Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 November	9 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestle Circus[edit]

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

A regional wrestling promotion with less than a month. The promotion didn't recieved attention from third party sources. No notable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I ask for deletion these articles WrestleCircus Ringmaster Championship, List of WrestleCircus events and WrestleCircus Sideshow Championship --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insignificant wrestling promotion lacking coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO sign of notability whatsoever. Scorpion293 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 04:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No third-party coverage. It might be out there somewhere, but I assume it is not. South Nashua (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all they have had a sum total of one show so far. MPJ-DK 03:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of these. No evidence of notability whatever, and they haven't been around long enough to generate it. FalconK (talk) 09:26, 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. Redirects can be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ashworth[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Can't find anything substantial on Google, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD contains crap like "I also think she seems notable enough" and "Notable enough" - Not one source was ever provided so I wouldn't bother wasting your time reading it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time we elimanated all articles from WIkipedia that have as their only source IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. I found a resume [[1]] but nothing independent and substantial. MB 04:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genie in the House, or The Sarah Jane Adventures, the latter appears to be the motivation for this set of articles. Deletion and a redlink is just clickbait to re-create the article. Bluelinks can be expanded if she adds more credits. That said, "delete if only IMDb is the source" is poor logic; per WP:HEY it is better to improve the sourcing. Montanabw^(talk) 07:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw - If any articles I nominate are deleted I then delink them with Twinkle so there's no redlinks, Ofcourse I have no objections to redirecting :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Genie in the House. (Ashworth is not mentioned in that other article) I found no reliable sources to support notability. Perhaps there's a difference between 'having only IMDb as a source' and 'citing only IMDb as a source'. Gab4gab (talk) 14:19, 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 speedy keep. / Withdrawn - As I've said below I don't have access to offline sources and didn't want to simply assume there was offline sources when there wasn't - E.M.Gregory has confirmed there is indeed sources offline so I'm happy with that so closing as Withdrawn, Thanks, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hollis Andrews[edit]

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

Non notable actress, She was only active for a year and although she's been in 2 notable films there's nothing to confirm this source-wise,Ofcourse there may be sources offline however that would be a wild guess,
Also the article states "Sarah Hollis Andrews was an English child actress" so I'm not sure whether this means she was a child actress and is now an adult .. or whether it means she's passed away - Either way unfortunately there's nothing source-wise on her,
There are alot of results on Google Books however from what I can find they're all just mentions - If anyone can find anything I'd be happy to withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davey2010 Typed "Sarah Hollis" and "Secret Garden" into a proquest news archive search. Articles on all the major English-language media in the 1970s. Not surprising, given the popularity of that book. I don't have time to improve the article now, but the sources are there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory - Unfortunately I don't have access to any offline sources - Obviously I realize most sources would be offline however I didn't want to assume there is offline sources when there isn't, Anyway thanks for looking and confirming there is - Usually I would ask for sources however you're a massive content creator here so I obviously believe you, Anyway shall withdraw, Thanks again for looking and confirming- much appreciated. –Davey2010^Talk 00:33, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julia G. Krivoruchko[edit]

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

Quite not notable scholar Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

notable like Nicholas de Lange in the field of Judaeo-Greek studies. Informationskampagne (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is nonsense. de Lange has far higher cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete scholar who fails WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS citations are feeble. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all convincing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, clearly too soon in her career. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOLAR. Yoninah (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the preliminary aspects that might lead to WP:PROF / WP:AUTHOR are present, it appears that the subject is just too soon to meet notability standards. I would have no objection to userifying the article until the day when it's ready for prime time. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:SCHOLAR. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand now your objections, although I do not appreciate words like "nonsense" (wiki surely looses (potential) users, because of such word selection and behavior, or because of complexification of things that are not so complicated), but I still would like to emphasize the aspect of a neglected field, that has not a lot of researchers to talk about them; here we have now a researcher, with a lot o publications on this topic. Informationskampagne (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the Onasis Foundation award is significant. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The award is just a scholarship, which does not contribute to notability in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Tools[edit]

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

WP:NOTMANUAL. PROD removed by article creator. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant promotion. I've already speedied it once. Deb (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely nothing close to both significance and genuine improvements for an article, because there's not even a basic acceptance of anything here. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden times nigeria[edit]

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

I PRODed this article before the creator removed the template without solving the problems it has with not passing WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I add that it does not pass the criteria in the WP:NPERIODICAL essay. FalconK (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; no reliable sources about this periodical. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty & Stones[edit]

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

Literally none of this actually establishes independent notability and substance and my own searches found nothing but these same local news stories, there's basically nothing at all for both convincing and an actually acceptable article, account was literally solely used for this one article. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in The Swazi Observer a Swaziland national newspaper here which is substantial coverage in a long article, also has other newspaper coverage and passes WP:GNG. The band is not just local because they have had airplay internationally including Ireland. A lot of new editors are put off by the deletion process as this one may have been as it went through BLPPROD shortly after creation. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing on Google save for the above source and one other. Having a feature in a Swaziland paper is nowhere near enough to establish notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Swaziland is a small country but not tiny, it has a population of 1.15 million. AFC guidance for GNG are 2 rs sources so this should pass despite constant efforts to raise the GNG bar without consensus. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, the population of Swaziland is irrelevant to this discussion. In that regard, then every American band warrants a Wikipedia article no matter how minimal their presence, based on our population alone. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point I meant was that a Swaziland national newspaper should not be discounted due to the size of Swaziland Atlantic306 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Simply being a national newspaper is not itself an automatic basis of notability, exactly what we would say about every other country, and therefore there's next the considerations of what the contents are, and in this case, it's a local news story about a local band, and the others found are exactly this. Therefore to found a single "It's notable because of a local news story" is not at all convincing and we have established as such at basically any other AfD, regardless of even what the subject was; as is the fact it was featured in Ireland simply as part of trivial airplay, that itself is not convincing.
      Then "A lot of new editors are put off by the deletion process" is not something that should affect how deletion is and still works, because like anything, deletion is necessary to remove the unconvincing articles, this one included. WP:GNG is not applicable when the concerns are outweighed by the fact the article is still an unconvincing article, and there being nothing else to substantiate a better article, there's nothing to improve. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree, it is a national paper article about a national band that has won three national awards and received international airplay Atlantic306 (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If this band has supposedly received international airplay and won awards, why are there no third-party sources to back it up? sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple articles in the Swazi Observer (I count three), coverage in the Times of Swaziland (added to the article), coverage by the Mail and Guardian, a couple of posts in South African arts blogs. Coverage over 4 years in multiple news outlets in different countries, certainly seems to pass GNG. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:30, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Amatangelo[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements. Kbabej (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete television critic who lacks reliable sources about her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG (Couldn't find any independent coverage about her). Our article seems to be inspired from her website's about section. Anup [Talk] 00:01, 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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel J. Nelson[edit]

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

An author with only two self-published books. The second book published four days ago. Fails WP:AUTHOR. There's also a COI going on. Prod was removed. Bgwhite (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO for very young (b. 1998) writer. Zero sources found in my search. Perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Age isn't an issue (there are plenty of people born in 1998 with Wikipedia articles), but obvious non-notability, PROMO and COI. Years active 2016– ?… All sources are Nathaniel J. Nelson's own website. Perhaps he will grow into someone notable enough, but for now, Delete. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's nothing here for notability as an author including library collections. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is all sourced to the subjects own web-pages plus an entry on Amazon about a book of his. Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for 18-year-old college students to broadcast about a long literary career.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like there's some long term self-promotion going on with this author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Software[edit]

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

Non notable WP:MILL company with no sources. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as literally not changed since it was noticeably started for sole advertising motivations hence that says alone, what makes it worse is the fact (1) it has never changed, and instead kept exactly like this and (2) the fact there's then literally nothing else to suggest this company is actually significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 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. The "keep" opinions must be disregarded because they do not address, let alone rebut, the policy-based deletion rationale that there are no reliable sources treating this topic (see, WP:V and WP:NOR). This does not preclude a sourced recreation as proposed by Neutrality. Sandstein 12:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by date of uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power[edit]

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

This article lacks evidence that RSs cover "uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power". The definition of "uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power" is inherently imprecise - what about the US civil war? What about countries that gradually evolve to become democracies? We need RSs to agree on a definition before we start making lists - but there is little evidence RSs have done so. Most countries that have become democracies at a precise date commemorate that date, and don't pay much, if any attention to the date when power first changed hands, etc, etc, etc. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose there was an article "list of humans by largest feet size", with a citation to a RS saying someone had the largest feet ever. But now we have a problem. What if someone has one foot larger than another? What are we ranking by - foot volume, foot length, foot width? What if someone has a medical condition that makes temporarily swollen - does that count or only the regular unswollen size? Now, if there are lots of RSs that deal with this issue we let them sort these issues out for themselves and report on their conclusion. But there is no evidence RSs have evolved an unambiguous definition of "uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power" and assigned it weight.NPalgan2 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion, just improvement. --162.248.67.4 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Q ^{T C} 19:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Apparently this page is being featured today on Reddit, so expect a lot of traffic to the article -- and maybe to here. I'm not sure today was a good today to begin an AfD discussion of this page... Herostratus (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is impossible to fix the article. How would you deal with the issues raised? NPalgan2 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by working on the talk page. The phrase "date of uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power" is fairly easy to parse and understand. "date" we understand as meaning "a point in history", and "uninterrupted" as "continuing with no interruption" (with "interruption" being "to disturb or halt an established process") and similarly "peaceful" is an English word that has meaning and so does the phrase "transfer of power" in the sense of changing the administration of a state.

Even if we could do all those things, this article would still violate WP:SYN. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course at the margins you can have discussion over what exactly does or does not constitute a "peaceful transfer of power". But intelligent humans can discuss these things and arise at reasonable consensus, I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can we do that without violating WP:NOR? NPalgan2 (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable point. I think we ought to be able to, but I haven't studied the matter, so I no longer feel sure. Herostratus (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for OR concerns. One man's peaceful transition is another man's...well, there are options. Mobocracy, for instance. And while I'm on the topic, why is Germany listed "since" 1969? Why not 1948? These things/dates are obviously not self-evident. Would the German federal election, July 1932 have counted as "peaceful"? or the Enabling Act of 1933? Drmies (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can point to reliable sources that could enable this page to be improved to meet Wikipedia standards (particularly WP:SYN). Grover cleveland (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the information is not interesting (just a list of dates when a country started having uninterrupted elections?) or accurate (Civil war ignored so USA can have the #1 spot). T0lk (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix - Nominee has presented no policy-based reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list title is so vague no one knows that exactly it means, violating WP:LISTV#INC. And there is no evidence RSs cover this issue, so we can't pick a criterion without violating WP:WEIGHT and also we can't 'fix' it without violating WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't zero in on one particular feature but I can't shake the feeling that this entire affair has been created to advance the ludicrous notion that United States of America is number one in peaceful transitions, and the bestest country in the would -- that is, if one discounts the fact that the country was split down the middle and drenched in gore during the Civil War. It's so absurd that I just can't get past it. So much so that the list as currently composed is a violation of WP:POV, and in a sense, WP:COAT. The United States Civil War, which accounted for more American deaths than in all other U.S. wars combined, was not peaceful. Abraham Lincoln being democratically re-elected by voters not residing in the Confederate States of America -- who were at war and busily trying to kill those who were voting in that election -- doesn't make this a period of peaceful transition. Delete as currently composed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gut the article (removing unsourced content) and then merge/redirect to a new page, peaceful transition of power or power transition in democracies. The concept is noteworthy and appears to some extent in the academic literature (but should not be confused with power transition theory, which deals with a separate concept in international relations). I don't think there's sufficient sources for a list article. Neutrality^talk 18:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: Hi, good idea; can you suggest a reference in a political science encyclopedia or similar RS that gives a definition of "peaceful transition of power" that could be used to kickstart such article. I searched a bit but couldn't find anythin goodNPalgan2 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political Transitions in Dominant Party Systems: Learning to Lose (Routledge, 2008) (an anthology) seems relevant. Neutrality^talk 05:14, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trekamerica[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. Lots of references that show that this company exists, but no real indication of notability. Reads like an advertisement. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 19:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A nicely written article on a topic with no encyclopedic notability.TheBlueCanoe 19:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Content within the article isn't notable by the standards outlined in various Wikipedia policies. heFinnapull thru 20:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it exists, but I'm not convinced of notability. If anyone finds good sources in the deep web, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sit 'n Sleep[edit]

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

Not entirely notable and the "advertising section" is weak. plus sources are from its own website Pyrusca (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising and this is existing from several years ago, the "advertising" section is especially unconvincing and of concern. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there is an LA Times article[2] about its memorable advertising slogan, this still doesn't pass the notability threshold.TheBlueCanoe 19:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the current sources in the article are weak, and it is, admittedly, a bit annoying having to sift through the copious amounts of advertisements that come up in searches, there are, in fact, multiple reliable sources that talk about the company. For example, the OC Register had this article discussing the company's support of veterans. And the Redlands Daily Facts and LA Sentinel have both had articles in the past talking about the company's charitable work, such as here and here. The Los Angeles Times also had a fluff piece on the company as well, as seen here. In addition to those, more in-depth sources, there are also shorter mentions in various minor sources, such as a brief talk about the effectiveness of its ad campaigns in this book, and some articles in minor publications like Furniture Today and some other small, trade publication. There's also this piece that talks a bit about the company's history, though as it seems rather like a promotion, and I never heard of the publication, I don't know if that one counts as a reliable source. Basically, in short, yeah, the article as it exists now is pretty bad and comes off as an advertisement, but there definitely are sources that talk about the company in less-than-advertisement ways. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CORP. No indication of in-depth significant coverage in RS. Above articles mentioning hiring vets, donating mattresses are local stories and insufficient to establish notability. MB 05:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources are insufficient; they are mostly about "local company does good" (i.e. routine). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Beal[edit]

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

Not notable. Hundreds of people are killed by police every year. Unless the subject himself is notable, or the aftermath is notable, there is no reason for an article on the person. Natureium (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - on the basis of WP:SUSTAINED, WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM. Recognizing that there is a considerable amount of media coverage and controversy around this shooting, it is unlikely to be sustained coverage, and it could just as well be included in a list article.TheBlueCanoe 19:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any sources, and we should avoid these knee-jerk creations of articles less than a week after an incident unless it is of clear noteworthy level. This guy was shot and killed in an altercation with people who happened to be off-duty police officers, but that is not really material since they were not on the clock. There have been weekends this year in Chicago in which over 30 people were shot. No grounds for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Per TheBlueCanoe. However, there is a protest about this shooting happening today, and if this keeps up, I might have to reconsider my position. Parsley Man (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For posterity's sake, I renamed the article to Shooting of Joshua Beal. Parsley Man (talk) 01:56, 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. to delete. The question of merging back into Deep house has not been decided here, and AFD is not the venue for that anyway. That is a matter for editorial judgement and can be resolved by normal discussion and editing. SpinningSpark 18:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future house[edit]

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

After a year since it was split from Deep house the sourcing remains woeful and lacks any substance. It fails the criteria of WP:MUSIC and redirected to its original position where it is better placed as a sub-genre. Karst (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't exist. Its not a genre. Its a collection of sounds a very small group of people have identified that they like. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Little actual problem with sourcing or substance, though it admittedly could do with a bit more of the latter. The "it's not a genre" argument has already been deconstructed previously so shall not retread old ground here. --Half past formerly SUFCboy 01:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I presume to refer to this discussion. Let's talk sources then. The Tchami interview is tagged with the term, but when asked, the subjects answers 'I don't know what Future House is. It's whatever you create that doesn't exist before you created it. Didn't mean to confuse anybody, but a lot of people asked me how to do future house.' In the second interview on Vice he notes 'Future house was not meant to be that narrowly oriented of an idea, in my mind, future house was meant to be 'any kind of house music that hasn’t been invented yet, so I never considered it as a genre.' That is extremely vague and puts it into the bracket of Neologisms I notice that it is mentioned on his own article, but the factual accuracy of that is disputed and the future house aspect unreferenced. I need to be rewritten. At least this interview with Laidback Luke provides a definition that describes future house as 'deep house garage mixed down in an EDM vibe'. That is vague and confirms to me that it is a subgenre of deep house and that is where it belongs. I noticed that his wikipedia article does not mention future house at all. The edmtunes.com article is quite dismissive of the term describing it as 'this form of future house can be more narrowly identified as “big-room deep house,” as it draws from elements of traditional house and blends them with a modern, EDM-friendly, structure. It’s not necessarily a sound made from thin air. An arguable reason as to why Tchami’s sound is so popular is because it’s an excellent modern take on an old sound'. Which proves the point that term is attached to one person specifically and cannot be considered a genre in itself. There simply is not the sourcing for it. And that Vicetone article reads like a regurgitated press-release. At least when looking at the deep house article there are citations such as the Simon Reynolds book. A search turns up very little in the way of sourcing. Redirecting it would retain much of the content and provide the opportunity to expand it should more reliable sources appear. Karst (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article definitely could use some work/clean-up, but the "fact" of future house has been reinforced by its addition as a distinct genre by Beatport, the relevance of which was underscored by an article in Billboard describing it as a "newer genre" and lamenting its having been "lumped into...deep house." Heidigirl.payne (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genre tags on Beatport does not indicate notability, reliable sources do. Karst (talk) 16:19, 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 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We almost always delete "new genre of music" articles. see WP:MUSICOUTCOMES for older examples. For newer examples, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hauntology_(musical_genre), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_metal_(genre), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ratchet_(music_genre), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rain_dance_(music_genre), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alternative_bubblegum_pop, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_fantasy_metal, all in the past six years. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure how this discussion thing works, but I'll give it a try. So, how do genres work ? If you look for some specific sound, you put that into search engine and see what comes out - if the name corresponds to the sound you are after - genre definition works. On other hand should we reinforce this link or break it ? As I understand it, one goes against W policy on genres, another gives an insight on what is going on. Now, Tchami called it future house, and I think it works - when someone asks for Tchami like sound and looks for deep house, confusion arises, when someone points to future house - everything goes in the right direction. By keeping this genre separate from deep house, maybe we can finally solve the confusion and by reinforcing the difference fans will add and fix required references. I'm tired of ppl coming into discussion meaning one thing and saying another. I'm not that well versed in how W articles should be created, but I try my best to help here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.216.103.75 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think it should be merged back into the "deep house" article as this new genre will definitely be prominent in the future, say in two years time. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 10:34, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kenyon-Slaney[edit]

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

Literally every GNews hit about this person is/was on the article (before I purged an 11-ref CITEKILL), and they're all name drops. No indication of significance or notability. I can't even find verification about his charitable contributions to Macmillian, which one would think would be a big deal. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I tagged the article for notability after searching, and finding nothing to support notability. Mere PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete The person of whom this article concerns is not notable to any degree in par with the standards outlined in various Wikipedia policies. nice TIMBS my guy (talk) 20:10, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Algoworks[edit]

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

Doesn't follows WP:CORP, should be deleted. -AbhishekIndore (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing anything for WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 19:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt given there was a G12 copyvio before this one started, and it still matters even though it was 7 years ago, because the account in this current article was an advertising-only, therefore I can only imagine someone would eventually consider both a G11 and G12 later, hence this seriously would need WP:AFC review before ever getting to mainspace. As for the current article, it's literally and unsurprisingly only focused with what a general business listing would ever care to note, especially the fact there's, not only PR awards emphasized, but the sources are PR, this in itself says enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 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 21:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VIPole[edit]

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

This entry clearly fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and the claims of 500k downloads are unsubstantiated by the link (Installations Entre 100 000 et 500 000) Domdeparis (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advertising article about a company, it just presents a few facts about a free encrypted messenger that offers the same features as Telegram and Skype, and some specials. As far as downloads are concerned - I agree and I have corrected it. (talk) 9:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC) — Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi Wmattjackson16 as you have only edited on this one subject and the facts that you put forward do not explain why this company's product is notable one may wonder if you have something to do with the company itself in some way. If this is the case you must read WP:COI guidelines. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domdeparis The product is notable as it is an encrypted messenger, like Signal and Wickr, but with free encrypted videochats. I’ve tried several products of this kind. My acquaintances use it, but there’s no info about it in Wikipedia - that’s is why I added it. It’s a safer alternative to many popular messaging options. 11:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) — Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi Wmattjackson16 what you say is interesting but that would amount to Original research and just because other pages exist is not a reason for including this one. You haven't answered my question about WP:COI and any links you have with this company. What are the justifications for you creating this page? there is a perfectly good web site that explains the product and anyone looking for a product of this kind will find it. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool and I cannot see how this product is notable. it has had no coverage in the media that explains why this product is the bee's knees so to speak --Domdeparis (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domdeparis Does something really need to be the bee’s knees to be mentioned in an encyclopedia? Encyclopedia provides knowledge about what exists in the world and brings value for people. And the thing I’ve written about has practical utility for at least 100,000 people. I agree that media coverage is poor, but it’s enough to give a general idea about VIPole, if googled, for example: http://www.securitybuyer.com/2016/08/09/vipole-secure-messenger-users-increase-due-recent-privacy-concerns-rival-apps/ I’ve tried several encrypted messengers including Signal, Wickr, Telegram and others, as I’m interested in this topic. I checked the list of secure messengers in Wkipedia, and to my mind it’s incomplete. This is why I took the time to create a small article about a product that is less known, but might be helpful for the people who care about their privacy. Actually, I think that I’ve provided enough information to prove that I’m speaking about something that exists and has value for people. I would like to close the discussion about deleting the page. 15:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) — Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wmattjackson16 Please read WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIR and you will understand why the article IMHO does not have it's place here. Wikipedia is not a directory of all solutions that exist, to be included a subject has to have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources and your product does not have this. It is not because something exists and is useful that it has its place here. And BTW you know as well as I do that the number of downloads has absolutely nothing to do with the number of users, I have downloaded dozens of applications that I have tested and then deleted and click farms do exist by the way. VIPOLE has less than 4k reviews. Once again you are avoiding replying to the question are you linked in any way to the company? If you are really passionate about the subject and have no links to VIPOLE maybe you should create an article for Hoccer that has 1M downloads? or CoverMe that has over 500k downloads? Domdeparis (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis Thank you for your advice about Hoccer - an interesting app that pitches itself as a secure WhatsApp alternative. I haven’t heard about it before - probably because of the lack of information about it. If there was an article in Wikipedia about it - I could have known about it. There is an article in German, but I don’t speak German. I’d like to create an article about it, but I’m not sure you will approve it. When there are few choices, the diversity of tastes is limited, this is what I think about the issue. I thought Wikipedia supports the freedom of choice and impartiality, but now I see I was mistaken. 14:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) — Wmattjackson16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete NN promotional guff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
del no independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Purely promotional, quite obviously COI-rooted, no good sourcing. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI spam of a non-notable product. Joseph2302 18:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure promotion, absurdly weak sources (mostly self-sourced). - Brianhe (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly written commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
SNOW Delete as for both not having any actual notability or significance and these two are sufficient enough for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DomLux[edit]

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

I cannot see evidence of notability, and Google News search finds only passing mentions. The only reference is to the company's own web site. This article has been nominated for CSD twice, and both times those nominations have been removed by anonymous ISP editors with no explanation. Gronk Oz (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on an estate agency firm, sourced to its own website. No evidence provided or found to indicate that this is more than a run-of-the-mill firm going about its business. (Searches obtain results for a similarly named Polish firm which appears to be unrelated.) Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this literally cares to, not only start with "The company's services and interests are....but then cares to note where to contact them and who their clients are", that's damningly enough for an advertisement and hence something unacceptable, therefore it wouldn't matter if it was notable, though in this case, it clearly is not. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Hurley[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur player who fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. What coverage has been found is routine. DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of his appearances were in youth and/or college leagues and he was only a 2nd round NHL Entry Draft pick. He clearly does not pass any of the criteria laid out in WP:NHOCKEY. Regarding general coverage I couldnt found anything substantial which covered him as person in a significant way. All mentions of his name occur as part of routine coverage e.g. in match, transfer or draft reports/lists. As he fails WP:GNG too the article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, as stated above. In its use of "currently" and "is", the article is dated, and likely is no longer maintained. Kablammo (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. However, I should remind editors on this discussion that the fact that an article is poorly written and/or out of date is not, in and of itself, reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)][reply]
Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding much coverage. Rlendog (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 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 Deleted per G3 RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Launch tube[edit]

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

Nonsensical article with no sources but attempts to speedy have been reverted. ubiquity (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's patent nonsense. The thing to do would have been to issue warnings each time the tag was removed without comment, perhaps? Speedy delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Sil[edit]

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

I don't see that she meets WP:GNG. No coverage of any depth in reliable sources found via Google, and no mention in unaffiliated sources of her appearing in Ballers; she has no listing at IMDb. There's no suggestion that she'd meet WP:BIO either. Largoplazo (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not even in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has been around at WP:PNT for over two weeks, yet has still not been rewritten into English. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SaniyaIyappan[edit]

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

Non-notable actress with only minor roles Meatsgains (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell he actually does not have significant roles in the films listed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In researching I came across this previous AFD discussion. Still does not satisfy general notability or WP:NACTOR. No in-depth coverage or major roles found. Brief mention here identifies her role of daughter in the movie Apothecary. Gab4gab (talk) 14:46, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Ticket Broker Solutions[edit]

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

Article is essentially unsourced, the two supposed sources being press releases. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added more sources from public accessbile information.Caiapfas (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added confirm it exists, which is not in dispute. They provide no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Please also remember that paid editing must be disclosed. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't paid a dime, just stupid to the ways or WikiPedia...will not add anymore logos without the companies permission. more on it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pinkbeast#Automated_Ticket_Broker_Solutions Caiapfas (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In my opinion, it does offer WP:NOTABILITY, just like the articles of TicketNetwork or TicketsNow. Within the secondary ticketing market, this company along with the others I'll be adding (Ticket Summit, Ticket News, Work Ticket conference and more) are all big deals, plus the media reports on these companies and the happenings within the secondary ticketing market all the time. I can provide proof of these news stories if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiapfas (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP, with no substantive, independent coverage of this organization. The sources cited are clearly just press releases and thus non-independent sources. We need more than the standard trivial mentions and proof of existence to keep an article. GAB^gab 00:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete There are not enough reliable secondary sources with significant coverage to help satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:02, 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. Having no sources clinched it. WP:BLP, remember? Sandstein 20:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bedford[edit]

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

I couldn't find reliable sources that proves the subject's notability. TheGGoose (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's barely any actual significance as it is, let alone for substantiating both independent notability and substance and there's nothing else suggesting otherwise. As a note, this was literally PRODed when started yet the author boldly removed it, not only without apparently acknowledging the concerns (and that was 2009!) but not adding any actual substance whatsoever, instead simply making a few changes here and there. SwisterTwister talk 00:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The original author/editor didn't source or add it (and as noted above seemingly ignored requests for supporting refs when the article was tagged as PROD). However, there is seemingly some evidence that the subject meets WP:MUSIC - by virtue of having "a single [..] on any country's national music chart". (Subject seems to have charted at least one single, and possibly two singles, in Italian, Spanish and/or Swiss national charts. During the mid-80s). Keep if a reliable chart source is offered. Guliolopez (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:11, 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 redirect to Love, Peace & Money. Don't usually close on one !vote however participation is low and consensus is to redirect non notable to albums (or if albums don't exist then the singers article) so am closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, coverage is limited and doesn't seem to have charted in any country. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: looking at Die Toten Hosen discography it seems as though someone has created an article for every single by the band, regardless of whether that single has charted or not. The band itself is notable, as Germany's most famous punk band of all time, but I think notability for this and other non-charting singles will hinge on finding German sources in print form. Richard3120 (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love, Peace & Money. Unreal7 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:11, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katewa[edit]

(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, Cavarrone 10:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:10, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jatrana[edit]

(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, Cavarrone 10:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:10, 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 no consensus. No objections against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Freedom in Hopelessness[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, hasn't charted anywhere, no significant media coverage —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:10, 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 no consensus. No objections against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Career Soldiers (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band with limited coverage, fails WP:MUSBIO —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:09, 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. SpinningSpark 18:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back from the Grave, Volumes 1 and 2 (CD)[edit]

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

These 4 albums are simply reissues of earlier releases and haven't received significant coverage thus do not have independent notability. Sources listed here either come directly from the article of the earlier release (as does much of the text), liner notes, or are about the series as a whole. I'm not debating the notability of the series or original releases. Info on the reissues are already summarized in the article for Back from the Grave (series). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (but open to merger): The Back from the Grave series albums are some of the most prominent garage rock compilations, so we should not delete. Most entries in the series, and the series as a whole, have been extensively covered in the media, so any Back from the Grave release is to be considered noteworthy. These particular entries have just been released, but are of interest to fans of the series. However, I would be open to merge them with the corresponding LP articles--their corresponding LPs have gotten plenty of write-up. The reason I wrote these articles separately was to avoid confusion on the readers' part: each of these particular CD' combines two whole LPs, so I was trying to make things clear and easy to understand. However, I would be open to merging them with the LP articles--we could add the info there for the dual CDs and add additional info boxes accordingly. If you had sent me a message about a merger (rather than proposing this Afd), I would have gladly proposed a merger myself. I still prefer to keep the articles in the current format, but am open to a merger. But, we should not delete them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the content is fine, but I'm not sure where the titles would redirect to as it would only be confusing with articles for multiple volume ones (etc.) already, and each of these CDs containing two volumes each. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Back from the Grave Series is complicated. It is essentially comprised of three sub-series:

a) the LP series
b) the traditional CD series and
c) the new dual-CD series (one can identify them by the vertical black stripe that appears along the right side of the front covers).

Volume 8 falls into both the a and b series. Volume 7 falls into only a and c. The LP series (a )and the traditional CD series (b) are completely different--they have completely different song orderings and the songs usually appear on totally different albums. The new dual-CD series (c) is an attempt to provide access for CD buyers who want the LP formats--for people who prefer the blending of songs on the original LPs, so it takes pairs of the LP's and combines them onto dual CDs (not double but dual). Although I believe the song ordering to be the same (or at least very similar) to the LPs, I cannot be sure that they are exactly like the LPs--I'll go check on that, and see if there are any minor differences, I'll make the necessary modifications. By the way, the traditional CD series (b) is still made for people that prefer it that way. I created separate articles for the releases in the new dual-CD series (c) when they were released last year--as a way to help people understand and not get confused (oh gosh, it is confusing to say the least! I try explain the situation in the BFTG series article and in some of the preambles to the separate articles, but I don't think any amount of explanation will suffice, I'll admit). Making things harder, it is difficult to determine which LP each new dual-CD should coincide with, because each combines two LP's onto one album. We could either keep the dual CD articles (the ones that are currently proposed for deletion--the "c" group) for the sake of best clarity or merge them into the LP articles (we could just cover each dual-CD twice in doing so). But, deletion is not a viable option. Keep in mind that I worked hard to build up the articles in this series. The BFTG series is one of the most popular garage series (only Nuggets and Pebbles are more popular) and therefore any release is notable. On top of that, the dual-CD sub-series needs to represented in some capacity. I think the best way is for the dual-CDs to keep their own articles, but, merge is OK. But, let's please not delete. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I did the articles on the dual-CD sub-series (being considered for deletion), song lists were not yet available for all of the titles. They are now available, and upon further inspection, I have noticed that the song listings on the dual-CD series differ to some degree from the LPs. So, there is a difference. Currently, I am going into the articles and updating the track lists to accommodate for the differences. One more reason for full keep. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They still have not received the independent coverage in reliable sources that would warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. The mention of these later releases within Back from the Grave (series) should be more than sufficient. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volumes 9 and 10 have together been written up--while the review is titled to volume 9, it also covers volume 10 in the piece. The vol. 9/10 CD is the official CD version of both (the CD is exactly identical to the LPs)--so the review applies directly to it and, accordingly, our vol. 9/10 CD article should be therefore kept in its entirety.^[1]^[2]^[3] As for the other dual-CDs, the corresponding LP write-ups can cover them, since most of the content is practically the same (they are essentially the same entities, but with a few slight differences--a couple of slight variations in what is otherwise the same thing). But, if that is not enough to convince us to keep those dual-CD articles as free-standing, then, as I have said, we could do a merger. I would still prefer to have free standing articles for the sake of clarity, particularly for volume 9&10, but I would accept a merger for volumes 1&2, 2&4, 5&6. No deletes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One needs more than a review or two to prove notability for a standalone article. I don't see notability here at all. I don't know if some kind of merge is the best way to go, though I don't oppose it--but I will note that these articles are clearly written by a fan of sorts, with all of their commentary and non-neutral phrasing ("the gritty blues-based "Like Father Like Son"" and phrases like that). Until I see some real solid evidence, delete. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies , if we cannot keep them as standalone, then we can merge them into the LP articles and/or the series page. Delete is not a viable option. I had told the previous editor on the thread that I am open to mergers. If we can mention them elsewhere it the series, then we can technically count them as a merges, not a deletions. I have worked hard on this series and brought most of it into existence (to go to the extent of deletion would be like a slap in the face, in light of the hard work I've done on this and so many other projects). Please respect my wish that there be no deletions. But, I am fine with mergers. That would be a good solution to the dilemma without just throwing the stuff away. I am being perfectly reasonable in accepting mergers as a workable alternative. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this not a negotiation. Drmies (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Garagepunk66 Drmies is absolutely right. You may be being perfectly reasonable, but this is an Afd and at this point it is in the hands of those who want to vote. It is not a place for anyone to barter a deal, especially if it is not policy-based. Personally, I would like to see the articles kept, but I have nothing to back that except my praise for the series which does not count towards anything here. For that reason, I am not going to vote here, but I recommend you stop trying to negotiate something that is non-negotiable (at least in the way you are doing it). Non of these two editors have anything against you, this is no "slap in the face".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal animosity and I'm not mad at anyone. Nonetheless, I have every right to press my case. My position is that if the articles cannot be kept, then they should be be merged. I think that a full delete would be detrimental. The series is notable, so therefore everything in it has merit. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 I never said you were mad at anyone and you do have a right to press a case. However, how you are doing it will never work. Unfortunately, I know it sounds harsh, but users do not care how much hard work you put into the articles, whether it fulfills a clarity issue, or how you barter because everything at an Afd is policy-based. If you want to merge information, I suggest you do so before the articles are removed because a merge vote (if that is the outcome, but delete looks like where the discussion will go) still means the page will no longer exist. And I agree with you, the series is notable, but these articles are merely a combination of two albums in a different track order. Also, there is no such thing as inherited notability from an album series unless, in some cases of course, it is directly from the original series.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. While the notability of the series might not, alone, merit full keep, it would still warrant them to be merged, because they are essential entities in our knowledge of the series. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 not that I question your logic, but I am wondering why it matters if it's a merge or delete? A merge is essentially a delete except you may get a brief waiting period. Ultimately, the pages still get deleted and count as a delete. I mean you can continue to contest the outcome, but wouldn't you want to make more of your time than this?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to have a merge if the articles cannot be kept. I have made myself clear. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I realize the futility of expecting full keeps. So, in order to ensure a smooth transition, I went into the LP articles and added, in each, a section about the dual CDs, replete with info boxes. When I first created the series I was not aware that you could do a double entity article. Also, at the time I felt that separate articles would help the readers avoid confusion. Pardon me for having been a bit naive at the time. But, the changes I just made can give us a glimpse of what the articles will look like after the separate dual-CD articles cease to exist. I still have a few things to tidy up. There are a few broken tags, etc. In making these most recent changes, please do not take it as an attempt to pre-empt the process--nor does it entail people to feel obliged to vote a different way than they otherwise would. If people don't like the changes I just made, then they can simply revert the articles to their previous state. But, if the dual-CD articles are going cease to exist (as I am now assuming that they will), then I hope that I have saved someone the extra headaches of transforming the information. So, I hope that, in exporting the information, I have made things easier for others. Nevertheless, I still ask we please consider a merger rather than a delete. I have shown my good faith here to help us get it right and so that the readers can still have the helpful and accurate information they deserve. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66, again not trying to question your reasoning, but why would users consider a merge vote when you have already merged the info? If that has been completed, the only logical step to take is to delete the pages. There may also be concerns with how you merged the info because you essentially copied and pasted the CD articles into the original series (twice per CD). The dual CDs only need to be briefly explained, perhaps on the series page because they have the same songs as the original LPs. An additional track listing is a little questionable as well because it is also the same as the original series. Again, as it stands, the LP pages would look significantly less messy if the CDs were mentioned (briefly) in the series article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to I'll go back and revert it. Incidentally there are some slight changes in songs--they re not exactly the same. I am trying to operate in good faith and be helpful to people--I'm trying to do the right thing here. If others have a better solution fine, but do it right and, once again, merge not delete. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 no one is saying you are operating in any other kind of fashion. I am just pointing out that a copy and paste solution is not the best solution, especially when the exact same info is found on two articles now. It would be much more appropriate to mention the CD releases briefly and note the slight differences in the track listing. This fixes the issues of clutter that the current copy-paste solution brought forth. And once again, I have to say users will now vote delete since you essentially have merged the articles, even though it needs some improvements like I recommended.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the series page is enough. I think that the dual CD's need more explication than that. They are equal as entities to anything in the series, and deserve more than a few footnotes. It does no help to the reader otherwise. We have a responsibility to represent this series and its installments properly. I think the best place to go into detail about the dual CDs is in the LP articles. I stand by that. I just went in and removed all of the redundancies that were currently there (I still need to go in and tidy up some things). I have pared them down to the point where they only say exactly what is necessary. However, it is now at the point where any further reductions will result in loss of vital information. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Minsker, Evan (January 29, 2015). "Various Artists: Back From the Grave Vol. 9: 1/2 albums". Pitchfork. Pitchfork Media Inc. Retrieved October 5, 2015.
^ Minsker, Evan (January 29, 2015). "Various Artists: Back From the Grave Vol. 10: 2/2 albums". Pitchfork. Pitchfork Media Inc. Retrieved October 5, 2015.
^ "Various Artists Back From The Grave Volumes 9 & 10". SoundsXP.com. Retrieved October 22, 2016.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, my final thoughts as we enter the final stretch. Here are what I consider to be the viable options:

1) Merge into LP articles. I went ahead and did the difficult footwork (so no one else has to go out of their way to do it--I have demonstrated my good faith), and we would classify the change as a merge, not a delete. I think that option #1 is a fantastic solution. It makes things clear and easy to understand for the readers. We could disambiguate each of the dual-CDs to the first LP each corresponds to. For instance, the Volumes 1 & 2 CD can disambiguate to the Volume 1 LP, the Vol. 3 & 4 CD can disambiguate to the Vol. 3 LP, etc. Also, we could move and change the names of the LP articles, removing the term "(LP)" from the titles, as to accommodate the inclusion of the dual CD-subsections.
2) Full Keep. Although this is unlikely, if it is the outcome, then I will go back and revert that changes I have made to the LP articles in the last day. However, the Volume 9 and 10 CD is the best candidate for full keep.
3) Merge into series article (i.e. do a merge, but place the information into series article). If we choose this option then, I will go back and revert the changes that I made yesterday to the LP articles and transport the information on the dual CDs into the series article. My personal opinion is that this is not as good an option as #1 or #2, because it will not be as effective in serving the needs of the readers to understand this complicated series. But I have put mention of this issue in the series article. There needs to be mention of the issue there, but not there alone--my opinion is that if we can't have full keeps, then we have to have sections in the album articles dedicated to the dual-CDs on order to properly represent them as existing entities in the series.

So, I now appeal to a sense of fairness to do what is right (keep or merge), and not delete. I have done everything a person can possibly do to make this process work out. I have proposed paths to reach a constructive solution. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 you have already merged the information, a merge vote seems rather illogical, doesn't it? I do not see why the conclusion of the Afd matters (since keep is not a possibility by how the discussion has gone) because in the end a merge vote is essentially a delete and counts just like a delete in the end. You have done everything you were supposed to in this situation and more. I kinda wish you did not try to merge the info until the Afd concluded because it had a possibility of ending in merge. That way, users could have "forgotten" about this discussion just like a song article you made and the articles could have all been kept. But what is done is done and it would be foolish to revert the work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, a merge isn't illogical, because a merge is a merge. It is so regardless of whether it was merged past or present. A merge does not count as a delete. It counts as an article created that disambiguates to the merged article. But, aside from that, it allows the dual-CD articles to be disambiguated as well for the benefit of the readers. You may not see the point of my concern about this. But quite frankly I don't see yours. Just because I worked hard and spent a couple of weeks building the series doesn't mean that I have a monopoly--these articles belong to everyone, and we all have our right to speak. However, if I worked hard on this, than I should have as much right as anyone voice my opinion and not be seen as lesser. If I am firm about my resolution to not delete, then I can be flexible enough to explore other options. You have every right to express your opinion, but I have mine, and I think that my position is a better solution to the issue at hand. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 again, I guess I have to emphasize this, I never said you didn't have a right to express an opinion or that you are a "lesser". But delete is a viable solution, no matter how many times you say it isn't without policy-based evidence, and so far it makes the most sense, rationally speaking. If my personal opinion stood, the articles would stay. If you never saw my concern as you have stated, then you would have never merged the information into the articles like I recommended you should do at some point. I pointed it out because delete is the only logical solution I saw that others users would vote on, but clearly you do not see it. I do not see, however, why a merge vote matters other than to fulfill a personal ego, but I never pictured that in your character. I am stepping away from this Afd since I have said everything that needs to be said for a series I love and because I seem to be striking a nerve with you. At no point did I try to convince you into your own deletion; I was merely explaining why editors are thinking the way they are. I am a little confused as to how that has bad-intentions, but considering you're clearly trying to low-blow me with your ending remarks (which you removed but are still seen) I am uninterested in the explanation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are responding to some comments I just deleted for the sake of your benefit. You are bringing in personal matters here that have no place such as talk about "ego". But, this is not the only thing that has given me reason to think your comments are not well intended, but I'd rather not get into that. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 I know I shouldn't be encouraging this poor display, but, just curious, what is the benefit of me responding to those comments? You trying to make this a topic about my history is not going to change the Afd. I am very dissappointed in you for even attempting such a maneuver.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had been discussing the merits of the topic at hand, and you brought personal matters into it with "ego" and all that (Wikipedians are aren't exactly known for being egoless, so what's the point?). I haven't tried to make a display. But, I interpreted that you were turning the discussion away from the topic towards me which I didn't think was fair. I have no ill will towards you, but I don't think you were being fair with me. So, let me get back to the point. Full keep or merge. Thank you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But commenting on an unproven past that is equally unrelated is okay? Okay, gotcha. Frankly, I don't want this to be about you and never wanted it to be. I only care about making sure the information is in the right place. So far you have yet to prove why these articles deserve full keep or merger. You simply just state you want it that way because delete is not a "viable option" which is an unfair and poor defense for such a great piece of this series. You fail to explain how it does not fail GNG, is notable outside the original series, and why a reissue needs to be independently mentioned (a slightly different track listing and "clarity" are not reasons). That is what deletionist voters will say and that is what I have been explaining to you all along. I never had bad-intentions because, honestly, I am more than happy with what I accomplished here. I don't have the time nor do I need it to one-up someone to emphasize that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have been long time collaborators, and I have considered you a valued colleague, still do, and always will--even when I don't agree or if there are misunderstandings. But, clearly there was an issue with an editor that was harassing me and nominating Afd's that has caused me personal pain, that you got accused of, but that I have given you the benefit of the doubt. But, this is still a painful and touchy situation for me, and any time you appear to be advocating Afd on me, I am going to get worried--not just for that reason, but because you're a close collegue. That is a natural. If any close colleague/collaborator nominates and article for Afd or seems to take a delete position on an Afd thread, I'm going to take it differently than if others did so. That's just a human reaction. I don't claim to be egoless--I take pride in the articles I've created and want to protect them, which is my right. You want to protect your articles just as passionately, and I have rushed to the defense of several your articles on these threads on several occasions--there were a couple this summer that were some of your most vulnerable, and I rushed to add sources I had to help save them. And, like you I would not be happy about the deletion of any article. I am arguing for merge or keep here not just for my own sake, but because I am concerned that the readers will be deprived of necessary information and guidance of the topic. I took no offense to the two first two editors, because I know they meant well, but I just don't feel this is the best forum for you to try to convince me that it should be deleted. You have the right to say whatever you want on any AFD thread, but I was just a bit taken aback--that's all. As for notability, different guidelines say different things and guidelines can be interpreted in different ways. Sometimes people can get too rigid about certain rules. The rules are there to help insure that the encyclopedia is accurate and credible. There has to be some bar about what is considered notable, because otherwise, people could just write an article about anything, even the house next door. But, how the bar is interpreted is not always set in stone--the context of the situation has to be considered. The dual CDs are equal as entities to anything else in the series. Since the BFTG dual-CD's are essentially the LP's (with a few slight modifications), the sources that pertain to the LPs can suffice enough to justify their mention at least in the LP and/or series articles. I'll admit that I should have put sections of them in the LP articles, not done separate articles, and I was actually recently considering asking for a merge. When I made them I didn't know how to solve the problem of the double aspect, and I didn't know at the time that I could do dual entity articles. I just did what I felt would help the readers. And, I don't want to be punished for doing so much for this series of articles. So, that is why I'm taking the position that a merge would be a good idea if we can't keep. And, I think you could have just a little bit more understanding of where I'm coming from. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 an Afd page is not the best place to "convince you" (which I am not trying to do) that delete is a viable option? Then what place is better? You always take offense when you and me have differences in opinion, but never when Ghmyrtle thinks differently. He has had an opposite argument to yours countless times, but you hardly challenge it. Is he not a close colleague too? I stated what was the best option for these pages: merging the information. Now that it has been accomplished the next neccessary step is delete and redirect. At no point did I say delete and forget the information. But for some reason whenever I stray from your opinion the subject becomes "painful and touchy". It never had to be that way, especially when I was looking in the best interests of the information of these pages.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no use bringing in unrelated things to this topic--I've had my share of debates with others too (probably to a fault), but that is beside the point. Look, you have your perspective and I have mine--you've expressed your views about the topic and I've stated my positions. I am tired and ready to be done with this whole thing. When it comes to other editors, there is no one whose collaboration has meant anywhere near as much to me as yours. I don't mean that in any way to take anything away from other wonderful people who have done so much, probably more than either of us--I just haven't gotten to know them nearly as well. I have collaborated with them, yes, but not as often as I'd have wished--but I do regard them as close. Whereas, because we cover much of the same topic terrain, we've collaborated day in and day out. We have worked together, fought for causes together, conversed about so many topics of mutual interest almost on a daily basis. We have built whole suites of articles about for major compilation series together (not his one, but some of the other ones). You've done some kind things for which I am deeply grateful, and that is why I gave the benefit of the doubt. I may place too much emphasis on loyalty--I realize such a concept may sound crazy on an Afd page. But, there are standards of ethics I subscribe to that supersede even guidelines--there are just things I would never do. I will never under any circumstances for any reason recommend (or even so much as hint at) any of your articles for deletion. Period. I'm not going to do that to editors I frequently collaborate with--not you or any of the other people I know. I generally like to avoid personal conflicts, but I'll put up a fight if someone backs me into a corner. If I'm taking this a bit hard, is should come as no surprise. I'm just at a loss to understand this, that's all. Its not the way I do things. But, I accept that you have your point of view, just as I've got mine. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 I see this is pointless. There was no personal conflict until you made it one for yourself, nor is there anything to take hard because I have done nothing that should come off as negative. You can try to interpret that anyway you want (as you already have), but in the end all I did was express the best course of action for a set of articles that are most likely going to be deleted, not by my choice or by my recommendation. And yes, I am very surprised someone who has been here for four years fails to notice my obvious attempts to help you out then goes on to write about their whole philosophy of how they do things on Wiki. It's very touching, but I came here to focus on preserving the information in a way that makes sense. I do not need to feel bad about that, nor will I, even if you think it is a swipe at our mutual loyalty for each other. I promised you long ago we would stick together, but, sadly, you only choose to remember that when it suits you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see most of your prescriptions in this thread as particularly helpful, nor beneficial in terms of preserving information. I've made more constructive recommendations. Now let's get off this. I am tired of this discussion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: um, echoing Drmies reasoning back on 23 October 2016. (since further comments are needed for concensus). I pretty much take his expertise and authority as a given. Fylbecatulous talk 16:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some who advocate full delete are making the mistake of viewing the issue of at hand as if the articles exist in a vacuum (in isolation), yet have also admitted that there is an issue of transferring of information. We can't have it both ways. If the articles cannot be retained in their present form, then the best prescription automatically becomes a merge, due to the issue of transferring the information. These articles do not exist in isolation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...I must ask again, how is there an issue of transfer of information when you already transferred it a week ago? I must also add that no one has brought up an issue of moving info. They simply said it would be difficult to merge anything because there is no definitive place to redirect the pages. That is all I am going to say about this because the outcome is pretty much guarenteed at this point. I just wanted you to understand why.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did that to help out and make it easier for any person doing a possible transfer--as a way of paving the way for a positive solution (but not to abrogate a possible merge). I just reverted the proto-merge changes for now and left mile-marker comments in the edit histories, so that any future merging editor will have a reference point to do a merge with ease. In absence of a decision to merge (which is still a possibility), the decision would be to Keep as a default. If that happens, I will simply go to the Merge talk page and ask for the articles to be merged--and I will do everything I can to assist in that process. I'm not so sure that they can simply delete, because it involves transfer of information , as has well been established. I understand that you have your position and I have mine. There's no need going on about it at this point. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortesa Orana[edit]

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

This was a contested PROD by the original editor. The subject is a non-Notable junior karate competitor. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe I'm not well informed which karate competitions are big enough that athletes who participate be considered "notable", but she has participated several events like 51st EKF Senior Championships, Montpellier, France or latest one is WKF World Senior Championships 2016 which are all organized by World Karate Federation. Beside this, as a biography, the article is well referenced for information that are included.--Liridon (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No success at any major competition as an adult. Her current division ranking of #72 does not show notability and the article shows no significant independent coverage of her. Success as a junior competitor is insufficient to show notability and coverage is primarily lists of results. Papaursa (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She had a little bit of success in youth tournaments, but her record in adult competition at WKF sanctioned tournaments is only mixed. She never won anything, being a participant is merely not enough. There is no SNG for karate athletes but most guidelines at WP:NATHLETE go with this spirit. What we need is significant and substantial coverage in RS, but that is not the case for her. There are some mentions of her in Kosovarian and related media (eg on this large Kosovarian newsportal), but everything is just only a passing mention or listing of her among other participants. I searched for her name on the large Kosovarian and Albanian news portals, but didnt found much if anything at all. There is no in-depth coverage of her as a person. She therefore fails WP:GNG and the article should be deleted for now, until she may gets more attention. Dead Mary (talk) 00:01, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De L'Assomption Boulevard[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about an unremarkable arterial street in a city, with no strong evidence of notability. As always, all streets that exist are not automatically appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia; a street must be the subject of reliable source coverage about it in media to earn an article, not just nominally verifiable on a map. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability at all. There is no coverage about the subject. --♫CheChe♫ talk 19:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major bit of infrastructure in a major city. A quick Google turned up a ton of stuff in French, and I've put the more prominent items in the article.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts, Bearcat? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough significant coverage in reliable sources has been added to meet WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Cavarrone 12:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:02, 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. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of first-class cricket matches played by Nepal[edit]

(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) 11:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better served by prose on the team page with an external link to the list on CricInfo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo.

Also List of Twenty20 International cricket matches played by Nepal, List of List A cricket matches played by Nepal and List of Twenty20 matches played by Nepal should be nominated. Ajf773 (talk) 06:53, 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. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Test matches[edit]

(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) 11:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with the India ODI one. Joseph2302 11:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 17:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 17:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 17:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. WP:NOTSTATS yet again. Narrative is needed. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not ESPNCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - detailed reasons given on the bundle of similar deletions recently proposed, but essentially for the same reasons as suggested above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should first draw the line which is notable or which is not. See England cricket team Test results (1877–1914) as this is featured article then why we are deleting all this stuff. GreenCricket (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially because that one has been developed by means of a narrative and has additional notes in many of the table rows. The ones up for AfD lack narrative and so provide no context. Many of them are blatant copies of CA or CI material, resulting in a mass of (to the non-cricket reader) meaningless statistics. As a project, we have a duty to all readers to ensure that we comply with WP:IINFO and provide useful information by means of a narrative that conveys the necessary context. Tables of bare statistics are unacceptable per WP:NOTSTATS. Don't forget the Mark Twain/Benjamin Disraeli dictum on the three degrees of untruth: "lies, damned lies and statistics". Jack | ^{talk page} 11:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment bear in mind that England cricket team Test results (1877–1914) is a featured list not a featured article - there's a substantial difference. Its lead section is much more developed which is crucial. Personally I would prefer more in the way of notes for each group of rows in the table myself - and might even prefer the table to be split into subsections of tours, but the lead is so much better and the scope of the article is also much more targeted at a logical group of years rather than being a completionist set of years. Your general argument is valid though - there are a lot of lists that we'd probably argue should be kept which could use development of proper prose imo - and many articles where lists of statistics should probably be culled and replaced by prose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Adding good quality prose and high resolution images around the list, multiple reviewers and peer reviews, putting stars on top, would still make it NOTSTATS and LISTCRUFT. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:27, 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 the consensus developed was for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Water bottle flipping[edit]

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

General consensus on talk page; was already tagged for notability issues (at least) once SteveCof00 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Article has potential and the sources are decent enough, but it needs more expansion. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability argument fails because the topic is well-covered in major media like the NYT. The consensus argument fails because the page got an exceptional number of views while it was on the main page – over 87K, which is a lot for DYK. It even did better than the FA for that day, which only got 69K views. With that level of interest, the topic is bound to attract a handful of nay-sayers but their number is tiny compared with the number of editors and readers who were fine with the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delay AFD for ~6 months The issue properly identified on the talk page is that of whether the coverage of this was a burst of coverage with no real tail, or if it has enduring notability, and we can't tell that for a few months at this point. It makes no sense to delete this at this point now, but we should review in a few months to see if the sourcing has continued to some degree. If it hasn't, then this was just a meme/viral video, and this can be merged to one of several possible targets. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I agree with Masem's cogent argument. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Nothing but a fad that has already faded. Seriously. Do we need an article for every video that has over one million views on Youtube? -- Kndimov (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If it generates enough media coverage to satisfy the notability requirements, why not? Buddy431 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Note that Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While that is true, it needs a short period of enduring coverage to be considered to have significant coverage. A topic that is covered over a day or two, and then never mentioned again, is not considered enduring (and subsequently significant) coverage. A topic that has one or two days of intense coverage, and then has a handful of sources with significant coverage (more than just mention in passing) is at least somewhat enduring to start. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BirlaSoft[edit]

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

Doesnt follows WP:CORP. -AbhishekIndore (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article originally contributed by a company employee [3] and whose subsequent history shows repeated NPOV concerns. Searches, including the tailored Wikiproject India search, turn up a variety of routine announcements but I am not seeing the in-depth coverage which would be needed to demonstrate that this is more than a company going about its business and has encyclopaedic notability. (A redirect to the parent CK Birla Group is a possible outcome, though that article is not strong in non-primary sourcing either.) AllyD (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limit lock[edit]

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

A short new article on the invention of, "a better mousetrap".

Torque limiting and lock washers are obviously important and notable engineering topics. The "Limit lock" design claims to be a new one, solving a real problem. There are adequate background sources on the problem.

There is nothing here on the Limit lock design itself. There is only one link, to their own website - which says nothing either.

This article fails on two grounds: it has no encyclopedic content, it explains nothing. Secondly it is devoid of independent sources to verify that this device exists and works.

It was tagged for notability and as an advert, but they were removed by the article creator, without comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep And Move to Torque Limiting Washer. I find there is encyclopedic content. I have always considered myself mechanically inclined and never knew there was such a device until reading this article. However, the current article is too much an advertisement and too closely associated with this company. I would like to see a neutrally written article on the concept. Can't tell what is in the listed refs since most aren't linked. For now, gut the advertising and leave a stub at the new name. MB 05:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree A general torque limiting washer article would be nice. Junkyardsparkle (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what you mean is, create a new unsourced article on a topic that we don't even know it exists, under a name created by WP, and is only offered by one maker?

If you can produce some indication that "torque limiting washers" are a thing, then this would be a good change. I agree that a generic article beats a product article. But do they even exist? Can we WP:Verify that they exist?

Note that torque limiting couplings have been around for years [4] [5]. But they slip when the limit torque is reached, this one claims to lock instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the company website and the youtube video, I can't find anything else. The Huffington Post item may be unreliable since there is no trace of it. The other refs in the article are all 10+ years old so they can't actually discuss this new product by this new company. So changing vote to Delete since nothing verified. MB 00:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, too bad about that, was hoping they were a thing, somehow, even if not a very successful thing... --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional content on a single vendor's product and product name without any indications of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 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. Boldly keeping the presumed bad-faith or POINTy nomination. Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Consultancy Services[edit]

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

Wikipedia community has been deleting articles of Indian IT companies lately. So lets delete the non notable TCS article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary 03DGW (talk • contribs)

Speedy keep as an obvious bad-faith nomination. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep a bad-faith nomination. Nominator appears to be retaliating for an article he authored being deleted at AfD earlier. --Finngall ^talk 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if someone who knows how could close this sooner rather than later. It's a bit of an embarrassment for us to have a deletion template at the top of our article on one of India's largest companies and one of the world's largest IT services companies. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is clearly notable. Pratyush (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I guess the nomination was a mistake. Vishal0soni (talk) 12:08, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Porter (character)[edit]

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

Character is not notable enough for own article. Additionally, most of the article content is just plot summaries copied from Speed (1994 film) and Speed 2: Cruise Control. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nomination, there is nothing here but plot pretty much. The awards are all for Bullock, not the character in itself.*Trekker (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Orstio (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 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. Ignoring all the non-policy based !votes by SPAs, the consensus is clearly to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Soori[edit]

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

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

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

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

A biography of a researcher - effectively a repetition of his Google home page. The contributor and an IP have repeatedly erased maintenance tags without providing the 3rd party references sought by those tags. The subject is one among multiple authors of 8 papers - some of which the contributor has also added as a reference to other articles - but I don't see these as sufficient to meet the WP:ACADEMIC #1 or wider WP:BASIC biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google scholar h-index 3 is not even close to WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. The creator of this BLP showed a serious error of judgement. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as an advertisement with there also not being anything for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.It is a short biography from Mohsen Soori as a living person. The page has worth enough to be kept in order to present a short statement about the Mohsen Soori's achievements. So, I am disagree for deletion of the page.

Latinoo.west (talk) 9:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep.I also think that the page should be kept. Because, it can help to the his college to be more familiar with the person. Also, the Wikipedia page can be seen more.

JIM.Artor (talk) 9:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep. I think the page can be edited and saved.

Amirhossini (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that neither being a living person nor helping his college provides an argument which can justify a Wikipedia article: see the notability criteria which were linked in the rationale. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see the Virtual machining page. The articles of the Mohsen Soori and other authors are the main references of the page. So, the page can help to the other readers to know more about him.

JIM.Artor (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I saw the Virtual machining page. I think the page can be saved as a result of his publications in the page. Jana.Tima (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC) — Jana.Tima (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The page can be kept. Because, more approach to the research efforts can be achieved. Sa.meiyem (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC) — Sa.meiyem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Most of the red links appear to be spas. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting. The red links have suddenly turned blue! This seems to be an effective way of encouraging editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I agree for keeping. Timon.R (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)— Timon.R (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And does the spa have reasons based on policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I think your effort is a spa. Timon.R (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page can be improved. JIM.Bordas (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The invitation to improve the page has been and is there: that is the purpose of the maintenance tags. But as it stands, there is still not one reliable 3rd party source to support the biographical content and only a CV list of articles which the subject has part-authored. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page is now linked to the Virtual machining page. As the creator of the Virtual machining page, please keep the page Mohsen Soori in order to help to the other readers to know more about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirhossini (talk • contribs) 10:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adding mutual "see also" links between the page in question and another page on Wikipedia does not establish notability. What is needed is reliable 3rd party sources about the subject. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page is now linked to the Virtual machining page. As the creator of the Virtual machining page, please keep the page Mohsen Soori in order to help to the other readers to know more about him.Amirhossini (talk) 11:01, 12§ November 2016 (UTC) (Duplicate struck out. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: I think creating a scientific page as virtual machining which is based on about 180 published papers in field of virtual machining can create notability. The page is helping to the people knowledge in virtual machining with a simple presenting. So, all readers can see biography of main author of the page as Mohsen Soori. On the other hand, responsibility of the presented knowledge in the virtual machining page is also with Mohsen Soori.§

Amirhossini (talk) 01:12, 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 redirect to G-Slimm. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fours Deuces & Trays[edit]

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

I had previously redirected this album article to the artist, G-Slimm, because after searching high and low I was unable to substantiate the claim that it had charted. It's now been recreated, and the references are still inadequate to establish notability; one is a bare mention, another is a music download, and the remaining two merely assert that it was locally important. The artist's tragically premature death and plans by a major label to reissue the album notwithstanding, there are not reliable sources demonstrating the album's notability and justifying its having its own article. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only RS in the article is https://www.offbeat.com/articles/the-mind-of-mystikal/. There is an entry at AllMusic, but it is only a track listing. Without RSes, I can't support inclusion. While redirects are cheap, to avoid this problem we should lock the page for recreation (read: salt). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it should be pointed out that several editors tried and failed to find any evidence of the supposed Billboard chart position, which would be just about the only point on which this would pass WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to G-Slimm and I would think it warrants a couple of sentences at least. Not sure what 'local' 'underground' hit means, and surely the Billboard sales chart shows it was a popular album. This is a pre-internet release so searching high and low on Google is unlikely to produce compelling results. Sionk (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, this is exactly what I was talking about in my statement above – the Billboard sales position appears to be pure fiction, as we haven't been able to find any evidence of the album charting, so there is no evidence of national popularity. Richard3120 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also cannot find evidence of the Billboard chart position. In any event it's a low placing on what seems to be a restricted genre chart and I'm not certain if it is supposed to refer to an annual chart or a weekly placing. It is not enough to get it over the line re. notability IMO. Eagleash (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps a redirect, but the album itself certainly does not justify its own page. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 15:34, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afghanistan One Day International matches[edit]

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

Per the several similar AfDs of lists this type created by the same user. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 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 keep. Sandstein 20:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce J. Gebhardt[edit]

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

A nocontent speedy delete has been rejected, because there was an infobox. The page contains exactly the same information as the item in the table of deputies. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See possible references: [6], [7], [8], [9]. As for A3, it only applies if there is no content at all, except external links/cats/see also. To have an infobox is to have content, as useless as it may be. I assume at least a stub could be written using these sources. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia contains pages, not infoboxes.

I know it has a content so I don't speedy delete.

Unreferenced pseudobiography. Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it fails general notability. --JumpLike23 (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, now that I've realised that it seems a suitable target.... — Smjg (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fleshed it out a bit. I think it should pass now; deputy directors of the FBI should be notable. Connormah (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – Deputy director of FBI, all others have articles. MB298 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the number two official at the FBI is a notable figure. Article looks in much better shape now as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to User:Connormah for the expand, source. Plenty more coverage exists, heroes who take down bad guys and same a lot of innocent lives do tend to have the coverage to pass WP:GNG. In this case, however, Gebhardt had a distinguished and reliably sourced career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue ribbon badge[edit]

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

Not notable, no sources, unreferenced since 2008 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 8 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) 16:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unreferenced. References do not have to have contain a URL to be considered a reference. As a longtime editor, the nominator really should know this, by now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for a standalone article. Per WP:REALPROBLEM, this could be a paragraph in the Temperance movement article where it could then be developed and spun out. We shouldn't keep this standalone stub. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Francis Murphy (no relation). Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Blue Ribbon Movement. Under that name the movement has a good deal of coverage independent of Murphy, as E.M.Gregory points out. I've added a bit more to the article focused on the movement.Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect (or merge) to Francis Murphy (evangelist). I do not think there is anything worth merging. Absolute Surrender by Andrew Murray, was a notable work in its time and has been reprinted since, but WP policy does not encourage the inclusion of passing literary allusions. Such trivia used to go into "popular culture" sections of articles, but they were largely deleted many years ago. I therefore consider there is nothing worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to reconsider my vote. It is possible the article has grown since I voted. I am still not quite sure. If kept it should certainly be renamed, as others have suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Those blue ribbons were a major big deal in the temperance marches, back in the day. Sources:

Shiman, Lilian Lewis. “The Blue Ribbon Army: Gospel Temperance in England.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, vol. 50, no. 4, 1981, pp. 391–408. www.jstor.org/stable/42973859.
"Given the dominant belief that economic success required temperance, the Blue Ribbon Movement appealed to many working- and lower-middle-class men who ..." Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History: An International Encyclopedia [10] Jack S. Blocker, ‎David M. Fahey, ‎Ian R. Tyrrell - 2003 - ‎History.
"His belief was that such movements as Temperance So cieties, Bands of Hope, and notably the Blue Ribbon movement , had contributed to the..." “Medico-Parliamentary.” The British Medical Journal, vol. 2, no. 1177, 1883, pp. 146–147. www.jstor.org/stable/25263756.

Lots more where those come from. Page should probably be moved to Blue ribbon (temperance) or Blue Ribbon Movement (temperance).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sourced bit copied from Temperance movement in the United Kingdom ot the page, and put a couple of sources on the talk page, in addition to the ones I listed above. Page needs expand, source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to User:Smmurphy for WP:HEY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to this article because I read a short entry on the organization in a Norwegian encyclopedia and wanted to know more. The organization established a branch in Oslo, Norway is 1882, this branch later merged into Blue Cross which is still very much alive in Norway. A branch that was established in Sweden is still called Blue ribbon and fully operative. Both the Norwegian and Swedish branches are members of the International Blue Cross which seems to have been inspired by the American Blue Ribbon Badge. Iselilja (talk) 17:58, 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 no consensus. No objections against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaraama Dravidulu[edit]

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

No reliable sources (Global Vision Publishing House is a republisher) and I can't find any. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 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) 15:49, 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) 15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:20, 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. Sandstein 20:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pariakal[edit]

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

Non-notable... beach? KDS4444 (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm doubting the factual accuracy of the content. There is a "Parikkal" in Tamil Nadu which is nowhere near Midalam.[11] I can't find anything resembling "Pariakal" near Midalam.[12] Okay, I do see there is a "Pariakal Beach" in that area, but right now I don't know if it's notable. [13] --Oakshade (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)::[reply]

...And existence ≠ notability, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GEOLAND. Thanks to Oakshade for at least identifying that the subject exists. However, rarely has a Google search turned up as little as one for "Pariakal Beach", even without quotes - a Facebook timeline, some wiki, bad OCR, and a few spambot pages. I wouldn't for a second think that a Google search in English for a foreign location is the be-all-and-end-all of notability tests, but this doesn't inspire confidence in the existence of deep sources elsewhere. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't source it, although when I ran a map search for the 2 place names mentioned in the article, this beach showed halfway between them. No prejudice against re-starting this article if someone can source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Biju[edit]

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

This is a promotional autobiography, created by the subject and edited by him under two different but similar usernames, Drdbijufilmmaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Drdbijukumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) plus likely sockpuppet WP:SPA Movie Nomads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With the exception of trivial fixes, almost all content has been written by the subject. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, I don't trust that REFBOMB at all - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep That the piece is autobiographical does not change the fact that the subject is very notable. He is a national award winning director and thus one of the top filmmakers in India today. In such a situation, the issues related to autobiographical nature must be dealt with by removing questionable content rather than deleting the article altogether. -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notable per ml:Bijukumar Damodaran. Need to be updated by neutral editors. J e e 08:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For this we have WP:TNT... Guy (Help!) 08:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have copyvio issues here. Just point out the sections of the article which seem undue or over-autobiographical and remove them. Deleting the whole article about such a notable person and waiting for someone else to come and rewrite it is bad policy -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bit after the name and before the References section at the bottom. That's the part written by the subject for promotional purposes. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:16, 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. It is clear that, although the article may have been more promotional in the past, it is currently supplemented with reliable, third party sources, which is enough to satisfy WP:GNG, regardless of whether the company wrote it or not. Current promotional tones in the article can be fixed; remember that deletion is not cleanup, and that being a scam is not a reason to delete a page. Also, Light2021, see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DealDash[edit]

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

Article is written by company itself. Most notorious ways of making This Wikipedia Compromised on a highest scale of blatant promotions. Motivations are none other than Paid advertising. Such articles are violating every means possible by misusing GNC and References. Wikipedia is compromised. this article makes zero worth for an Encyclopedia material. No one bother to know about this company. Not even their own industry I doubt. Only few media references are blatantly misused to create this High promotional material. Only interest is to build SEO, Online reputation and Luring customers or employee in the name of Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator of this article is under consideration for a topic ban from deletion discussions at WP:AN/I for their behavior here and elsewhere - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Adrian. First off, I would like to declare my WP:COI as an employee of DealDash.

User:Light2021 has not provided any explanation as to why the references provided on the Contested deletion section on the article's Talk page would not qualify as reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you’re not familiar with these referenced publications, I recommend you study them or consult one of the Finnish Wikipedia moderators: Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Finnish projects

As explained in detail on the talk page, DealDash has been frequently featured by the most prominent independent business papers of their home country. These are not trivial stories, the company has eg. been featured on the cover story of Kauppalehti (est. 1898). ^[1]

It is my understanding that the argument of “No one bother to know about this company. Not even their industry” is besides the point, as notability is established through reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

However, for the avoidance of doubt, it should be noted that according to Google Keyword Planner tool that estimates Google search volume, 100K to 1M people each month are searching for information about DealDash on Google in the US alone. ^[2]

This is more than all the other players in the industry and the category keywords combined (Beezid 10K-100K, QuiBids 10K-100K, Online auctions 10K-100K, Penny auctions 1K-10K, Bidding fee auctions 10-100).

Also, according to Adweek DealDash was the most talked about brand on Facebook topping Fortune 500 companies like Coca-Cola and Walmart. ^[3]

Dd adrian (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dd adrian: Walls of text will not save your article. Please select 3-5 sources you think are best (broad coverage, renowned magazines/sites) and let others review them. Note: interviews, articles based mostly on text provided by company or its representatives, articles based on press releases are all too weak sources to estabilish notability for Wikipedia purposes. Pavlor (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the response and question of AfD from none other than the Employee of a company. This is highest degree of misuse of Wikiepdia. As citing policies and grave concerns in Wikipedia these days. Only creation for promotions, using media references to build this article. Where no one care to know about this one. Insignificant piece of promotions and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, who he is - I did read article talk page and author´s talk page(s). Despite of that, I give him chance to prove his point... Pavlor (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in process of speedy keep, as soon as I can figure out how. Folks, this is a bad nomination, no point wasting editor time on it. If anybody wants to help, please improve the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you do not need to influence other saying "This is bad", you do not like this. Fine. Keep vote and discussions would be enough. I am also trying to find How to make an efficient Counter actions of biased admins! . Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, which one of the speedy keep criterion apply to this AFD? -- GB fan 16:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then, SNOW keep, and speedy close if there is any more drama from the nominator per WP:SK#NOT, as the subject clearly and undeniably satisfies WP:GNG and WP:CORP, if not by an overwhelming amount, through sustained significant coverage in third party reliable sources. They largely report that the company is scammy if not an outright scam, but achieved wide usage, making it (as DGG says below) a notable scam. The article could use some serious clean-up, but has plenty of useful citations and content and is far from being unsalvageable. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure comment - DGG has asked me to reopen so here I am, I disagree with it entirely but hey ho that's life, Anyway I've reopened, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know you two are so desperately want to close this as keep. As tried earlier as well. You must read the assesmemt below. Such Article has ZERO Place in Encyclopedia. Do not just go by citing. Speedy Keep, Snow Keep and whatever keep. Do not mislead. Provide substance. As given in detail below. ZERO Credibility and 1000% Spam created on wikipedia. Thanks a lot! Light2021 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Light2021 - "I know you two are so desperately want to close this as keep." - Well that's bull for a start as I couldn't careless whether this is kept, deleted or sent to the moon!, I speedy closed as a procedural thing and that's all it was, You may believe something is spam but the community may think otherwise, You're welcome!. –Davey2010^Talk 16:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "DealDash cover story of Kauppalehti". Retrieved May 30, 2013.
^ "Google Keyword Planner search volumes for DealDash and other related queries". Retrieved November 1, 2016.
^ "Obscure Direct Response Brands Dominate Facebook Chatter". Adweek. Retrieved May 24, 2013.

weak Keep. as an an apparently notable scam. There's enough discussion of it to be worth keeping. This really should have been checked before nominating. I don't really see how this article at the time of nomination can be seen as promotional, though it certainly was at an earlier period in its history. But if it had been, Promotionalism isa perfectly good reason for deletion unless it actually gets fixed-any of the restrictions in WP:NOT is grounds for deletion, including NOT ADVERTISING . (fwiw, there is no agreed guideline for when something is worth fixing--we have to judge by whether or not it actually does get fixed) DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Update to redirect, pls see below) // Original comment: per WP:PROMO; the article spends too much time discussing the intricate detail of how the bid process work:

Bids cost 60¢,[13] [14] unless on "sale" at the time. Bids are sold in lots (Bid Packs) varying in amounts from 100 to 1000 bids. Standard auctions begin with an opening price of $0.00 and every time someone bids the price increases by $0.01 and removes one paid "bid credit" (60¢) from the user's bid balance. The auction clock restarts from a maximum of 10 seconds every time a bid is placed. (Etc. Etc)

See WP:MANUAL.

The topic of penny auctions appears to be notable (see for example coverage from ConsumerReports.org Bidding on penny auction sites is risky), but the company itself not so much -- I've found nothing on Google books, gnews are also slim picking. Even if the company were notable (which it may be from the consumer protection point of view, given the mention in CR), then the article would need to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, so WP:TNT applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks K.e.coffman. I agree. I've started the process in removing fluff. The issues then seem to get a bit clearer. peterl (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & Assessment Here are few examples of Blatant promotional writing (As written by none other than Company -Violating COI/ Very professional highly misleading article). Media References are used to Write this article. No in-depth coverage is found on media. If we remove everything from this article. Only One Paragraph would be remained. Surely not an Encyclopedia Material.

Having more than eight million registered users makes the company one of the largest providers of pay-to-participate auctions in the world. Sources are Unreliable CrunchBase Corporate Profile (This is their first paragraph to begin with)
DealDash was the most talked about brand in the world on Facebook's "People Talking About This" metric (No where close to notability standard set by Wikipedia)
In August 2013, DealDash also created the site DealDashReviewed.com to house and aggregate reviews and testimonials from their customers (what is this? Feature of a website/ Clear Press)
Business Model is written like 1000% promotional intend and nothing else, as written by company itself.
Remain With Funding news. Again non-notable thing for an Encyclopedia.

- In the End What is remained? 2-3 lines for this promotional content?

Now let's analyse Few references;
- http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/startupin-kova-vuosi-maailman-suurin-alallaan/9EZaNG3J
- http://www.nextavenue.org/are-penny-auction-sites-seen-tv-real/ (Writer is a Blogger)
- https://www.truthinadvertising.org/dealdash-com/ (Non-notable media/ Blog/ Wikipedia has provide Zero Credibility for such references)
- https://pando.com/2013/03/21/this-20-year-olds-three-year-old-startup-did-44m-in-revenue-last-year/ (Again A Blog)
- Misleading AdWeek Mention (Seriously What is that?) http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/obscure-direct-response-brands-dominate-facebook-chatter-149636
- http://whois.domaintools.com/dealdashreviewed.com (is this even count?)
  - - All such parameters provides enough detail how this company created this non-sense on Wikipedia citing all kind of references to mislead the readers. This is most ridiculous article that should have place in Encyclopedia. ZERO Credibility. Light2021 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question If we do keep this, how can we keep it reverting to promotionalism ? DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The same way Wikipedia stops other abusive editors: by banning them when they become consistent abusers. This is ludicrous. Deleting an article means you don't think the article should exist at all, or that copyright violations require the deletion of the edit history. Neither apply here. The nominator just doesn't like the content of the article, despite the subject being notable. That's not good enough. This discussion should be closed immediately. 108.34.151.139 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everyone has own idea what is and what is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Notability concerns were raised even on the article talk page and AfD is way to find answer, if subject of this article is notable enough, or not... Pavlor (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - As presented in detail on assessment. Credibility is highly questionable. It does not allow wikipedia to become Press distribution channel for mere promotions of companies. such credibility is well written here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Notability means impact, Wikipedia:No one really cares, Wikipedia:Too soon, Wikipedia:There is no deadline and many others. this article violates each one of them very evidently. on the other note it adds no value to Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is read and considered as source of Education. What such article provide, it is beyond just my liking or disliking as being accused. Thanks. Please read those articles carefully, and you can decide yourself. What is best. Light2021 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As K.e.coffman and other have noted, as an 'apparent scam' or from a consumer protection perspective it's notable. (I note that 'notable' doesn't mean 'helpful' or 'good'.) The links to Consumer Reports, AdWeek and Truth in Advertising are all notable, credible sources. peterl (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I keep going back and forth on this one. Concerns over notability and promotion seem legit, but there are some sources. The Adweek article specifically calls the company 'obscure' and little else, and is churnalism based on a questionable Socialbakers blurb. TiNA and Consumer Reports seem more substantial, though. I don't know enough about Kauppalehti and Talouselämä to say. It's weird to me that this company does all their business in the US, but is mainly discussed in Finnish sources. Most of the interviews with the founder are based as much on his youth and eccentricity as the company itself, and interviews are poor for notability anyway. It's messy, and the walls-of-texts from the COI editor is not a good sign for future improvement. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I've gone ahead and cleaned the article up, adding content and sourcing.[14] On review, the company and its site are not a scam as such, but its entire field of business, penny auction sites, is controversial for luring consumers into making poor choices. As one of the top 3-5 exemplars, it is certainly something a casual Wikipedia reader interested in knowing about this field should know about. It would not have been on my burning list of articles that need creation, but we cover the good and the bad here on Wikipedia, the exciting and the boring. One might compare that with other disreputable fields like payday lending, multilevel marketing, or informercials. Because of the scammy and rather uninteresting nature of the business it has gained relatively weak coverage despite its size ($100M+ revenues, more than many famous Silicon Valley startups) outside of trade publications that specialize in its field or area of the world. But it has earned sustained significant coverage in relatively niche publications like Arctic Startup and Adweek, as well as occasional mentions in broader-based publications like Forbes and Wall Street Journal. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your desperation has come this far! have you read those Wall street, Adwek aricle? and for your argument sake you can mention all kind of media garbage as references. Even this article is being kept. Your intends are clear! Why on earth you are even here. Light2021 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits removed the intensity of Scam it represent. This is called manipulations of information from what it is covered in media. Scam can not be called as Criticism. You have presented Whole article as Legit Business Model. Comparing with Silicon Valley Startups has no meaning here. References are not from credible media Sources. Light2021 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO criticism is correct here, calling something a scam especially when it's disputed probably isn't a good idea, Refs look fine to me. –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Light2021's ongoing WP:BATTLE behavior is duly noted. I'm mentioning their AN/I report at the top of this discussion, and will add this to the AN/I report. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "No one bother to know about this company"(?) is not grounds for deletion. Being a "scam" or a poor value for consumers is not grounds for deletion. There are plenty of non-PR third party sources, many of them critical of the company, that easily satisfy WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

No doubt you are unable to find sources with non-notability. Your intend are clear as water. This article is filled with garbage and claims with all kind of shit possible on media. Light2021 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I thin penny auctions are huge gamble and very addicting for some. However, they are by no means a scam. They are a legitimate business model which some people like and some people don't. I disagree with prostitution, but I am not about to call Moonlite BunnyRanch immoral because I disagree with it. I believe the references presented, especially AdWeek meet WP:RS. Of course, here come the WP:Churnalism comments so I would ask how the AdWeek article qualifies as such. As far as keeping promotion off the page, I don't think we can. Unfortunately, too many people come to Wikipedia without knowing the rules and simply try to promote their businesses. If we delete everything that has a chance of being promoted, we would need to eliminate half of Wikipedia. It sucks as there really is no balance, but deleting an article to avoid a risk of future promotional content would bastardize the AfD process. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have proudly mentioned AdWeek and others. Have you really opened that link and read yourself what is being written there? I highly doubt that! and one not in depth coverage is not suitable for Wikipedia. We are not building a newspaper or directory here! Atleast read what people says. Just come here and make a keep vote. Have you read my assessment. I have presented a detail analysis for this one!Light2021 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Manipulators here comes the army of Keep Voters. Who are not here because it meant to be. The biased one who desperately want to block me. and miserably failed to see my contributions. You can keep manipulating the facts And ruin this wikipedia with fifthly articles and SCAMS/SPAM for encyclopedia content. The very funny guy OhNoitsJamie who became somehow Admin but Intellectually incapable to see over 80% vote deletion and call my luck and other even fail to count the %. Go on and please ask someone to Close as Either No-consensus or Keep by vote. You yourself must know Wikipedia is no where meant for such article. On the other hand ignoring who wrote this article and what is their intend. Now he will write "Nothing makes any-sense". Complete waste of time to even banging my head to wall with you people. CNMall41 you can keep anything. Checking last deletions of articles and your judgement. Where you are the only one with Keep vote and 6-8 delete votes. Good Luck with your wiki-judgement skills. Please read those articles I suggested earlier. FYI there is ANI, go there and Vote your block as well to support such people who are ready to ruin this platform for sake of their personal Vendetta. Why are you even wasting your time. You have enough group for Keep vote counts. No Assessment can prove you anything. You can become blind and see nothing! Sadly VOTE like Politics does matter on Wikipedia. Any idiot can write here and few idiots can keep not because it makes sense but you are non-likable to prove few people miserably wrong in their assessment on their face. Such as shame This is the knowledge we are preserving for our generations and people on Wikipedia by manipulations and twisting things. Light2021 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have intentionally not engaged you this last week due to your hostile behavior towards those who disagree with you. You state that all I do is vote !keep for articles. In actuality, I vote !delete more than 2/3 of the time [15]. I have also agreed with many of your nominations and voted inline with your recommendations. However, due to your comments and suggestions (" FYI there is ANI, go there and Vote your block as well to support such people who are ready to ruin this platform for sake of their personal Vendetta") I believe I will again agree with your suggestion and take it up there. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -- thinking more on the "consumer protection" angle of this, my input on this would be that it's better to delete the article as a stand-alone page vs keeping it. Consumers can just as easily find the Consumer Report article as this page. But: any potential future COI editors have no access to CR pieces, while they could manipulate this page, once the AfD passes and they eyes are not on it. Since the notability is rather marginal, I'd still advocate deletion and / or redirection. As I noted above, when I encountered the page it was subtly promotional and WP:MANUAL like, and I'm afraid it would be easy for this page to continue its promotional purpose. As an alternative to deletion, the page can be redirected to Bidding fee auction. Anything useful (a couple of sentences) can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: since the keep was "weak", any opinions on a redirect? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Refs seem to indicate notability. Doesn't matter whether it's a scam or not. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 15:59, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Da Bulldogs[edit]

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

Group has one brief mention in Allmusic, but no other reliable independent coverage exists on this non-charting act. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article isn't notable as there isn't any "significant coverage" (WP:GNG) in the one reference present. --♫CheChe♫ talk 18:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 21:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject does not pass WP:GNG as it lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner (Steve Angello song)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable under the criteria of WP:NSONG.Karst (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per Karst Spiderone 17:35, 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. It's clear now that nominating a high school for deletion will result in an automatic keep, unless the school has been proven to be a hoax. So until a discussion is held about this, I'm closing this as keep, with the suggestion to not nominate articles on high schools/colleges for deletion unless you can absolutely, 100% prove it does not exist. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis G. Santos National High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia article. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding presumption of notability for secondary schools if they can be shown to exist. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Andreas Philopater, and the lack of evidence using WP:BEFORE D1. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthology Complex[edit]

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

Cannot find any secondary sources, appears to fail WP:NBOOK. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-notable self-published book and I can't find anything out there to show that it's ultimately notable enough for an article. For transparency's sake, I've blocked the editor that created the page for a promotional username (their username was the same as a website they were trying to enlist people for back in 2010), as I've found evidence of a very strong COI, enough to show that this was likely an attempt at promoting the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bondegezou (talk) 15:29, 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. This was initiated by the original editor blanking the page/requesting speedy deletion. However, I'm going to invoke the snowball clause and say this subject does not meet the notability criteria and would not survive the full run of the AfD—and CSD G4 may apply if the page is recreated. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cruz Avery[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable individual sourced only to Twitter/Instagram/YouTube. --DAJF (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet the WP:GNG and only references sources that are not reliable. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, reads a bit like self-promo. Essentially an orphaned article; its only internal links are from User pages and the like. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a singer who has not yet risen to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 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. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle law[edit]

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

This article provides no real information, and seems to merely be someone's opinion piece on bicycle laws. Standard editing would not be sufficient to fix this page. Page should not be on Wikipedia until extremely major changes are made. Harutsedo2 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lede gives enough information and sources that the topic is notable. The two opinion essays, one on the USA and one on China, should be removed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems notable and could be expanded. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've removed the essays as hopeless, but the two subsidiary articles Bicycle law in the United States and Bicycle helmet laws are both cited, and sufficient to show the topic is notable. UK cycling law and French cycling law are clearly suitable subtopics also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Expansion is certainly not unforeseeable. As a cyclist, this is not something I would never think to check on Wikipedia. I'm sure translations from other Wikis could be also incorporated. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:14, 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. WP:HEY close, notability concerns were addressed by User:Carrite's improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 12:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua H. Berkey[edit]

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

Mr. Berkey does not meet the requirements for ex officio inclusion under WP:NPOL since he is an unsuccessful political candidate nor does the article look to meet WP:ANYBIO. Dolotta (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unsuccessful candidate. Delete as per above. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he appears to have been a figure of some importance among reformers and temperance advocates in his region back in the day. A detailed biography of Berkey begins on p. 694 of Commemorative Biographical Record of the Counties of Rock, Green, Grant, Iowa and Lafayette, Wisconsin: Containing Biographical Sketches of Prominent and Representative Citizens, and of Many of the Early Settled Families, Higginson Book Company, 1901. And he is certainly easy to find in news archive searches, including both general circulation newspapers (national not just regional; the New York and other out of state papers covered his campaigns) and in Prohibition newspapers like the American Advance, an old prohibition newspaper that needs an article. Berkley edited a regional temperance newspaper (called The Crank, presumably because old time presser were operated with a crank) in Kansas for several years. He was then called to a pulpit in Monroe, Wisconsin, a post he held for the rest of his life. It was as a popular public speaker for the reform causes of the era that he ran for office several times. The fact is that we don't cover this era very well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I could see how he would be mentioned in other further Prohibition articles if they expand. --FuzzyGopher (talk)
Keep per E.M.Gregory-thank you-RFD (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment E.M.Gregory -- Would you be willing to take what you've found and put it into the article? I'm always excited to learn something new! Dolotta (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. The intent of the Special Notability Guideline (high bar) for losing candidates, I believe, is to block self-serving political propaganda from contemporary wankers on the make, not to filter out historical biography. Finishing in third place in a gubernatorial race from a century ago is a sure-fire indicator that this was a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will spend a few minutes this morning trying to take this microstub up to a useful size. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Substantial improvement done and a bit more to come. It is worth noting that the death of the prominent Wisconsin temperance lecturer Berkey in 1911 was deemed front page news in one Abilene, Kansas newspaper SEE HERE. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN Kudos to User:Carrite. We can KEEP this with confidence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Thanks for your work in rescuing this article. Royal broil 13:52, 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.

[Minsker_(BFTG_9:_1/2_album)-1] Minsker, Evan (January 29, 2015). "Various Artists: Back From the Grave Vol. 9: 1/2 albums". Pitchfork. Pitchfork Media Inc. Retrieved October 5, 2015.

[Minsker_(BFTG_10:_2/2_album)-2] Minsker, Evan (January 29, 2015). "Various Artists: Back From the Grave Vol. 10: 2/2 albums". Pitchfork. Pitchfork Media Inc. Retrieved October 5, 2015.

[Sounds_XP_(BFTG_9&10)-3] "Various Artists Back From The Grave Volumes 9 & 10". SoundsXP.com. Retrieved October 22, 2016.

[4] "DealDash cover story of Kauppalehti". Retrieved May 30, 2013.

[5] "Google Keyword Planner search volumes for DealDash and other related queries". Retrieved November 1, 2016.

[6] "Obscure Direct Response Brands Dominate Facebook Chatter". Adweek. Retrieved May 24, 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]