used as a source is probably more on O'Kelley's successor than on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject won Miss North Carolina USA 2007 that is not enough to confer notability. One reference (Charlotte Observer) lists "Eyes on the crown, with eyes on her", a dead link (Asheville Citizen-Times) listed twice "Roberson grad savoring thrills of Miss North Carolina crown", and a way back machine reference that names a "Sarah Chakales" and "Jenelle Vannoy" receiving scholarships. A search brought up a listing at the Donna Baldwin Agency and this Wikipedia article. The bottom line is that this article will never advance pass a stub pseudo-biography. She does not meet the basic criteria for an article. Otr500 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:36, 7 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. Hut 8.5 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teena Strickler Bowers[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non-notable artist. Speedy tag removed by a technically "independent" user, but both accounts have few edits and have edited the same articles. --Finngall talk 00:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete possible sock or meat puppet removed the delete tag. The single reference is not independent. gsearch only finds social networking or database sites. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - by the admission of the author of the article, this photographer is a latecomer to serious photography and has only come to the attention of her local newspaper. Fails WP:GNG at the moment. Sionk (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Sionk says. -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject has not received any serious critical attention. Mduvekot (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Zhen (author)[edit]

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

Is this writer sufficiently notable? I don't think there is sufficient indication of it. (And as an aside, the article was created by an editor whose only edits are to this article.) Delete unless notability established. --Nlu (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The two offered references are to books on French cuisine published more than 20 years ago; it is extremely improbable that they predicted the subject's 2016 book, so they cannot be considered as references for this WP:BLP which is otherwise unsourced. Nor are my searches (albeit of non-Chinese sources only) finding better: fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For a blogger, his blogs [22] and [23] are completely nonnotable. Timmyshin (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Maxwell Selby Jnr.[edit]

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

Nothing to show notability WP:BIO, just appears to be promotional for individual and work (previous version for TimelineBlogs, now changes to promote GhOccasions) KylieTastic (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Promotional article for a subject who does not meet GNG.JSFarman (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I have G11 tagged as this is quite clearly advertising and we should've all saved ourselves serious time-efforts by simply starting with speedy. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 house music. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bass house (music)[edit]

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

Not notable sub genre, the article appears original research and no significant sources to indicate its notability. Redirect to house music. Karst (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom: article is full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and some contradictory statements. For example, it states that the music appeared in the 1990s as an amalgamation of house music and bass music, but the article for bass music states that it didn't emerge until the mid-2000s. The article also states (unsourced) that the first record of the genre was Double 99's "Rip Groove" in 2012, but that song was originally released in 1997. Richard3120 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:29, 7 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. MBisanz talk 16:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Que Peller[edit]

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

The only references given are a blog and an advertisement placed by a person with conflict of interest. It should also be noted that notability is not inherited (from his father, who was a notable magician). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


(talk) @Robert McClenon| Hello, I have corrected the reference issues, and orphan link issues. Could you please remove the speedy deletion and close this discussion. Thank you.Ibrahim skillz (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete promotional article with COI paragraphs. The subject does not beat the GNG benchmark since notability isn't inherited. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article is indeed promotionaly written, but a reference search turns up numerous mentions, some of which are medium-quality sources, such as this. There's enough there to keep. He seems to be very widely mentioned in the Nigerian press. This makes me wonder if Systemic bias should be taken into account. 104.163.140.57 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there seems to be plenty of potential online sources that how he is big in Nigeria, a market of over 60 millions. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as what's been shown in his career is enough, and suggesting "there's potential" is not what improves an article by itself and convinces us it's in fact acceptable, therefore there's currently enough to suggest it's simply unacceptable at this time. The listed award is not convincing and the other information is simply not convincing of a substantial article, hence delete. I also concur with the earlier comment of there being no inherited notability from simply another person, which seems to be the case here perhaps since it begins with said other person. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 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. North America1000 22:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Burchard[edit]

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

Insufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion. Most used source is a Forbes blog (see here on sorting out the kinds of things you find at Forbes) - other refs cited are also laudatory in-bubble in the online marketing hype world. I did a google search ten pages out and it is just more of the same. There aren't sufficient independent, non-Woo! sources with which we can actually write a decent, neutral, encyclopedia article on this person; we just have a WP:PROMO piece now. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. author or even coauthor of a NYT bestseller is 1notability . Authors are notable for the books they write, and references or lack of references on their persona life is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DGG surprising. There is a whole world of hypers like this. See The Syndicate (business group) - we succeeded by the skin our teeth to get the articles on the individuals in that hype-circle condensed to that. This guy is just more of the same. Online hype. But what matters are good refs with substantial discussion; we don't have them on this person. Jytdog (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am generally very skeptical about people in this field. But when they write best-selling books, they become notable authors, and we have to cover them. The principle is NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 14 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 1: Nenokkadine#Soundtrack. And possibly merge from history.  Sandstein  21:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1: Nenokkadine (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Redundant with major relevant content already present at main article 1: Nenokkadine. Fails WP:CFORK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack article was created as the main article had grown too large. Oh god, what a crime. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid vague arguments. Please provide sizes in your arguments to enable others value it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge into 1: Nenokkadine#Soundtrack - From quick glance, there seems to be enough reliable sources to warrant the existence of the topic. However, I do believe that it can be merged into 1: Nenokkadine#Soundtrack. As an example, merging the track listing and release section into the main article would not be harmful. The readable prose size of 1: Nenokkadine is 22 kB, while the readable prose size of the soundtrack article is only 1094 B. WP:SIZERULE says that length alone does not justify division. Therefore, a merge would be appropriate. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to 1: Nenokkadine: Can be adjusted in parent article. Above size-analysis gives more insight into issue (however I don't agree with "enough" rs thing. Most of cited sources are of questionable-reliability). Anup [Talk] 11:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mills[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable director. Quis separabit? 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:45, 7 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 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Graham & Stubbs[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I used an earlier version of this article as a screenshot to illustrate the WP:CORPSPAM Signpost Op-Ed I wrote last year. It was deleted, but it has been recreated since by User:Ferma with the edit summary "clearly notable". Well, I don't see it - please explain how this small company doing business as usual passes our notability criteria. Pinging User:Randykitty who added notability tag, and User:Stesmo who was also involved in editing this and noted that most of the content here is trivial (well, of course there is, because there is no in-depth coverage to speak of - company exists, and this is all we can say... WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Coverage is all trivial, no notability apparent. --Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major law firms are significant, and this firm has clearly long been one of the leading law firms in Colorado. A long string of distinguished attorney, including Senator Gary Hart and Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White are alumni of the firm; the pages of these notable people link to this page and it is useful to have this information available, even though the page needs to be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is inherited, so it doesn't matter who worked or works there. And which part of NCORP states that "major law firms are significant"? Heck, do you even have a source that states it is a major law firm? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as this only has the expected sources and information that comes with this article, none of it substantiating to actual substance and significance and the history and past deletion suggest enough; there's nothing beyond the trivial information listed to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seek and ye shall find. (corollary: those who do not look, do not find.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources Here [24] is a 1979 New York Times article about hos the energy boom was causing Davis Graham to grow very fast, and to compete for the first time for the nation's top law school grads. Here [25] Davis Graham is described as " a major Denver law firm". Here a Nevada newspaper describes Davis Graham as "known for its corporate finance, energy and mining, natural resources and..." Here [26] the Washington Post describes the firm as one of Colorado's largest, one of a number of articles about the firm in the Post; several of which cover the firm's Washington office - which ws opened in 1982 [27]. Having a D.C. office is a sure sign that a law firm is of more than local importance. I remind editors that the quesiton at AFD is not whether sources presently in article confirm notability, but, rather, do sources exist that confirm notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NYT article describes law firms in Denver (not just this one), and mentions it as one of the Denver law firms, but it is not an in-depth coverage, and it opens with "NOT one of Denver's law firms ranks among the top 100 in the country." which suggests this is not a firm of national importance. Nor is there any source that suggests it is a major regional (Colorado) firm. It is just a local company, and according to The Durango Herald (a local Colorado newspaper with a very small circulation) it is a "a major Denver law firm", and yes, the same is said by a much bigger Washington Post ([28]), but it is not an in-depth coverage, but a mention in passing. [29] is pretty much business as usual irrelevant trivia mention. Nothing shown suggests the company passes GNG or NCORP - the coverage is passing, and arguing that "it is notable because it has offices in Washington" is grasping at straws, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "the question at AFD is not whether sources presently in article confirm notability, but, rather, do sources exist that confirm notability". Absolutely. However, this should not be interpreted that those sources do not need to be shown here to exist. Just arguing that it's likely those sources exist doesn't do it. --Randykitty (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the NYTimes article you dismiss contains solid information on this firm, "When Mr. Hoagland, a graduate of Yale University and the Columbia law school, arrived at Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Byron White (now a United States Supreme Court Justice) was practicing there, but was still definitely small‐townish. No Denver firm had more than 10 lawyers then. Now Davis, Graham & Stubbs and three other firms — Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard; Holland & Hart, and Holme, Roberts & Owen — have 80 to 100 lawyers each." Brief discussions in RS can be assembled into good articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources [[U.S. News & World Report] [30]. Lex Mundi First ‘Best Law Firms’ Analysis Slots Davis Graham & Stubbs as a National Leader [31]. Martindale-Hubbell "For the last 90 years, Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP has ranked among the region's most prominent law firms..." [32]. Comment I hope editors who specialize in law firms will look at this. To me, it appears that we risk losing verified, useful information (about a firm linked from the bio pages of a series of major national figures) if we delete this page on a firm that can be expanded by brief references to it in RS, including the national media that I linked to above, and from information found in a number of biographies. I do not think it is a stretch to assume that an aritcle on a law firm that has been a leading regional firm for almost a century, and that has had a D.C. office since before Al Gore invented the internet, is likely to have sources that can lead to a better article. I do think that the sources already in the article and those that I have provided suffice to establish notability. And also that when a firm's alumni are such a distinguished bunch, lack of notability is unlikely.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems easy to find more coverage such as ABA Journal. Andrew D. (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I have added some sources to the article. This AFD appears to have been brought and is now being defended in an instance of WP:POINTy. To me, an editor who works frequently at AFD, this AFD appears to be becoming a WP:BOOMERANG, demonstrating that major regional law firms almost always pass WP:GNG if editors make good-faith efforts to source them. I suggest that Nom might want to demonstrate good faith by flagging editors who disagree with his position, in addition to known allies on the point he wants to make.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, I don't think we interact often so I can't remember who might, in the past, have had disagreed or support some points in discussions. I pinged some users in the OP as they were part of the article's history. But in the gesture of good faith, I'll invite you to look at my prod at Vicente Sederberg, LLC - can you find better refs? Do you believe we should deprod it and take it to AfD? I certainly am no fan of stealthy deletions. Discussions are good, as long as we are all trying to fix this project. I do however encourage you to read my OP-ED at WP:CORPSPAM, so you can see where I am coming from. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree that CORPSPAM is a problem, but I do not agree that deleting articles on notable corporations is the solution - even in the case where a firm monitors it's page and repeatedly whitewashes it/turns it into an advert. in re: Vicente Sederberg, LLC, the firm has certainly found a market niche (promoting legalized marijuana) that garners it a great deal of media coverage. Far too much coverage to make deletion by PROD appropriate, in my opinion. (My google news search here: [33] I suggest that you withdraw the PROD. You might then decide to turn it into a reasonably good article, to leave it tagged for improvement, or to take it to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notability is generally not inherited, but in this case sufficient number of notable people worked there. Per recent article improvements, sources seem OK for GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the material in the article is so trivial that it makes it likely that nothing better could be found. The awards is for "Top 150 Under 150" list of leading midsized US law firms. Real evidence it was the leading law firm in the country would be notability , and I'd even consider the top 10 or so as presumptive. But top 150, and not just top 150, but top 150 of a subsidiary category? Other ranks are best in a niche in one particular small state, and references for a few of its attorneys who turned out to be notable for their later careers. DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - large, 101-year-old law firm, with notable lawyers, thus passing my standards. FWIW, I have tended to be more inclusionist than DGG as far as law firms are concerned. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deleted ... recreated since"? Let us be very clear about the chronology. The article on this law firm was deleted as an expired PROD on 9 April 2015. I would have removed the PROD notice if I had seen it, but no matter, the old article was pretty rudimentary anyway, so I wrote a new article, based on the cited sources, less than 24 hours later. The new article has been sitting there happily for the last 18 months. This law firm is clearly notable. As I wrote elsewhere about the same time: "there seems to have been a spate of summary deletions of obviously notable law firms recently, such as Bae, Kim & Lee, Gleiss Lutz [ed: since recreated], and Cuatrecasas [ed: now a disambiguation page]. These are among the largest law firms in South Korea, Germany and Spain, respectively ... I think these deletions are just plain wrong. ... No doubt there may be unduly promotional material in this sort of article, like any other article about a commercial organisation or product, but that is a reason to improve them and make them more neutral, not a reason to delete them.." Ferma (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep a clear consensus has developed that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Iris Martin[edit]

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

Only one source, which looks like it was prepared by the subject, or a friend or associate of the subject BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per page two of the source dismissed by the nom, there were two obits in national newspapers and a retirement biography of her in the major national magazine of her profession. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Dedicated to lifting nursing standards in the Gisborne herald, 5 Sep 2001; p.10 24cm. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Schwede66 for moving the article to a better title. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Veginati family names with Gotrams[edit]

List of Veginati family names with Gotrams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Earlier such discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames 2 and WP:Unsourced and WP:OR Vin09 (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The list has no context to indicate what Veginati and Gotrams are, and even if that context were added, there are no sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not quite sure what encyclopedic purpose this article is supposed to serve. it lacks sourcing and context to understand the topic. As of now, it looks like an unwanted page for Wikipedia. Anup [Talk] 14:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - uninformative and no evidence of passing WP:GNG Spiderone 21:30, 11 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 Tom Fitzgerald (ice hockey)#Personal. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only thing notable about this guy (so far) is his relatives.18abruce (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was named to the Hockey East All-Rookie team last year and has a high probability of meeting WP:NHOCKEY requirement #4 or #6 this season or next. There is also a significant amount of news coverage for him from NCAA hockey sources, for WP:GNG requirements. Mushh94 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tom Fitzgerald (ice hockey)#Personal, where Casey is discussed, consistent with the result of his brother's article's Afd a few months ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey). He may become notable in the future but I don't think he is there yet, so this should be a redirect until and unless he becomes notable. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Rlendog. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per Rlendog. That seems to be the norm in cases like this. He's clearly not notable, but it's a plausible search term. Smartyllama (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hala clan[edit]

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

I could not establish that this clan is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 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 07:00, 7 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. Hut 8.5 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will Lockwood (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Way way too early for this guy, nothing notable about him yet.18abruce (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm... Delete Move to draft space Funny because I created this article, but I believe it is a bit early for Lockwood, as he has not enter the minors yet. WikiPancake 14:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NHOCKEY and as far as I can find he fails GNG so not notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the one major team listed, he was not even an actual player, and then the other is a college team, hence there's nothing convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 13 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LearningRx[edit]

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

Brian training programmes are a scam, the evidence shows that they have no actual effect. Amazingly, this distinctly promotional article instead notes that the brain is more plastic than previously imagined - which may or may not be true but is of course irrelevant to the fact that these training programmes don't work.

So I tried to make the article more neutral, but as I investigated the sources I found that those cited are churnalism - press releases printed in the newspapers without investigation or commentary - and I found no evidence of anything else that could be used instead. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Hurley, Dan (2013). Smarter: The New Science of Building Brain Power. London: Penguin Books. pp. 58–64. ISBN 0698148495. Retrieved 2015-05-25.

      See https://books.google.com/books?id=7ZDIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT49 for the chapter titled "LearningRx". The book discusses LearningRx for roughly seven pages.

      The book notes:

      LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree.

      But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere—an important asset for children or adults struggling with issues of attention and focus. ... Moreover, many of the tasks that Learning Rx uses are the same kinds used by other cognitive trainers, except that they have been translated from a computer format to tabletop exercises performed with playing cards and other materials.

    2. Hurley, Dan (2012-11-04). "The Brain Trainers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The article notes:

      On this Wednesday evening at the Upper Montclair, N.J., outlet of LearningRx, a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter.

      “We measure every student pre- and post-training with a version of the Woodcock-Johnson general intelligence test,” said Ken Gibson, who began franchising LearningRx centers in 2003, and has data on more than 30,000 of the nearly 50,000 students who have been trained. “The average gain on I.Q. is 15 points after 24 weeks of training, and 20 points in less than 32 weeks.”

    3. Lima, Christina (2006-11-30). "LearningRx offers help to struggling students". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The article notes:

      Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year.

      Clients don't typically arrive by doctor referral. What's being sold is cognitive improvement by coaching. All clients are tested, then assigned to a trainer. Most are children and teens who face challenges with such skills as reading, concentrating and problem solving and who often have low grades, said Linda Conlee, owner of the Lake Oswego franchise.

    4. Miranda, Maricella (2010-06-27). "New option for struggling students - Program uses drills instead of tutoring to 'train' the brain". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The article notes:

      She decided to enroll her children in LearningRx, a Colorado-based program that works to strengthen the brain's cognitive skills so students can learn more quickly and easily.

      The program first came to Minnesota two years ago. Since then, four more LearningRx franchises have opened in the state, including the newest center in Eagan.

      Although the program bills itself as beneficial for anybody, students with cognitive and learning disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia, are flocking to it. Some parents say the benefits are so great that their children can go off their medications.

      But experts remain skeptical that a program could produce such dramatic results.

      Canan Karatekin, associate professor of child development at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development, said research shows it's possible to improve cognitive functions. But she says programs, like LearningRx, should be independently researched.

    5. "Program designed to make learning easier". Daily Herald. Associated Press. 2009-02-21. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The article notes:

      LearningRx is used for a variety of learners, including students with learning disabilities, K-12 and college students who want to improve their academic skills, adults wanting to improve their job performance and senior citizens who want to stay mentally sharp, as stated in a LearningRx Inc. flier.

      ...

      Ken Gibson, founder of LearningRx, discovered through his research that 80 percent of learning problems are cognitive weaknesses, Winchell said.

      ...

      The program is designed to strengthen weak underlying processing skills, including attention, working memory, processing speed, logic and reasoning, visual processing, auditory processing and long-term memory. These skills are the foundation of a student's ability to learn and are the basic mental abilities used for thinking, studying and learning, according to LearningRx.

    6. Heilman, Wayne (2016-10-16). "Lessons for LearningRx on comeback from federal lawsuit". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.

      The article notes:

      LearningRx, a Colorado Springs company that operates a franchised network of 80 tutoring centers in 25 states, is just beginning to recover after a 1½-year battle with the Federal Trade Commission over whether it could back up its advertising claims with scientific studies and other research.

      The company settled in May a lawsuit filed in federal court last year by the agency that alleged it "deceptively claimed their programs were clinically proven to permanently improve serious health conditions like ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), autism, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, strokes, and concussions." The suit said LearningRx also claimed the "training substantially improved school grades and college admission test scores, career earnings, and job and athletic performance" and that its "brain training is 10 times more cost-effective than tutoring."

      The settlement included a $4 million judgment against Learning Rx, though all but $200,000 was suspended, and bars the company from claiming its programs improve performance on the job or in athletics or increase cognitive function of people with age-related memory loss, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, ADHD, autism, traumatic brain injury or stroke.

      ...

      LearningRx, formally known as LearningRx Franchise Corp., traces its roots back more than 30 years in Florida to Gibson's work as an pediatric optometrist to help his patients more easily learn to read. Gibson, who had difficulty reading as a child as a result of dyslexia, found that reading skills could be improved through "interval training" similar to what professional athletes use to raise the level of their athletic performance. He began to sell licenses for his research and reading program to other optometrists and later psychologists, numbering 500 by 2000.

    7. Morran, Chris (2016-05-18). "LearningRx To Pay $200K For Allegedly Unproven Claims That Brain Training Can Improve Income, Treat Autism & ADHD". Consumerist. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.

      The article notes:

      The company behind the LearningRX “brain training” program has agreed to pay a $200,000 settlement and to stop making claims that its system is clinically proven to treat serious health conditions, or that it can dramatically improves a user’s IQ or income.

      According to the complaint [PDF] filed with a federal court in LearningRx’s home state of Colorado, the company made numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program.

      Included among the allegedly unsubstantiated statements made by LearningRx are boasts about the program’s ability to boost IQs, and therefore income.

      ...

      In settling the complaint, LearningRx denies any wrongdoing, but agrees to pay $200,000 (of a $4 million judgment against the company) and to cease making unsubstantiated claims about the performance, benefits, or efficacy of their programs. LearningRx is also barred from misrepresenting the existence or results of any tests or studies, and from providing others with the means to make the prohibited claims.

    8. Iandolo, Mark (2016-05-26). "LearningRx marketers to pay $200,000 to settle deceptive advertising allegations". Legal Newsline. Institute for Legal Reform. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.

      The article notes:

      The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced the developers and marketers of the LearningRx “brain training” programs have settled to pay $200,000 and agreed to stop making allegedly false and unsubstantiated claims.

      The FTC had said LearningRx Franchise Corp and its CEO, Dr. Ken Gibson, made allegations that their programs were clinically proven to help with conditions like ADHD, autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, strokes and concussions. The company marketed these allegations through its website and blog, as well as Facebook, Twitter, print and radio ads and direct mail pieces. The FTC believes these claims were inaccurate and therefore deceptive.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LearningRx to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and analysis - This is all literally from the apparent sources above:

LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree....But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere

is an entire sales pitch in that not only is it obviously listed and supplied by the information, but it cares to go to actual specifics about "What the company will make you feel if you use it!" Nobody would care about that but only their own clients and investors (and it is a fact because it advertises its own words), and that's why it was supplied, and there was no actual journalism efforts; the fact it came from a book, that is not guaranteeing safety from company-initiated advertising, because if it's simply a guide, that's exactly what the company involves itself with. See the next one:
a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter. (information is followed by an extensive paragraph quote by the businesswoman giving number specifics about the company itself and what she thinks about it)
The next one is followed by:

Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year. (following information is literally about business & clients overall, not the actual company)

The next article is literally about how and why people are using the company, followed by the specifics about where you can find the company, how to use it and the specific numbers so far....that's all company advertising because it's simply made by the company's own hands, not actual journalism efforts, hence it's company PR. The next one although about a law case, still cares to go to specifics about the localities and specifics about the company, which of course bear nothing for notability or substance, let alone significance, and the same can be said for the next article. When an "article" cares to mention "the company's goals and plans are...." you know that's not a journalism source talking, it's the own company.
Delete - Finally the last link listed here is, once again, about the company's business negotiations because of said law case, and what happened so none of that establishes notability, because not only was it still such a trivial law case, it would be shoehorning PR along with trivial pieces about a law case, something no one would honestly care about, especially if it's not showing any actual substance. When the best all can be offered is (beginning) advertising about how, where and why the company should be used by its clients and literal quotes from its own businesspeople, followed by law case situations, it honestly shows how bare genuine sources are.
I'll note that even the last 2 AfDs contained these same exact sources, so that's also saying something that, if after all these years, no one could get better substance, it's because there isn't any....especially not if there are still in fact articles about its own republished advertising. Another thing I'll note is that the current article is literally advertising "company history, "functions ["Company's clients are....") and "reception" where it lists quotes (not from media itself, but simply from named mentions). SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
is an entire sales pitch in that not only is it obviously listed and supplied by the information – the author called LearningRx the "most expensive, least supported by published research" and said "neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree". This is negative information. If the book were publishing advertising for LearningRx, it would omit this negative information.

I'll note that even the last 2 AfDs contained these same exact sources, so that's also saying something that, if after all these years, no one could get better substance – sources 6–8 were published in 2016, which is after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination) was closed 30 May 2015. The sources discuss the federal lawsuit against LearningRx for making "numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program". The Consumerist, which focuses on "consumerism and consumers' experiences and issues with companies and corporations" (according to the Wikipedia article), does not "shoehor[n] PR along with trivial pieces about a law case".

Cunard (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- an unremarkable franchise company with some dubious claims. Tone of the article is promotional (despite one "negative" paragraph"). Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion by non-notable entities. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever one's personal opinion about about the company or its product, the company clearly has signficant coverage in reliable sources and passed GNG and CORP. Sources posted above and in the article. The notion that it's promotional makes no sense in light of how many neutral editors have worked on it. Furthermore, simply being on Wikipedia is not promotional, it's the opposite. Studies have shown that corporations with Wikipedia articles has a negative impact on stock price for a number of reasons but mainly due to open access to information. The crusaders trying to delete this article are helping LearningRx - the very thing they claim to be concerned about - by keeping information buried from public view. Regardless of that larger debate, for this article it passes notability as I noted in the first couple sentences. -- GreenC 14:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard and Green Cardamom.--Taeyebar 23:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Advertising is something we should take seriously and the comments of "Why should it matter?" are not applicable because this is exactly what it is as shown by my listed quotes where literally advertised company services are shown; the claims that Wikipedia in fact causes damages for companies because of these articles are not quite so because of the sheer fact they continue using said articles for advertising and any AfD about a blatant advertisement involving a company will show this. Once we start making any excuses about accepting advertising, we're damned.
Because of the blatancy of advertising, these are not "significant, notable and acceptable" because that's not acknowledging the advertising and the advertisement of this currently existing article. Also, simply saying "per users above saying Keep" is also not acknowledging the concerns or attempting to counteract them even though the concerns still apply. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article may suffer from low quality and PR-activities, but the company is notable. Covered by NYT, by other reasonably reliable media ([34]) - through usually in a negative fashion (as a likely scam), but this is nonetheless in-depth coverage by a number of sources. There are also academic sources discussing the company's product: [35], [36]. The latter estabilish notability for the product, which can be discussed in the parent article about company. It's a shame that we are bickering here instead of improving the article. PR people should expand using sources that discuss their side of view, and critics have plenty of reliable criticism to cite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly Keep. but only if a responsible editor (such as Piotrus ) is prepared to rewrite and maintain the article. The material in the article in the past does not honestly describe the subject, and omits important negative material. Some of the sources in the article or asserted above are useless PR, like the miranda and AP articles. Oneof the basic principles of WPis NPOV, and an article that cannot be maintained in an NPOV state should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG: With all due respect, and also with all of my dislike of spammers, I do not think this is TNTable. Tag it with NPOV, PROMOTIONAL and such templates, cut problematic materials, even gut it to a single lead sentence, but delete - if it is notable - I don't see why we should. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we have no clear rule on when to use WP:TNT. 5years ago, I was very reluctant to risk losing significant content, but now I see a priority in removing the half million existing promotional articles. -- and not adding to them, if we are to remain an encyclopedia. I suggest as a possible compromise, that they only be retained if someone is willign to personally take responsibility,instead of leaving it for the indefinite future. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The material in the article in the past does not honestly describe the subject, and omits important negative material. – I rewrote the article in October 2015. Your suggestion that my rewrite "does not honestly describe the subject" is unproven, offensive, and in very bad faith.

The negative material about the lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission surfaced one year after my rewrite in October 2016. I have updated the article to include this information.

Cunard (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even if it is a scam, it is a notable scam and eligible for inclusion on encyclopedia (sources are cited in the article and provided above in this discussion). Anup [Talk] 17:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  15:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Troy[edit]

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

Failed verification. While there are indications of notability per WP:MUSICBIO#C2, searching for Elizabeth Troy on the Official Charts Company website yields no results. Launchballer 12:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you search for the singles mentioned in the article you will get results and it is definitely her. See: Greater Love, Enough is Enough. Hold onto Me, Forever Young (2nd last entry). She seems to be credited as "XYZ FT Elizabth Troy" or similar difficult to parse-able names. Regarding notability, she seems to pass WP:MUSICBIO in several points. She had a several singles on the UK music charts, which were very likly aired in national broadcasting stations due to their chart positions. Sources are probably partially offline, because some of her work was in the 90s. Article should therefore not be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Likely keep per Dead Mary's research - being featured vocalist for multiple acts prima facie passes WP:NMUSIC, though I'd like RSes that are more than a passing mention in articles about Clean Bandit if we're to keep this BLP. (Also, the article needs some cleanup, saying the full band names.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are some RS: Washington Post reviews her "assured, diva level vocals" on "Sincere" with MJ Cole, Cape Times confirms she's a backing vocalist for Matt Bianco, Daily Mail describes her vocals on "Sincere," Straits Times mentions her work on "Sincere," Scotland on Sunday says that Troys's vocals elevate "Sincere," The Scotsman calls her vocals "honey tonsilled" and LA Times review of her performance in 2014 (along with others). These resources establish that she's a respected musician in her field. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - she is a regular part of Clean Bandit performances (which certainly meets notability guidelines). The structure of Clean Bandit is unusual in that it doesn't have a resident lead singer (apart from occasionally Grace Chatto). But since none of the permanent members of the band currently have their own biography pages then it seems inconsistent to list this one, given that Elisabeth Troy's primarily notability is for her work with that band. Shritwod (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Society of Change Ringers[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Dthomsen8 with the following rationale "remove prod &c.". I don't know what &c means, there was no edit summary or talk page comment, so it was essentially a no-rationale deprod. No refs have been added, and this remains what it was - a total failure at WP:Notability (organizations). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The organisation is not a total failure – it has been around for 282 years, which is longer than the USA, say. See also &c.. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not April Fools, so let's stick to arguments that are at least semi-grounded in policy. I have never seen as ridiculous agreement for keeping an entry for organization as "it is old". There are many trees older than that, not to mention rocks, not that we should entries for them, you know. This is WP:ITEXISTS fallacy. Please try to use WP:NCORP or WP:GNG to base your arguments in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the links that Piotrus provides are policies; not one of them. My position is based on three separate policies: WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD and WP:NOTPAPER. Three policies trump three non-policies. Andrew D. (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Piotrus – just for information, "&c" is another way (not so common now in the 21st century) of writing "etc" or "et cetera". Richard3120 (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was able to find a few brief sources on the society: BBC, a book on Oxford, St. Giles bell history website, but nothing in depth. Notability, if this society has it, will be in offline sources. There is some verifiable material; are there any decent merge/redirect targets? --Mark viking (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not much in digitized books (Jan Morris (2001). Oxford. Oxford University Press. pp. 115–. ISBN 978-0-19-280136-4. is the only mention I see). There may be some coverage in non-digitized newspapers, but I'd expect it to be local, and not very helpful in establishing notability even if found :( I think I suggested a while ago that most organizations in Category:Bell ringing societies in England have notability problems, but nobody found even a good source for the notability of Bell ringing societies in England as a topic. There is List of bell ringing organisations, which may be best and which could provide a bit more info on each relevant organization, particularly since the concept of bell ringing is not yet stubbed, neither... PS. Or we could list members at Central Council of Church Bell Ringers? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC source is good enough as it is quite respectable and confirms the age of the institution. As it's so old, I'd expect there to be offline sources which a Google search won't reveal easily – like back issues of The Ringing World. We have a Wikimedian-in-residence at Oxford who has good access to the Bodleian and may be able to help with such topics. I was invited to an Oxford Wikimeet recently; I'll visit and see what can be done. Andrew D. (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be good to ask them. Let's however keep in mind that WP:NOTNEWS, and while BBC is reliable, not everything they write about is notable. And if all we have to go with is a passing mention that "Foo organization, which is one of the oldest Foo organizations in UK, had a party" or something like this - it is not the stuff that makes it encyclopedic. We write only about important, i.e. notable organizations, and they have to meet GNG. 2-3 short sentences in passing do not suffice for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added some reliable sources. the Oxford University Press book has details form which the article can be expanded. This is yet another example of an old organization for which sources are readily available that has a brief and poorly sourced article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:COMMON. I'm assuming that nominator is unfamiliar with English life, so will not realise the role played by change ringers. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 11 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 01:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanot Rajputs[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it is WP:NOTABLE. Previous sources were unreliable. Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:52, 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 05:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one "keep" does not establish more than passing mentions.  Sandstein  20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magsi[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:52, 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 05:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshana Ronen[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Zigzig20s with the rather unhelpful following rationale "I "otherwise" object.". Well, I already stated my arguments: this person does not seem to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Comments? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus, as a side note, why don't you try to improve/expand articles instead of deleting them? You may have a point with this one, seen as it's a stub, but this deletionist pattern has a chilling effect.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: because having created several thousand of articles, those days I am distressed by the flood of spam we are dawning in. See WP:CORPSPAM for an Op-Ed I wrote on this. If I can create a chilling effect for spam... that would be great. Sadly, I don't believe my efforts are putting much of a dent in the spammers campaign to dilute our content with their vanity/PR content. But I try my best - as much as I'd love to go back to content creation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a philosopher is "spam". The way I see it, we'd need to flesh out what her philosophical ideas/contributions are, and thus add to the "the sum of all human knowledge". I would highly encourage you to make yourself happy and refocus on content creation!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a spam in the meaning of failing WP:NBIO, through I certainly would see it as a much better "spam" than entry for some company. But the bottom line is - not all philosophers are notable. If you want to talk about her as a researcher, you have to show how she meets WP:PROF. Just working at a university and publishing a few books or articles which have had negligible impact is not enough to make it to an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She publishes in Polish and you speak Polish apparently. Why don't you try to expand her article instead of deleting it? My fear is that you're not just creating a chilling effect on spam, but on content creation as a whole. Please stop, and try to expand/improve articles!Zigzig20s (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Expand with what? There are no sources about her, Polish or otherwise. What am I supposed to write about her? That she exists? That is already in the article, and this is not sufficient to be in an encyclopedia. Find me a better source and I'll reconsider. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are matches on JSTOR for example. In Polish, could you not find more articles in the press or academic reviews of her books?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Matches, well, two (good finds though). Her 2015 article is not cited by anyone (but it is just a years old, so I can't criticize her for that). But the only other thing I see here is a 3 page edited volume introduction. I can't find her in Polish scientist database. I can't find her CV. I am sorry, but as a scholar she fails WP:PROF by a long-shot, and I were to say anything good it is that she has published one article with potential (her 2015), and maybe if she keeps it up and publishes in better venues she will be notable in few years. At best it is WP:TOOSOON. If the creator would like to, we could userfy the article, through sadly they don't seem to want to participate in this discussion so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing here for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, nothing else better otherwise. SwisterTwister talk
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Spam floods and chilling affects aside, this sort of academic stub that lists just positions and a few publications, without even any honors to validate the subject's accomplishments, adds too little value to the encyclopedia to make it worth fighting to keep it. The Polish version is better, with several specific claims (directs a department, specializes in some research topics, advocates for liberal Judaism) but still doesn't provide convincing evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tiny cites on GS. Far WP:Too soon.Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 11 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. Consensus is that this television program is notable. North America1000 23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Membou[edit]

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

Non-notable and full of WP:REDLINKS. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gronstedt Group[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. "References" are mostly articles by founder. Should possibly have been an A7, but another author misread the purpose of inherited. reddogsix (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no credible claim to notability. I have the same concerns about the biography of the company's namesake Anders Gronstedt, which was written by the same account and is similarly weighted with primary sources, articles by Mr. Gronstedt. 2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY, like so many other pages here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Should possibly have been an A7, but another author misread the purpose of inherited" - are you talking about me? Adam9007 (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as certainly advertising and there are no sensible signs this can actually be accepted, therefore there's nothing to suggest anything close to otherwise better. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just added 19 more secondary sources (16 journals and three books) that reference work by the Gronstedt Group, which should address the concerns that the article relies too much on primary resources and doesn’t meet the notability guidelines. I’ve also done substantial rewrites to remove promotional content and added encyclopedic content. ClarkeCaywood (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:REFBOMBing doesn't work. Not a notable company, at least at this point. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable entity. Anup [Talk] 17:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I pruned the number of references and left the most reliable ones, including detailed client case studies reported in books by industry leading professors, published by Stanford Business Books, Pfiffer, and McGraw-Hill, and a case in the Harvard Business Review. This is perhaps the most notable professional service firm in its industry. ClarkeCaywood (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - only one !vote per person. reddogsix (talk) 18:30, 13 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavan's Vidya Mandir, Irinjalakuda[edit]

Bhavan's Vidya Mandir, Irinjalakuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page consist entirely of WP:OR by a student who goes to the school (see this diff). Content of the page is that of a school's website. Not encyclopedic material. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. One can find some refs here. Anup [Talk] 10:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I've been watching this AfD and we'll note we have always accepted secondary schools and with that basis alone. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a secondary school that exists. It is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) . TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zsolt Aubel[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable youth striker; career lasted 1991-99. Quis separabit? 04:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArcticStartup[edit]

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

A7 Material. Removed by someone for their personal reason. Now here to waste community time on this one. No depth coverage. Only for promotional and nothing else. This is being used to build many Wikipedia Spam like The Next Web , YourStory or many others. Light2021 (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who removed the speedy tag for my personal reason, and wishes to waste community time — or whatever this strange nominator is getting at. It's obviously not a speedy candidate, as being "the largest Northern European media company reporting on the development of growth companies in the region" is an assertion of notability and, if duly sourced, would probably make the publication notable. Notability of small media companies is difficult, as they are known mostly by their works, not by people writing articles about them. It is clear from a google news search[43] that the company exists, it is real, it publishes content, and other sources sometimes talk about what the company publishes. However, most of these are relatively minor, passing mentions in minor sources. In the context of an AfD, as opposed to an inapt speedy, I'll scour the sources if I have a chance to see if there are enough to support an article. Right now it's looking iffy. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am afraid I have to agree with nom that by declining this deletion User:Wikidemon is not doing us a good service. The largest claim is not sufficient for notability (do you see it at WP:NCOMPANY or GNG or anywhere else?), it is not properly referenced, neither. I have to point to WP:CORPSPAM - this kind of spam should not be here. It would be better if we could speedy more of it, rather then spend time here trying to save some spammer's creation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This nomination appears somewhat WP:POINTed, and declining the speedy was fully understandable in context. That said, the article really does have serious problems. (Comparisons to YourStory, which has been blacklisted, are apt and damning, and a a closer look for spamming couldn't hurt.) Searching for reliable, independent coverage of the website, I'm finding nothing substantial. There are plenty of passing quotes taken from them, a couple of interviews and puff pieces, but non-superficial coverage in reliable sources is what's needed, and I don't see it. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt, as TechCrunch itself is not a good and convincing comparison because that website itself has become a powerhouse of publishing and republishing advertising and it seems this website is fitting it, therefore that summarizes it to something not at all convincing and nothing that can be based from non-advertising sources therefore delete. I suggest Salting with the sole basis of a 2009 deletion and the fact this was then literally restarted, therefore we should play it safe and have to go AfC before touching mainspace again. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (user author): ArticStartup's Arctic15 is the most influential and popular startup conference in the Nordic region, and has attracted over 20 international speakers - including Justin Waldron, Trip Hawkins and Paul Bragiel, and has been covered by reputable organizations such as The Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, New Europe, and the Helsinki Times. I'll admit that the article does need cleanup, and I'm adding sources now. JenniBee (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles from reputable organizations that cover ArcticStartup and the Arctic15 conference - MarketWatch, The Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch. New Europe. JenniBee (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that since this is a Nordic company, it is referenced a lot more in Finnish sources. For example - ArcticStartup and Arctic15 are covered extensively in the notable Finnish language business magazine, Talouselama (see the relevant Google searches: ArcticStartup, Arctic15). Since it is OK to use a foreign language source when the source is notable and it contains information that isn't available in notable English sources (in this case, it is, as it gives significant information on the profit and growth of the company), I've added to the article with more information and references. JenniBee (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One, there is no inherited notability from anything or anyone else, and second, every single source listed is published and republished PR by what the company wants to advertise about itself, and I've noted it above and it shows in the article as it is. Even with Finnish sources, it would perhaps still be questionable, and given everything else, there's still enough to suggest deletion would be best. "significant information on the profit and growth of the company", that may be, but that's not automatically establishing notability, especially if its only methods of causing that are by advertising itself, including in these listed links. I'll then note nearly all of the listed links are websites we've pegged as being notoriously "republish PR", so the fact these may be the best there is, is self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why many of the English websites rely on public relations materials is because of the language barrier - the website itself is in English, but the convention (which is what gives ArcticStartup notability) is in Finland, so much of the event is in Finnish. Arctic15 is known as the premier convention for startups in the Nordic region. That's the reason why notable publications like Wall Street Journal go to ArcticStartup for the CEO's opinion on Nordic startups (as noted above). Neither The Wall Street Journal article nor the articles on Talouselama are public relations articles (there is a wealth of information in the Finnish sources that aren't public relations pieces). Arctic15 has brought investors into Finland ( http://www.talouselama.fi/kasvuyritykset/arktisia-kasvajia-kovat-nimet-koolla-arctic15-startuptapahtumassa-3429149 ), has included entrepreneurs from English speaking countries as speakers (as noted in the article), and is used as a source in regards to Nordic startups by organizations deemed notable by English Wikipedia (WSJ, as I noted previously, and CNBC ( http://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/16/the-global-entrepreneurship-boom-is-about-jobs.html ) for example). Talouselama itself is a reliable mainstream outlet - and there is a lot of articles that aren't "fluff" pieces in that magazine. It has significant independent coverage from reliable sources - especially the Finnish journals - and is sought out by English speaking sources for it's expertise in Nordic startups. Because of that, it meets the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. JenniBee (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ and CNBC articles are poor for notability, as the mentions are very brief and provide little context about the site, merely calling it "a technology blog" as context for a quote from the CEO. The Talouselama linked is better (I think), but as a source it's limited in circulation and focused by both topic and region, which does diminish its weight somewhat (WP:AUD). Even with that focus, it's still surprisingly brief. I am reluctant to use Google Translate, but if that's accurate, it's not particularly good for WP:CORPDEPTH, either. It's usable, and better than nothing, but it's underwhelming. Yes, non-English sources absolutely can be used, but is that source actually providing any information that's not available anywhere else? Also, asking us to do a Google search is understandable, but not persuasive when we likely don't actually speak the language, so can you tell us if that is the best coverage in the magazine? If that's what's going on, it's not a good sign, but I'm hoping you can show otherwise.
Event listings are only slightly more useful than press releases, per WP:ROUTINE and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, and sources which focus on the conference should be evaluated with that in mind. I am also curious why this website is only published in the English language, but is so extensively covered by Finnish-language sources. Who is the intended audience? I'm not sure if it even matters, but it would make evaluating sources easier. Grayfell (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the linking to Google. I've been searching for sources, and wanted to update the article to reflect that before the AfD went on with the article in the poor shape that it was. The two articles linked in the article by Talouselama: This one goes into detail about the change in ownership and the resulting growth of the company: http://www.talouselama.fi/kasvuyritykset/kasvuyritystapahtuma-arctic15-jarjestaja-paasi-hyvaan-kasvuun-taru-oli-vahalla-loppua-3476950 This one details the growth of the Arctic15 event in its second year, and how it has brought investors into Finland: http://www.talouselama.fi/kasvuyritykset/arktisia-kasvajia-kovat-nimet-koolla-arctic15-startuptapahtumassa-3429149 This one details how Antti Vilpponen planned to close ArcticStartup in 2012 before it was transferred over (mentioned in the article, but this source details it better): http://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/kasvuyrityssivusto-ei-loytanyt-kumppania-tai-rahoitusta-lopettaa-yritystoiminnan-3429936 Half of the site's traffic is from Finland and other Nordic regions, and the convention is held in Helsinki, so that's likely why it gets more coverage in Finnish sources. Finland has a history of English language journalism in a Finnish speaking nation, as Helsinki Times is also is in English. JenniBee (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an article on Kauppalehti about the awards at Arctic 15: http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/smarp-pitchasi-voittoon-startup-tapahtumassa/Cu6NHq62 There's likely more articles in Finnish sources, but it'll take a while for me to scour through them as it's harder than finding English sources (I have to search each publication on Google individually as Google News doesn't aggregate most Finnish language sources and there is no news aggregator on google.fi). JenniBee (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both Wired and The Economist cite Arctic Startup as being central to the recent Nordic entrepreneurial boom: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/helsinki http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570834-nordic-region-becoming-hothouse-entrepreneurship-if-doubt-innovate JenniBee (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any legit claim to being "central" in either of those sources. Both are passing mentions which treat the blog as an indicator of Finland's startup activity, definitely not as a central part of it. "Paraphernalia" is not central. They are no better than the CNBC and WSJ mentions. Grayfell (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point. Those two sources are highly regarded in the business field, and the fact that they cited ArcticStartup as an indicator of the startup boom in Finland (and note that they didn't mention any of ArcticStartup's competitors such as Slush) certainly adds to the company's notability. JenniBee (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think additional Finnish sources might be more useful, but these are weak. These add to the company's notability, but very little. Being an indicator of something else is not the same as being central. Notability is not inherited. The notability of the scene doesn't translate to every product of that scene. Wired only gives one sentence to mentioning Arctic Startup, in passing, as an example product of the scene. It's definitely not describing it as central to that scene. The Economist is even worse for this: The country has also acquired the paraphernalia of a tech cluster, such as a celebratory blog (Arctic Startup) and a valley-related name (Arctic Valley). That's as passing as they get, and "celebratory blog" is harsh, if not downright condescending, to the company, and should be weighed accordingly.
Slush looks like it needs a ton of work, and Finnish startup scene is even worse. There are too many bad articles out there, so precedent isn't very persuasive. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for more on that. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above, "being involved in a starting company boom in Finland" itself in fact it's not yet notable and especially if all that is available are said trivial mentions, therefore simply naming the fact the news publication is a major one, is not meaning anything, because the contents themselves are still trivial. In all this time and the amount of apparent searching, nothing has shown of actual significance, therefore it states enough there's simply no substantial improvements to be made. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promo page on an unremarkable event. Sources presented at this AfD have not been sufficient to warrant an encyclopedia entry, I am afraid. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 11 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. Hut 8.5 17:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Q. Lan[edit]

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

Could not quite figure out what this guy does, but none of the sources cited seem to be actually about him. Ref no. 3, the webpage of AADCU, his main company/venture/organization/whatever, is a dead link. Googling does not produce much either. Nsk92 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Reliable, independent sources. The Baidu site is, I believe, something like Wikipedia. In other words, it is not Reliable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Baidu Baike is an online, collaboratively built encyclopedia, just like Wikipedia. Baike is also censored by the government. I've removed all the Baike refs. Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
of course find sources of Bruce Q, Lan Just would be try best for impoving of the page of Brcuce Q.Lan, Bruce is a very important figuer make contrubution to the field of architecture design, acting like designer,curator and editor, not only in China, but also to United States and Europe. Over 40 architectural books he curated and edited and published, he used to work with someone like Eric Owen Moss, Neil Denari,Hernan Diaz Alonso ect. if you know these guys how important to Amrican's architecture design, then you know what Bruce is... he worked in Beijing, no wonder sources come from Baidu,yeah...since the chinese verison Wikipedia has been blocked by chinese government, like google and other USA's internet media, so today the Baidu is the only and leading source to Chinese society, in the article of Bruce Q. Lan, the source link of his published books, you can find half sources from library database of University of Illinois, The Ohio State University and Getty Institution,here looking forward to hear from you guys again... many thanks!Susanzone77 (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
edits:

Thanks Bgwhite for the edits, I got it to know for next article submitt.Susanzone77 (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there appears to be not a single source about this person, rather than publications edited by him. The walls of citations and excuses do not help. In the end, the page is little more than a resume. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything in the references that resembles and independent, reliable source saying something about the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KB-HomeSucks.com[edit]

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

Couple of mentions from a couple of years ago for this website don't add up to notability per GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 7 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mannequin Challenge[edit]

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

This article is not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. It has little content and is unlikely to develop any further. It is also written very poorly and the sources are not credible. NikolaiHo☎️ 01:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not-yet-sufficiently-notable. The main purpose of this article is as a youtube/twitter-link magnet where WP editors cherry-pick examples of the topic. But instead, WP is an encyclopedia that requires notability of the topic itself via multiple independent references, and references to determine/highlight "notable examples" (to use the article's section-title). It's yet another hit'n'run job by User:NotablePeopleFan and related SPAs that seems primarily written to highlight what he feels is interesting about his school. No. DMacks (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Made it to CNN this morning [44] and Washington Post. [45] It was featured/reproduced on FOX Sports NFL Sunday and a number of NFL teams contributed their videos too. [46] Significant trend, even if one thinks it is odd/silly. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum - the University of Kentucky got the entire home arena at a basketball game to do a video. It's a thing. [47] -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep –  Poor writing and lack of content are not criteria for article deletion, nor is lack of posted citations, and certainly other articles by an editor cannot be used as leverage to delete a discrete article. Our *policies* are that there are WP:alternatives to deletion WP:BEFORE an article may even be nominated for deletion. Like the Pet Rock, the Mannequin Challenge may be a fad, but it is a fad with enough legs that future anthropologists will appreciate having an encyclopedia article on it. Cheers!, {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's all over the news and influencing professional sports teams, famous musicians and millions of young people across the country. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article states "It is considered a form of freeze mob or flash mob..." I suggest the article's content be merged with flash mob, and that both mannequin challenge and freeze mob be redirects to flash mob. Given that freeze mob doesn't even exist yet, and (based on a search for "freeze" or "frozen") flash mob only seems to include one instance which would be referred to as such (see reference: "Time Freezes in Central London"), it doesn't make sense to me for mannequin challenge to exist as a separate article. Other thoughts before I decided to recommend "Merge"... For comparison with regard to notability, I looked at ice bucket challenge and see that the initial revision only included 4 "Notable Participants", which is far less than the number of "Notable Instances" in mannequin challenge. So that's an argument for "Keep". But perhaps supporting "Delete" is the fact that, according to the article, the trend was only started 2 weeks ago. Gmporr (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on the fence about the notability of this, but given that the characteristics of the Mannequin Challenge and Flash Mob are entirely different, I would oppose a merge. By characteristics, I'm referring to the manner in which they begin. Flash mobs form suddenly, disperse suddenly. That's not what mannequin challenges do. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your feedback makes sense. I wish the article had a reference as to why it's "considered a form of freeze mob or flash mob" 'cause I do agree that they seem to have very different characteristics. So my "Merge" recommendation is based on the assumption that a mannequin challenge really is considered (by whom?) to be a type of flash/freeze mob. Gmporr (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gmporr and Hammersoft: - I have removed the "flash mob" or "freeze mob" since it is not supported by any of the sources. The logic behind arguing that is should not be a separate article because it is a flash mob is odd. Now that it is removed, it should clear the path for the article to exist on its own. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fuzheado: Thanks for the article update & the ping. My reasoning for the merge (prior to your removal of the flash mob reference) was that it would be a reasonable alternative to deletion if the consensus turns out to be that the topic isn't notable enough to merit its own article. Gmporr (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination says this is "unlikely to develop any further" yet we have no clue what the future holds for this trend. The nomination also indicates that being poorly written is a reason for deletion. It's not (see WP:RUBBISH). The nomination states the sources are not credible. At the time of the nomination, there were few sources. Now, there's 30. That brings us to the last point; is it notable per Wikipedia guidelines? Given there's now sources from literally dozens of reliable news outlets, WP:GNG is clearly passed. More needs to be done to improve the article, but the state of the article is not a deletion reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this passes WP:GNG.. Even Hillary Clinton led her campaign team in doing one. here, here and here. TushiTalk To Me 14:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this passes WP:GNG. It has been covered by many high quality sources such as New York Times, Time Magazine, NPR, and others. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Definitely notable. — Gestrid (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just made it to the White House. [48] Grossmisconduct (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those of you who might wish to discredit Grossmisconduct's 'vote' because he's been here 8 years and has less than 50 edits; please keep in mind AfD isn't a vote. This link provided by Grossmisconduct from usatoday.com clearly shows the prevalence and notability of the mannequin challenge. That's what matters here. This further substantiates my earlier post that we don't know the future, and the nominator's claim that this won't develop further has been proven false. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kholida[edit]

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

I couldn't verify notability. With no reliable sources at all, best to delete this one-line stub rather than merge unverifiable info. Boleyn (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 7 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the River Valley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to find any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clear advertising, especially the fact the account was advertising-only but that the article literally says "The company services are....and the company now wants to say", there's nothing better beyond that hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient WP:GNG. Royalbroil 07:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_November_7&oldid=1142620984"