Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 October	11 October >

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) 05:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Berlin[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. there is also no bilateral article to redirect to. nominating for the same reasons:

High Commission of Tanzania, Lusaka
High Commission of Tanzania, Pretoria
Embassy of France, Dar es Salaam

LibStar (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blythwood (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No point in having such tiny articles that only restate the article title. ¡Boz zio! 15:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bozzio. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ice Bucket Challenge. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Frates[edit]

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

Filthy Frank's page was deleted because he was only notable for the Harlem Shake. This guy is only notable for the Ice Bucket Challenge. WP:BLP1E applies. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ice Bucket Challenge. Blythwood (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge. Lots of news coverage, but seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E. ¡Boz zio! 15:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ice Bucket Challenge. I created Pete Frates as a redirect with no intention to make it an article, and I still feel that's the right approach. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ice Bucket Challenge: Doesn't seem notable for individual article. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above comments. It should be noted, however, that BLP1E applied just as much to the John Henry Williams page, which was recently kept. These AfDs are getting more inconsistent by the week. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please go play Wiki Lawyer somewhere else. There's no point in having these AfDs if standards are going to be applied in such an inconsistent manner. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury Filmworks[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIZ, WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:CORP. The article needs use of available expansion and sourcing. Speaking toward its European expansion Variety does call it Canada’s premiere animation studio, Ottawa Business Journal speaks toward of it in depth when reporting on Canadian animation studios raising funds, Animation Magazine speaks toward it in detail staffing when it reports "Culbert Appointed VP of Production at Mercury Filmworks", and it also when it reports the "Annecy Details 2016 Pro Conferences" (a major animation industry conference), and the are many other sources available to show that under WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST we have a reasonable assertion of topic notability, even if currently unsourced. So sorry nominator, we improve weak topics and not delete simply because they need editorial attention. WP:BEFORE is always a great tool to use. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:CORP and WP:GNG. In addition to Michael's examples, I would add this other Variety article, as well as this article from the Canadian childen's content trade magazine Kidscreen on a new digital venture from the company. There's really no shortage of Gnews coverage on the company. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough available sources for an expansion. Dimadick (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Requires expansion but is not worthy of deletion. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Issues in Fresno Unified[edit]

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

Appears to be a group project to create an article on Wikipedia based on the article creator's username. Non-encyclopedic essay about current controversies in a local school district. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG. Doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a content fork. Blythwood (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cooper (Youtuber)[edit]

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

Disputed PROD, concern was: Non-notable YouTube personality. Fails NBIO and the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for opposing the deletion of article "Frank Cooper" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC) It has been suggested that "Frank Cooper" is irrelevant and this page should be removed. I disagree with this due to the fact that he is a very important and significant figure for the hobby NERF, where he promotes the hobby to new viewers. NERF is in turn a very important hobby/brand/toy because many kids play with them, and NERF blasters draw in an estimated $400 US million dollars a year.[reply]

In conclusion, while he does not have as many views or subscribers as some channels, he is still significant because of his promotion for the hobby NERF. I feel this page should stay up.

Any more comments/questions may be posted in this talk page or on my talk page. Regards,Matthewethanchowtoy (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs)

Delete From WP:INHERIT:

Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with Important Subject."

So Frank Cooper is notable because he is associated with NERF? I do not think that is sufficient justification for keeping the page. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But NERF is one of the largest toy brands in the world right now. Matthewethanchowtoy (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, he has most surely caused more sales in this hobby, he has created many viral videos. NERF is significant again because it is one of the largest toy brands in the world, and contributes vastly to the global toy market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the General notability guideline, as summarized in the "Golden rule". I have found no significant coverage of this person in any reliable, independent sources. It is apparent that the article creator has an interest in this subject, but notability requires evidence that sources with a reputation for accuracy and editorial judgement have already given attention to a subject. Until then, it is TOO SOON for a Wikipedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Outdated" is indeed not a reason for deletion and the other issues appear to have been resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GeneCalling[edit]

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

1st nomination was in 2007; the few folks who !voted, noted then this was PROMO but found it notable. Article was created by a SPA (Special:Contributions/Mbeach14) and has hardly changed since it was created, and technology is now far outdated. No reason for this promo cruft to exist. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion at present about whether this should be kept or deleted, but must point out that the technology being far outdated is not a valid reason for, or contributory factor towards, deletion. We cover the history of science as well as current science. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, When you look at the article's history it appears that Seraphimblade has removed much of the promotional stuff. What remains seems to be in line with the sentiment held at the last AfD which was kept. 92.2.76.202 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note to closer: per its contribs IP appears to have arrived simply to oppose my !votes; this is a weak rationale as is the other. I appear to have a "fan" in Manchester. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Outdated is no reason to delete. Perhaps even adds strength to keep argument, so that there is some encyclopedic record of it. Promotional argument has been largely addressed. Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated above, outdated isn't a reason to delete. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nobody voting !keep is paying attention to the abysmal, badly-sourced, PROMO state of the article. In the face of these thoughtless !votes it is clear that the article will be kept and I will just have to withdraw this and rewrite it from scratch. Frustrating but this is the nature of working in a community Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I partially rewrote the article by cutting promotional content, rewriting the lead, and adding independent reliable sources. Of the sources in the article, The Kirst 2005, Green 2001, and Klein 2002 sources seem independent reliable sources with enough depth to write a short article on the topic. Multiple reliable sources are sufficient for notability per WP:GNG and with the promotional content largely gone, WP:PROMO and WP:TNT no longer apply. There is of course much room for improvement, but the article has WP:POTENTIAL. A notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Vianna[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails NBIO and the GNG. I only found one legitimate article in a reliable source about her. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok, I temporarily ended the article about the singer, please feel free to discuss inclusion, review the links I have outlined. I have not removed the tags on respect for the rules of wikipedia. Thank you for the corrections. Misantropileño (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through the sources and they are suspect at best. Mostly tabloids with one very odd Yahoo Finance article that is written in a very promotional tone. Fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Far away from subjective judgments on the referenced pages, I guess While not in banned by Wikipedia, are valid. The tone in which yahoo or other websites refers about singer is responsible for drafting and editing director, yahoo not required to comply with a policy of fairness, we in wikipedia if. The singer has over three million followers in their social networks, is much more than many of the groups and singers who are proposed to be eliminated from wikipedia. Our law is the legality of wikipedia, subjective morality should not intervene, if she is or not famous for showing her buttocks is not something that we should rest us, is part of the culture, our culture, and modeling is preferable to other issues that really affect our society. And she is a singer and a songwriter. Misantropileño (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of indepdent coverage that would pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Materialscientist (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abrakadabr[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF. This article looks like it exists to expound and promote this person's theories. I can find no evidence that anyone is discussing him and the references appear to be citations within his theories rather than to reliable sources about him or his work. Jbh ^Talk 21:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to be found. May change vote if they can be. Is this BLP a hoax? At best WP:Fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete - Hoax. I am fairly certain this was speedily deleted yesterday as a hoax but created by a different editor?? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax same article as recently created at GomerOzDubar. Copy at User:Lexington Kromwell/sandbox. Likely socks of User:Mollymaybach See WP:ANI#GomerOzDubar Hoax?. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I tagged the article {{db-hoax}} per above. Jbh ^Talk 22:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ravertooth tiger[edit]

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

Non-notable record label. Fails NCORP and the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertions of notability made in the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grand total of zero Google News hits [1], and no reliable sources found with a broader search. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Nothing found to establish notability ABF99 (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. ¡Boz zio! 15:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A few searches have provided no coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policies of Telangana State[edit]

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

Surely the state of Telengana has many policies; more than can be contained in a single Wikipedia article. And if the article were to become comprehensive, it would essentially be a textbook of the laws an policies of Telengana. There is not an equivalent article on the policies of any other state or nation (although articles about specific government officials do exist) so there is no clear reason why this article (with its scant sourcing) should exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Government of Telangana must be pretty thrifty if they're relying on Wikipedia to inform the public of their policies. ¡Boz zio! 15:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article could be merged within List of government schemes in India (only blue links) or Government of Telangana (supported by multiple RSes). For now, WP:TNT it (considering the low quality of contents and sourcing in there. there also appears to be some wp:copyvio issues). Anup [Talk] 18:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan Sheraz[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article, with some advertorial/promotional overtones, about a musician -- he may have a valid claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, but with inadequate sourcing it's hard to determine what's accurate and what's PR bumf. Initially I speedy deleted this G11 (unambiguous advertising and promotion), but then following a request from the creator I restored it to her own sandbox for improvement -- upon which she added a couple of unreliable PR blog sources and then copy-pasted the sandbox page back into articlespace again without actually addressing the tone problems at all. It was then flagged for G11 again by another editor, which in turn was almost immediately declined by still another editor. This all remains without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source a proper article about him that reads like an encyclopedia article instead of an EPK -- but this is still not appropriate for inclusion in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ---No reliable sources found to establish notability, article needs much better sourcing and tone, as mentioned. ABF99 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete --- I am agreed with the wordings which are mentioned above and yes it was already deleted and I made a request for restoring it because I wanted to make some changes in it. And I also removed some content which was seems to be like promotional content however I am still making changes in this article and I hope within a day it will be completely changed :) So, rather than deleting kindly give me time for making changes and writing in a proper way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelaRola (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC) "" Recreated from scratch "" Hey, I put my hard work for recreation of this article and removed all the content which was seems to be promotional content. Moreover I also included his accurate information. Kindly review it again and remove this tag of deletion from the article after reviewing again — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelaRola (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the second AfD I've seen this week with an attempt to tamper with it by doing an early, improper close. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't Delete~~ ---This article should not be deleted as above I mentioned that I will take some time to make changes and I have done all things, I've removed the content which seems to be promotional while I also recreated the article from scratch, You can also review the article before anyone hit the delete button. There is a lot of hardowrk behind this article, Kindly don't remove it again and again over. AngelaRola (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete --- I am not author of this article but I read this article just a few minutes ago and I didn't find any thing due to which this article should be deleted. However article needs to be improved. So, I think rather than deletion there should some tags be added for improvement of the article like if someone wants to help for improving otherwise there is nothing for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzentwala12 (talk • contribs)

— Muzentwala12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Don't Delete --- This article has some flaws and needs lil bit improvement but I don't consider it to be deleted.damqalandar (talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete there are no reliable independent sources provided that establish notability- fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. If the article's creator requires extra time then it should be worked on in their sandbox not in the main space, then check before moving it again. In its current form in needs considerable improvement & most importantly suitable references. Dan arndt (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am administrator in Commons. AngelaRola and Muzentwala12 have no contributions in Commons except uploading copyright violations about Arslan Sheraz (now all deleted). Damqalandar is not a registered user in Commons. Taivo (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Delete !votes not a significant proportion of the total. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen[edit]

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

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

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

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

~~YouTube views, a Bieber tweet, and filler stories by news sites do not make a stub article's topic notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn, taking to PROM with singer's article. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In-depth coverage by the BBC [2], CNN [3], The Straits Times [4], India Today [5], and CTV [6] among others would show that the subject meets WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All news sites publish filler sometimes. We really need to cut down on YouTube and internet meme coverage per WP:NOTKNOWYOURMEME. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources cover it, it's legitimate coverage of cultural phenomena. There are plenty of well-sourced articles on Youtube stars and internet memes on Wikipedia. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion if the sourcing is there. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources, import it to Wikinews and rewrite it completely a) to be more news-y and b) for CC-BY-2.5 compliance. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If" isn't the question, I've shown that it clearly does and is a well-sourced cultural phenomenon that meets general notability guideline for coverage. Wikinews is a terrible Wikimedia project anyway. As for lasting coverage, this is well into its second week of coverage and international reliable sources have talked about its popularity in the Philippines, [7] Wales,[8] Hong Kong [9] and India [10]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. All of the sources are simply gee-whiz news stories over a week or two.(It seems that events have overtaken us and this has charted in Japan, and maybe elsewhere. 16:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No prejudice to re-creation if this song somehow charts on Billboard, but as-is just another viral video filling time on newscasts and viral video shows until the seven-day forecast rehash. Nate • (chatter) 20:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Mrschimpf and User:86.17.222.157, it is not news. But if it really becomes a music album of some sort, not just a viral video, I'd suggest to keep it.
^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 02:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but keep until trend is over. As per above, it should definitely be deleted as per WP:NOTNEWS. However, since it is still ongoing, I suggest we keep this article for now and renominate it immediately for speedy deletion about 3-4 months later.XFusionSGX (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way Wikipedia, in particular WP:NOTNEWS, works. We don't keep articles while their topics are in the news and then delete them afterwards, but rather wait until they have been shown to have more than fleeting coverage before writing an article. A more policy-compliant way to deal with this would be to delete it for now and then recreate it if it later transpires that it has lasting notability beyond the current news cycle. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that it is notable and it has even topped the charts, my stance now is to just simply keep it per WP:GNG and WP:NSONG as below. XFusionSGX (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Patar knight notes, this video has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources worldwide. This is not routine coverage, the song is described as a "viral sensation". Who are Wikipedia editors to decide if a topic is "filler" or not? That smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. The coverage has persisted for weeks so is not just one news cycle. If editors really must not have an article on this, then the content must be merged to Daimaou Kosaka, the comedian who created the song. Don't go thinking about deleting that bio - check his Japanese Wikipedia bio, he's definitely notable there and what's notable in Japan is notable for English Wikipedia too. Fences&Windows 18:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's routine coverage. For a few days in late September there were news reports that this was a "viral sensation", but such news reports over any other few days, or other news outlets over the same few days, will routinely describe something else as a "viral sensation". The fact that many journalists are too lazy to look beyond what's trending on Twitter or wherever doesn't mean that we should emulate them. This is precisely the kind of situation that WP:NOTNEWS is designed for. And, no, I wouldn't dream about asking for the deletion of the article on Daimaou Kosaka, but his notability is not inherited by everything he creates. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the coverage of the song and the notability of its creator, it seems that merging the content to the creator's page is what should occur instead of deletion, if the delete !votes have it. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per User:Patar knight. Merging is a good idea so solve the problem. I'd say Keep this article until the trend is over, then Merge into Daimaou Kosaka. Also, leaving a redirect is a good idea as pageview statistics are over the top. ^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (talk · contribs) 12:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obvious WP:GNG pass. SSTflyer 12:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If still not convinced, try searching for Japanese sources. SST flyer 12:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Maybe younger editors have a different attention span, but as far as I'm concerned a few weeks is not "enduring". Would we consider a topic to have enduring notability if it got a couple of weeks of coverage in, say, 1966 rather than 2016? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be more of an issue of WP:RECENTism than anything else I'd think too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen is a piece of music on sales at iTunes [11]. And it sells in 134 countries [12]. So, if this is removed, all song titles will be removed. Carl Daniels (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has debuted on the Japan Hot 100 at number 4 and charted on the US Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, thus passing WP:NSONG. The song and video has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources as well. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:NSONG, having received enough coverage to qualify for an article and per having charted on two Billboard charts: Bubbling Under Hot 100 and Japan Hot 100. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't pass it for Bubbling Under, but Billboard Japan Hot 100 is notable. If it hits Oricon, then it'll be notable for sure. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Unlike many viral songs, this song has actually charted on various charts. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't read the above discussion but this has now come up at RfD, or rather a redirect to it, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_13#Apple_pen. There, we're discussing the redirect not the article, but one will follow the other. Nominated at RfD by User:SSTflyer, who has not commented here or there, but I see a couple of regs here from RfD, User:AngusWOOF and User:Patar knight, all of which are regs at RfD. The R will have to follow the article, not the other way around, so there is little point discussing it at the RfD. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song may be viral, but it's charted, so to me at least it would meet WP:NSONG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmolifting[edit]

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

This article is essentially an ad for one company's branded version of autologous blood injection. Since we already have an article on the generic topic, the only reason for the existence of this article is to promote the particular developers' claims. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt promotional brochure. gah. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the product is primarily marketed outside the Anglo-Saxon world, we dont have that many English language sources. This should mean that we ought to avoid letting a bias in favor of Englishness cloud our judgement on whether this is notable. 92.2.76.202 (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note to closer: per its contribs IP appears to have arrived simply to oppose my !votes; this is a weak rationale as is the other. I appear to have a "fan" in Manchester. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@92.2.76.202: The availability of sources is not the problem. The product is one brand of a generic process for which Wikipedia already has an article. Since there is no mention of the product at the existing generic process article, there is no point in a redirect, so the proper solution to the problem of WP:SPAM is deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into autologous blood injection, to the extent that the suggested (sourced) application for photodermatosis treatment might get a mention there. Otherwise superfluous and promotional.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nominator. Citobun (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even sources worth a redirect. Not sure about salting though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tonetta (musician)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Single source of questionable quality. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale suggests you only looked at what was in the article. --Michig (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no claim of notability here that would pass WP:NMUSIC — the article basically amounts to "he exists" — and the only source here is a Q&A interview on a blog, so there's no claim to passing WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Quietus is not a blog. --Michig (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage that exists is adequate to demonstrate notability, e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. --Michig (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've reviewed Michig's sources. Qualifies on GNG. Lourdes 10:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik von Scheel[edit]

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

No indications that the article's grandiose claims are accurate. The one reliable third-party source, Times, has gone 404, but the archived copy I found does not mention von Scheel. Google News only gives two blogs, no reliable sources. That leaves us with this fawning biography which I rather doubt was independent or subject to meaningful editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable sources to back up the grandiose claims of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre[edit]

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

Appears to fail the WP:GNG. While there are a few mentions out there in news articles the coverage appears to not be significant enough as to confer notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable about this shopping centre. Ajf773 (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -not enough significant coverage, as noted. ABF99 (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -as per nom and comments above. A run-of-the-mill shopping mall. Not notable.Wayne 17:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knopflerfish[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG, with a lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete apart from no sources at all here, a basic WP:BEFORE shows a few passing mentions in news and books, but I haven't found anything actually about it. Willing to be convinced ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - it's certainly not an unknown; there's the odd paper describing implementations [21], stackoverflow has ~30 questions about it [22], and generally a fair amount of talk on boards etc. But yeah, nothing specifically about it. I'm not too firm with software notability criteria; this may not qualify.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 East Waynesville Baptist Church. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Chandler[edit]

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

A classic example of failing WP:BLP1E - the subject is not notable for anything apart from this event. St Anselm (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been nominated as a result of my raising it at the closely related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Waynesville Baptist Church. I would suggest these two articles be considered jointly. If one is kept, the other could well be retained as a redirect to that target page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a pastor of a church of about 100 members who received some attention for his method of making a stand about how he felt about the moral positions of political candidates. It was clearly one event. It is also not very good coverage, considering that the article states that there was allegedly a recording of what he said. Either what Chandler said was or was not recorded, such poor wording suggests less than notable level coverage. I would also advocate deleting the article on the congregation he lead, unless people can find sources covering that congregation from its organization to dispersal or current functioning, sources in the article do not make it clear it still exists slightly more than 10 years after the incident in question, it might, but we need more sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article doesn't mention the audio recording any more - I removed it since it was not supported by the cited source. St Anselm (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the BLP1E issue? Is there significant coverage outside of that event? St Anselm (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article at East Waynesville Baptist Church. I could see a Weak Keep is there was more evidence on his impact onto the larger evangelical movement as a whole or other situations impacted by his actions. South Nashua (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He used up seven minutes of his 15 minutes of fame. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the church, because he was its pastor for a while. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I have no problem with redirecting. St Anselm (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the church.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Redirect to church, but both this and the church article have the feel of COATRACK articles from a Presidential election 12 years ago. I suspect that the church article ought also to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Tudu[edit]

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD contested cause he was on the bench twice this season and is bound to make his debut soon... WP:CRYSTALBALL much. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete indeed. Promising player, but not notable enough yet. Coderzombie (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Can always be recreated in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. As noted below, this is the wrong forum. Feel free to open a discussion at WP:RFD if you wish. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monastery of Our Lady of Kazan (Tambov)[edit]

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

The redirect is meaningless, because the city of Tambov ≠ monastery in this city. The separate article is possible to create (ru:Казанский монастырь (Тамбов)), the monastery is notable for Wikipedia. I don't understand how such redirects follow the policy.

I may create a stub if the redirect will be deleted. --Wolverène (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, this should be listed at WP:RFD as it is a redirect not an article. Second, if you can write the article, you can do so without having the redirect deleted . Just remove the redirect and write the article. -- GB fan 17:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, GB fan. I didn't know that this should be discussed at RFD because enwp is not my home project; next time I'll start in the right place. As for the second thing, I'll think about but it's more interesting to be the original author of the first edit. :) Just a point of principle, in some sense. Regards, --Wolverène (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Metaphor[edit]

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

It most possibly lacks WP:MUSICBIO and WP:REFERENCE. DBrown SPS (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it already has references to reliable sources such as The Source and music genre specific sources such as XXL Magazine. It was approved in January 2015 through the AFC process. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no reliable source linked to the person, making it unsourced. The Source and XXL are lowered besides reliable, but the others aren't highly known. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the sources cited are trivial mentions, or are interviews, which are considered primary sources. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources", per WP:BASIC. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he has been signed to a major record label Warner/Chappell Music since 2012, the Source is rs as are others. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria in WP:MUSICBIO states: "has released two or more albums on a major record label". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO is only a guideline, he seems to have produced a significant number of songs on albums released by a major label ,and to have produced charting songs so he seems to meet the spirit of the guideline rather than the exact letter of it. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um...if it's "only a guideline", why would you care if you "meet the spirit" of it, or any part of it? I mean, it's only a guideline. It's just a wet paint sign, I can touch the wall if I want to, but maybe I'll just touch a tiny part of it, in case it's wet paint. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending better evidence of solidly, independent third party sources. The ones here all have compromised merit. Just to be featured in The Source (ref. 5) is not automatically indicative of third party coverage. A respectable publication, yes. But it is also an arm of a music marketing/branding parent company, which, among other things, generates press for it’s clients to be featured in The Source and its other properties. (see: http://www.thenorthstargroup.biz ).

XXL and HipHop87 (refs. 1,2,6) can be misleading, as both are chock full of legitimate coverage. Yet they become compromised in their free solicitation of content (see: http://www.xxlmag.com/submission-guidelines/ and http://hiphopsince1987.com/contact/ ), opening the door for professional promotional agencies to submit work for consideration, making it difficult to accurately vet because of varying standards from one publication to the next. I’m not entirely sure of these two—and if I’m wrong I’m wrong—but my experience recognizes the subtleties of promotional hype when I see it. (I worked in music marketing/promotion in the 90’s—and while the technology has changed over the decades, the general nature of the work hasn’t. If you truly know what you are doing a well aimed pitch usually results in a magazine hungry for content to let you write an article about your client.)

World Star Hip Hop (ref. 4) simply posts the submissions it accepts. And ref. 3 is trivial. And I’m also not sure what to make of the claimed connection to Warners/Chappell and other major labels as a sign of notability. Based on his work history up to the present it seems the connection is through the artist he is producing rather than a personal association. So I think this is trying to make a WP:NOTABILITY CONFERRED claim. We’ve seen so many of these “(fill in the blank artist name) was signed by (fill in major record label)” in AFD only to find upon investigation that it is something considerably less, but sure looks good on a resume! Looking over this subject’s bio it’s easy to imagine that is the case, but I may be wrong. The specifics may be in one of these interviews, although, as mentioned, those are unverifiable first person sources. Anyway, give me better sources, and I’ll gladly change my vote to keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ShelbyMarion's arguments carry the issue for me. Also, Danitha Jones' piece in The Source is an interview, which is a primary source, not suitable for establishing notability. Same with Ralph Bristout's piece in XXL. The guideline at MUSICBIO says that we should not rely on sources "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources available are too trivial to count toward significant coverage. An interview cannot be reliable as the most extensive source because, as Binksternet explained, we cannot rely primarily on instances where the musician talks about himself/herself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daldalia massacre[edit]

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

Fails notability. I have found zero sources about this massacre, or coverage in reliable third party sources, or even just basic verification at a bare minimum. The article cites three non-English links (Bangladeshi, I presume) which are dead. Mar4d (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated, fails notability and WP:V. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I suspect that the Bangladeshi war of independence, of which this was an incident was a brutal affair. What we have here is apparently based on Hindi language websites or articles, which are likely not to be NPOV, and will not tell us why the Pakistani Army decided to attack this village: they may have had a reason or it could be a random attack, assuming it happened. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was also unable to find a single credible reference about this incident, considering most results were just Wiki-mirrors. Falls way short of WP:V. GAB^gab 16:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Functional food definition by FFC[edit]

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

This apparently WP:COI article is basically presenting one organization's particular definition for "functional food" and its background. This is WP:UNDUE emphasis on the activities and motivations of the this one organization, the FFC. It's basically an advocacy essay, even after I deleted, just now, a section stressing the importance of all of this. It's essentially the organization using Wikipedia to publish its views. Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found zero RS on searching for the FFC itself, which I therefore assume is not a notable company. Consequently, it is highly dubious that its definition of whatever is notable, when no source to that effect is provided. And that is without even looking at potential OR issues. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to say that FFC's definition of functional foods is absolute or should they take any or all credit for defining the concept, however, much like all things in the field of science, everything is up for debate and discussion because things change. FFC is not trying to claim that everybody in the industry should understand functional foods by solely their definition. It is FFC's responsibility to let the functional food community know that this is a refined version of the many historical definitions. The fact remains, this is not a definition that was created out of thin air and had no scientific proof; more or less it was a definition that would better communicate the qualities and essence of functional foods. Since this is a scientific field of study, the current FFC definition of functional foods will not be a permanent one, as there will be more research to facilitate a new or updated definition. FFC is only advocating that functional foods be understood as something more than just orange juice fortified with vitamin D. Functional foods cannot be defined as a general term because there are so many properties that validly point out that there is more than what meets the eye. It is a much deeper concept than one would assume, there is no conflict of interest because FFC is only wanting the community to understand that functional foods are functional for a reason, they treat chronic diseases. That is all FFC wants to advocate, a major detail in the scope of functional foods. 19:48, 7 October 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8980:900B:D88C:B4FF:3C31:6BED (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fine for FFC to advocate and convey an understanding, but not here. Wikipedia isn't an outreach vehicle. Largoplazo (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is comprised of several references and citations to convey an understanding, how is that different from the FFC page? Does the page not provide reputable peer reviewed sources that contribute to the topic? Does the page only provide references that cite from its own substituents and entity? Is it only the name of the article that breaches the guidelines for conflict of interest? The way this is set up at the moment, if the wiki page were to be merged with the "functional food" page, then there would be a conflict of interest where FFC would be advocating that their definition is the absolute definition for functional foods. As you mentioned, Wikipedia is not an outreach vehicle; that is correct, it is an online encyclopedia. However, what if the entirety of the functional food community is at a consensus with this definition? Would there still be a conflict of interest? That would mean that there is objectivity on the matter. I could only assume given the direction of your response, there is no reasonable way for this wiki page to remain active under the sanctions of wikipedia. 18:39, 8 October 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CA03:17D0:1D24:CEA3:672A:7D13 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - A generally accepted definition of a thing is already going to be the core of the article on that thing. We aren't going to have an article called "Definition of phobia" separate from the article "Phobia", an article called "Definition of climate" separate from the article "Climate", etc. Largoplazo (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FRINGE. Blythwood (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Functional food definition by FFC": whether academically accurate or not (FFC is related to a university). It should not be merged with the existing Functional Food article, an action which DanikMartirosyan attempted to do without WP:CON today. The edit contains information showing DanikMartirosyan is President of the FFC, so a probable WP:COI applies. I reverted it and will be placing a warning on this user's Talk page. --Zefr (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this detail will help with the merging clarification that took place earlier today. Largoplazo made a proposition on the functional food definition by FFC wiki page and told me to link it to them. 18:41, 11 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+1,276)‎ . . User talk:Largoplazo ‎ (→‎Proposed merge with Functional food definition by FFC: new section) It is possible that Largoplazo did not receive the message of the necessary changes that were made in my talk page, which outlined all the editing that would have resolved any issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Functional_food_definition_by_FFC&oldid=713739982 On April 5th, I created the talk page that would list all changes or revisions to the functional food definition by FFC page, but there was no response by Largoplazo. So there may have been a miscommunication where Largoplazo was not notified, however it was proposed by Largoplazo to merge the two pages together. The activity from earlier today was not an agenda to put out my content to advocate for FFC's definition. I'm just trying to resolve this issue by following the guidelines of wikipedia and the enforced policies by wikipedia employees, but this is much more difficult than what your suggestions offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanikMartirosyan (talk • contribs) Here are a few links to the conferences that took place around the world to show that FFC is an organization that represents the functional food community as a collection of scientists, professors, USDA, and FDA officials, working together to educate students, doctors, and everybody about functional foods. To clarify, these are individuals that do not exclusively work with FFC, but are collaborators. Here is a conference report for the Harvard Medical School Conference: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/dbfc12f0d4/ARCHIVE Conference Report for Kobe University: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/d5db3f5096/ARCHIVE Conference Report for University of San Diego: http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/572102/d4d2113e77/ARCHIVE These conference reports highlight notable speakers from government organizations such as the USDA and FDA, even researchers from the NHI. If you would please take a look at these conference reports, it would provide you with a bigger picture of what FFC does as a company. We are not trying to push an agenda that functional foods are as what we define it as, we are collaborating as a scientific community to reach a better understanding of functional foods and educate our audience with the current affairs. More importantly, if we could merge the two pages like what was initially proposed, then this issue would be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanikMartirosyan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the organization exists and that it engages in activities aren't in question here, and the organization's merits are beside the point. Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for espousing its mission and notability of the organization are among the concerns under consideration. Largoplazo (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Commissioner (musical group). Dont usually close on 2 but consensus is always to redirect these and it's no different here so closing as such (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Is?[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate reliable sources to verify the notability of the soundtrack. Per nom, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Commissioner (musical group). That article isn't, frankly, much better. But it at least seems to have a presumptive claim to notability under WP:BAND #6. So we might as well redirect the sole EP there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commissioner (musical group), fails WP:NALBUM.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getter (musician)[edit]

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

Lack of coverage, fails WP:MUSICBIO. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Getter does not cite notable references, nor does his bio or discography. I believe it makes this an unsourced article, only about him and nothing else related to him. DBrown SPS (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks significant independent, third party coverage that conveys notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Nicola Roberts[edit]

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

Roberts has only released one album, and the information about the songs is already covered in the article about the album. The information about the the three b-sides is already covered in the articles about the singles that they were attached to for its release. I would recommend deleting this, and only restoring it if/when the singer releases more music to justify a separate list of this fashion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- seems to be overly detailed "fancruft". The relevant material is covered elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft. We're not Wikia. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayashree madan patil[edit]

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

Party president of small district. Not an elected government official. Fails at WP:NPOL. Couldn't find much coverage in English reliable sources, tried to translate local language sources, couldn't find anything substantial, hence failing at WP:GNG. Hitro talk 15:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NPOL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the Congress Party very much being out of power, and nothing like a state party it was in the early 1980s, the local heads are not default notable. I am not sure they even would have been in 1981, but clearly not today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seyan[edit]

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

Still fails WP:GNG as far as I can see. The arguments for "keep" last time round were invalid: one said that it should be kept because it was listed in a navbox (which is kinda circular) and the other said it should be kept because H. A. Rose mentioned it in his Glossary of the Tribes and Castes..., but that book by a British Raj administrator has long been deemed to be an unreliable source. I haven't been able to verify the alleged alternate spelling of Sian, which obviously might form the basis of a redirect to Sian or the Iranian town. We don't seem to have articles for anyone who uses Seyan as a last name. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes, it appears to be failing WP:GNG. Couldn't find a single reliable source for this topic. Anup [Talk] 20:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Accounting Education[edit]

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

Can't find evidence that this is notable. I do see that it is affiliated with two diploma mills, Pebble Hills University (see List of unaccredited institutions of higher education) and Southern Delaware University[23] and something called Newton Hills University which seems as dubious.[24] Doug Weller talk 13:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit. Unless someone can find something Urdu. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

88 Films[edit]

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

Outdated, badly sourced article that has a strong smell of advertising. No evidence that is satisfies WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - searching through Google News seems to indicate a massive pile of related news clippings. Perhaps the article needs to be better sources and more NPOV written, but its noteworthy and should be included. Zlassiter (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really don't see the advertising here, it's simply poorly sourced, because there aren't really sources available, and what is available is announcements of releases and the like. I see some appreciative comments about the company in DVD reviews, but really not enough coverage to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm seeing lots of trivial and incidental mentions, but no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article, and no evidence that there are available sources on this company. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (with a partial merge) to list article List of 88 Films releases. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Al-Shakarchi[edit]

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

I can't find anything to show that this person is notable - even his companies don't show up. Azad City doesn't seem to exist, here are the photos on its website.[25] Doug Weller talk 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - extraordinary claims require extra proof. I don't see it. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lagboken Paragraf 26C[edit]

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

Foreign language Rberchie (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal to list foreign-language articles for translation for two weeks before nominating for deletion, but in this case a quick run through Google Translate shows that it is a blatant hoax, so I have tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no need for AfD. Widefox; talk 17:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open PLA[edit]

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

Non-notable software. The article currently has one dead link and no sources. I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 14:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete apart from it being barely an article, a basic WP:BEFORE turned up nothing usable in Google, GNews or GBooks ... is there anywhere else one might find RS coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a LibreOffice database template, this specialized piece of software does not seem to have generated any independent reviews that I could find. Without any reliable sources, this topic fails notability guidelines and precludes merging as well. Hence, deletion is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kenku. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quorlinn[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kenku. Jclemens (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above; either target works. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kenku. Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kenku as that appears to be an appropriate spot for this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruspublica[edit]

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

My first AfD, apologies if this is utterly wrong. I saw this on the 'Copy Edit' required list. It appears to be just a promotional piece for the business. There are only two references, one is its own website, the other is appears to be a PR announcement issued by Ruspublica for its own online store. I couldn't find any other references to it when I googled it. Scribolt (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It gets a mention in a Russian Forbes piece that after running it through Google Translate, seems to describe it as: "little-known, - Ruspublica Julia Pilyugin only works on the Internet and sells clothes two dozen authors." Doesn't seem notable based on that claim and the only other piece on GNews was a namedrop. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swati singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Till now the subject hasn't contested an election. Almost all of the coverage is due to her husband's controversial statement and its aftermath. The page is written in promotional tone. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there's certainly POV and potentially copyright problems with the article, the subject seems to meet WP:BASIC even though she fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. The coverage of her in Firstpost [26] is significant coverage about her rise as a major political figure in the state after her husband's incident. The source about her from NewsX is about a key role she's taken on with the state party in Uttar Pradesh. [27] Even the coverage of her during her husband's scandal mentions her in a significant manner, such as the article from the The Economic Times. [28] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one is a classic example of people-notable for one-event. Almost all of the coverage where she is mentioned has its origin in Mayayati Vs. Dayanand incident which in itself is a non-notable event. Let her contest and win an election seat or trigger some kind of controversy of her own before considering a standalone piece. Find me one mention of subject, where she is covered by any reliable media independent of that event, and I promise, I will !vote keep.

This article is most probably created in the light of upcoming election in the state she belongs to. It is not a new phenomenon where activity around politician articles increases during election-time. The article is written in a WP:PROMOTIONAL tone for a reason.

Delete this thing for failing WP:NPOL and WP:BIO, and meeting WP:SPAM. Anup [Talk] 19:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How important are state wings of the BJP Mahila Morcha? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahila Morcha itself constitutes a very small division of national organisation (they seem to exist on-principle only. women's participation in politics is still very low and dissatisfactory in India).

For encyclopedia, in general terms, I would rate state wings of a such divisions whatever bottom is of importance scale being used. (chiefs are not elected representatives and are often switched over for political gain.). Anup [Talk] 02:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information which is provided here are true and it doesn't seems like promotional, this is not meeting WP:SPAM and this is not written in WP:PROMOTIONAL tone, article shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.179.115.105 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (Non-administrator comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By our usula criteriafor politicians this is way too insignificant and the references altogether inadequate. this is a prime example of whywe need BLP1E -- its a single minor controversy and not even primarily about her. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS This is a minor incident and that too, tangentially involving the subject. I agree with DGG that this is exactly why BLP1E is needed. The article essentially consists of a bunch of COATRACK, some of which are purely allegations. If I remove all of them, there will be literally nothing left. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 templates are not properly under consideration here at AFD and so should be listed at TFD. postdlf (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the Monash Student Association elections, 2016[edit]

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

Article listing the results of a student union election, which is clearly not notable. Was prodded, but the prod was removed by the article's creator. I suggest that the numerous templates created by the editor to use in this article (the only place they are used) are also deleted, specifically:

Template:Monash politics/name/420 Blaze It
Template:Monash politics/name/Halal Snack Pack
Template:Monash politics/name/Left Hook
Template:Monash politics/name/Equal Marriage Rights
Template:Monash politics/name/No Hanson
Template:Monash politics/name/Refugee Rights
Template:Monash politics/name/No Night Exams
Template:Monash politics/name/24 Hour Libraries
Template:Monash politics/name/Free Beer
Template:Monash politics/name/Free Parking
Template:Monash politics/name/Grocery Store On Campus
Template:Election box gain Monash party
Template:Monash politics/name/Independent
Template:Election box hold Monash party
Template:Election box candidate Monash party
Template:Monash politics/name/Left Action
Template:Monash politics/name/Grassroots
Template:Monash politics/name/Go!
Template:Monash politics/party colours

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable sources about the subject. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, may as well delete the templates (which were not listed when I first read this AFD) and, to any editor in the future that says they should go to WP:TfD, see WP:IAR. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete seriously results of a student election? This would only get published by the university and even most students don't care. LibStar (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:GNG. It's obvious that Wikipedia doesn't have and need such student election results.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 10:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student election, not notable. The templates may as well go, too, as they have no potential uses outside the article. Neiltonks (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - not noteable Zlassiter (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't believe someone wasted so much time on such a highly non-notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A student election would need a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources before I would consider it notable. This article doesn't have any sources, not even non-independent or unreliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't realise that there would be so much opposition. This being the case, I won't object to the deletion. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MILL. We have deleted many articles and lists about student government elections, such as this. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Edward Marshall[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject have not being discuss in reliable source therefore fails WP:GNG. Non notable.--Historical Ben (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several users herein have determined that this article comprises WP:SYNTHESIS, and most agree that this present article is not up to Wikipedia's standards. No prejudice against the creation of a new article based upon what reliable sources report, sans any synthesis or unverifiable claims. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nano brain[edit]

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

This article was mainly written by three WP:SPAs and it reads as WP:SYN, pretty blatantly so. The sources do not discuss the subject as such, and most of the text is not supported by the sources. As far as I can tell this topic embodies deep speculation and is not widely discussed. Top Google hists are sites like mindcontrol.se, and most of the high ranking hits score 8 or above on the bollocksometer. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 09:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands A quick WP:BEFORE turns up (a) primary sources (b) fringe/conspiracy sources (c) a band of this name - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pure SYNTH. There is nothing cited in reliable scholarly sources and for concepts like these only high quality sources are required. I am finding a bunch of unreliable papers/patents - some of them are about a nano-sized brain implant, some are about a brain-computer interface. Some of the sources in the article do not support the text either and have no mention of "nano brain". This is ripe for a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite: there are several publications about nanotechnology that discuss the concept of a "nano-brain". Jarble (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Would anything be left of the present article? You're talking about a completely different article with coincidentally the same title, not the present article at all - David Gerard (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:TNT. If there was a completely different article, we should keep it? Sure. But there isn't. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Supported by a strong reference from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. (PNAS), an excellent and highly reputable journal, but the content of the article is poorly written and makes WP:SYNTH claims. There is no content here worth keeping, so I think WP:TNT applies. Roches (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per TNT. gah so much Neurohype out there. there's another article i need to write. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fran Lebowitz. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Progress (book)[edit]

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

A book that exists, but seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). I cannot find any reliable (non-user generated) review, nothing but a few passing mentions in media. The content of this tiny stub is repeated at Fran Lebowitz. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I can tell, this book has never been released. There are mentions here and there, but all trivial. I've found mentions like this NYT article that mentioned that the book was supposed to release around the time of the Vanity Fair article, but that the release never happened for whatever reason. Lebowitz is a famous enough person to where if the book did release, it'd get some sort of coverage. I say that this redirects to her article until it releases - if it ever does. It's not uncommon for authors to have books that never actually see the light of day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fran Lebowitz. This isn't independently noteworthy and the coverage just isn't there to show that it would pass - or that it'll be released any time soon. I have no objection to this being restored once the book publishes and gains coverage, but it should not be done before then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author's article where the listing there could be expanded, apparently not being completed in the near future - "... the forthcoming “Progress,” which will be published within the century."from 2011 NYT article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design Performance[edit]

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

Probably non-notable topic. No references at all. Google didn't helped me to find something on this. XXN, 07:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references. Through I am afraid the car hobbyists will argue that any car is notable, and find some obscure reference to prop this. Hopefully it will be better then some blog... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject article looks like and advert, No references are listed therefore fails WP:GNG--Historical Ben (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My goodness, please TNT this, if nothing else. No sources and I'm actually finding it hard to even search for them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan West[edit]

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

does not meet NCOLLATH, or GNG. TOOSOON John from Idegon (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. West led NCAA Division I in assists per game in 2014–15, one of the five major statistical category leaders noted every year. I also found some sources on a quick Google scan [29][30][31]. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since he led the NCAA in a statistical category and there are enough sources for GNG to be met. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. In addition to those sources found by Jrcla2 I saw articles on West from ESPN.com, NBCSports.com and SI.com, all major independent national sports news services. Rikster2 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per the sources provided by Jrcla2 and Rikster2. Ejgreen77 (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Coverage he has received has been of the non-routine variety. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veracode[edit]

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

Extensive and specific PROD mass removed without actually looking and listening to the concerns listed, instead with the basis that it can be fixed, but that's the thing: Advertisements that are so blatant including by having SPA accounts and advertising sources, therefore cannot be fixed as if it's the nature of it, we can therefore not accept it lest we actually become a PR webhost, everything listed is exactly what the company wants to advertise about itself, and sugarcoating or stating that's it something else otherwise is completely unhonest to what Wikipedia is battling each and every day, which is exact blatant advertising like this. We can make the necessary choices therefore which is to delete them onsight and immediately and show to others that we will delete theirs as quickly also. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I deprodded the article, but it was not "mass removed". These WP:ASPERSIONS need to immediately stop, because they are uncivil in nature and suggest bad faith. My edits are educated, and are based upon article potential, source searches, and other variables. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - I stated this because I have strong questionability about this user literally removing over 2 dozen of my PRODs within minutes with statements of either "sources exist" or "PR can be fixed". As nominator, I can only express my serious concerns since these are starting to seem like hounding personal attacks. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Anyone can remove PRODs for any reason. If Northamerica was just removing your PRODs without giving a reason, maybe it would qualify as hounding. But each time Northamerica1000 deprodded, he provided a policy-based reason for doing so and often times even added sources to the article. Edits based on differing opinions on policy aren't personal attacks. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly targeting users is, however. If it edits like a duck, it might be a platypus, but ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no targeting. As I stated below, I patrol prod nominations at the All articles proposed for deletion category. It would be ridiculous to not deprod an article based upon which specific user prodded it, as though if users should first check the article contributions to see who prodded it, and then base their decision-making upon this variable, instead of objective criteria such as source searching. I base my deprods upon research, article potential, and other variables. As evidenced in the now ongoing discussion below, this can be considered as a somewhat controversial proposal for deletion that is worthy of further discussion at AfD. Please try to assume good faith. I will leave it at that, and thanks for your consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUNDING says that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." If someone PRODs numerous articles that are potentially notable, and someone who routinely patrols the PROD categories disagrees with those PRODs and removes them in the course of their normal Wikipedia-work, that's not hounding. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I routinely patrol prods listed at Category:All articles proposed for deletion. The nominator proposes a great deal of articles for deletion using prod. Focus on content, not contributors. The casting of WP:ASPERSIONS provides nothing regarding the topic's potential notability or lack thereof. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen plenty of blatantly promotional articles on WP, and this isn't one of them. It states what the company does, its history, etc., which is exactly what I would expect to see in an article about a company. I'm not a great fan of Gartner, but if they class Veracode as one of the leading application security testing companies (right up there with IBM and HP), that's a strong indication of notability. --Michig (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Investors in the second paragraph? I think not - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. I'm unconvinced by the sourcing (the RS coverage is not organic but from promotional pushes), and Gartner are literally a sponsored content outlet, because that's what analysts do for a living - I'm boggled at the idea that paid analyst coverage confers notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Sponsored content outlet'? No, and you have no evidence for that assertion. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - What is an analyst's business model? - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is spun from sources of purest gossamer. There is no credible evidence of actual notability. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like Michig, I fail to see what is so promotional in this article. The worst puffery in the article is the company’s cloud-based service safeguards more than 600 organizations worldwide, including three of the top four banks in the Fortune 100 and more than 25 of the world’s top 100 brands. (emphasis mine) and the list of awards won. Now, if we remove the list of awards won on grounds of puffery and "churnalism", the next thing you know is that the article will be nominated for deletion (by the usual crew) because it fails WP:N. Gerard's assertions that Gartner is a "sponsored content outlet" ~~border on~~ are ridiculous; kindly nominate Magic Quadrant for deletion to test it. For all its shortcomings and bias, being listed (at the top of) on the Magic Quadrant is a major achievement by any company [32] so it passes WP:N with flying colors. No such user (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherited notability from other groups and companies however. Thr "advertising" have been stated above as it is, such as the fact half of eh article is literally for its own PR awaeds, and then the other parts are simply advertising what the business is and it's services; along with PR sources. SwisterTwister talk 14:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Quadrant got lucky in that it received independent criticism that was published - otherwise it would be a candidate for deletion. It also appears to be another non-notable product that is now able to use Wikipedia for promotion - imho Steve Quinn (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no inherited notability - each article must stand on its own merits. This Wikipedia article on "Veracode" - is definitely a promotional piece. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig and No such user. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/incubate; the concerns listed above and the deletion paragraph make me believe this article needs some work to take the promotional tone out before it hits prime time on the main space. It may be a little WP:TOOSOON. Buffaboy ^talk 03:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on WP:SIGCOV in CNBC, Computing, Fortune, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Economist, for starters. And trouts to everyone griping and sniping here and assuming bad faith on the part of fellow editors. Not productive. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean to keep but can see both arguments. Now for puffery, take a look at Mark Kriegsman which is one of the See alsos as well as the two founders' vanity articles. This is the best of the lot, so perhaps merging the articles for each of the engineers in here might be cleanest. The style of this one seems reasonable to me: no (mis)uses at all of solution nor infrastructure, no Excessive Capital Letters for Very Important People and only one "platform". Yes, many of the sources are the usual "awards" which mean taking a journalist to lunch or buying a trade show booth. W Nowicki (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although possibly, but not necessarily certainly, on a slightly weaker level (unable to fully access some paywalled sources). Here's another source from Fortune: [33]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG due to sources available, and coverage in media. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the keep !votes have made a convincing case based on wikipedia guidelines and policies, with the highlighting of many sources that, upon review, support their claims. The delete !votes have presented an unconvincing case based on personal views of the article topic. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources mentioned in this AfD collectively meet the WP:CORP notability criterion. In particular there's the NYT piece, which I think seals the deal. /wiae /tlk 00:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll note that the Keep votes themselves either acknowledge there's not a lot of sourcing and that it's still "weak" or they simply say "Per user above"; therefore we must seriously and carefully consider such advertising articles regardless of whatever was said about them, because WP:ADVERTISING, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT still apply, especially for advertisements such as these. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In terms of analyzing !votes, it's important to be objective and balanced, rather than only focusing on keep !votes while ignoring the same types of rationales present in delete !votes. Note that one of the delete !votes early in the discussion states "there is no credible evidence of actual notability", but sources were later added to the discussion, which this does not appear to address. Regarding "per nom" types of !votes, two delete !votes are also of this nature, one of which provides some rationale, which another user has somewhat challenged, and one of which only states two words, "per WP:SPAM", which is essentially in a "per nom" style relative to the nomination. Also, promotional tone can be addressed by simply copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I came to the article about Veracode today because I was looking for introductory background information and some external links. Sure it would be great to have something with 0% blatant PR and advertising, but I'd accept 90% content that needs to be ignored just to get 10%. OK. Maybe I got 3% with this article. But it was not a waste of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.14.94 (talk • contribs)
Keep Normally, for topics such as this, I'm usually for deletion. But from my perspective, there seem to be just enough sources to indicate notability. Also, this company appears to be first in innovating new methods for detecting software vulnerabilities that hackers have exploited beginning in 2007 or 2008 up to the present day. The game has shifted and this company is addressing that shift in a seemingly novel way - coverage in some of the sources reflects this. I do think the article should be rewritten because there is no need to maintain an overly promotional and jargony tone in this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus is to keep, but it needs significant editing, which I am about to do. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Badgeville[edit]

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

Not only was my specific and exact PROD removed as part of an apparent massremoval of PRODs, but the listed concerns explicitly showing this was yet another paid advertisement by several involved accounts was not taken seriously, so I will note again that literally everything here still is in fact PR, and there's no sensible method of sugarcoating it as it's only making not only the article seem worse but the encyclopedia as well, while simultaneously damning the cleanliness of a non-advertising environment. In fact what was replaced after the PROD, was literally three PR sources listing and compiling exactly what the company wanted to advertise itself, and it's apparent because that's the only mindset advertisers have with these articles (they couldn't ever care about actually substantiating an article, if all that matters is a fluffed-puffed advertisement), and there's nothing to suggest the PR awards and specifics about this company, suggest otherwise. The only solution of actually solving these advertisements is not only to bar them from happening but also to remove these that exist from influencing others. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Various source searches are providing a great deal of coverage about this company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When there's such a blatancy of paid advertising and the supplying their entire lines of supposed "news" of publishing exactly this, anyone who actually sensibly analyzes the listed sources shows it's all PR and there's nothing to sugarcoat or suggest otherwise, and that's exactly what's expected from such a new company like this and one whose business environment involves nothing but PR, especially when it comes to company advertising. No amount of supposedly numbered news can suggest anything else if it's all PR and if that's exactly why this article was started to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Also, I deprodded the article, but it was not "mass removed". These WP:ASPERSIONS need to immediately stop, because they are uncivil in nature and suggest bad faith. My edits are educated, and are based upon article potential, source searches, and other variables. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - I only mention this because it is hounding and personal when a user is specifically targeted by having their PRODs removed all within minutes (as the contribs will show), including where the concerns have been genuine and specific. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I routinely patrol prods listed at Category:All articles proposed for deletion. The nominator proposes a great deal of articles for deletion using prod. Focus on content, not contributors. The casting of WP:ASPERSIONS provides nothing regarding the topic's potential notability or lack thereof. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples include, but are not limited to: The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, PC World, The 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations (published by Springer Science & Business Media), TechCrunch, Billboard, VentureBeat, Gigaom, VentureBeat, Information Week, etc. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: magniloquent nomination doesn't address the core issue for AFD, which is whether or not an article's subject meets WP:GNG, and this one does. Clear evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH, per sources named by North America. Some of the sources providing significant coverage include Nieman Journalism Lab @ Harvard, Wall Street Journal, PC World, more WSJ, SF Gate, and Fortune. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links above merely once again consist of its company activities and actions and then actual interviewed information and listing information that only the company would know, that's not substance and is also not independent. There are clear enough PR concerns about this, and we should not compromise by finding excuses for accepting advertisements at any costs. SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to provide an example of coverage of a business that you don't think is PR or advertising. Otherwise, it seems that you might find all coverage of businesses in any publication to be PR, and that doesn't seem to tier with our current WP:RS policy. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Northamerica1000 and Safehaven86. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources establishing notability of the company. Editorial concerns about promotional content are better dealt with by editing the article rather than deleting it. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Behbahani[edit]

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

Pure speculation, one strongly doubted report

Ahmad Behbahani arises from a single reported conversation said to have taken place with a self-identified individual. The report was never verified and the claim was strongly doubted by the NY Post on the basis that the claimant was too young to have been the person he claimed to be, which is just about as damning a challenge as one could imagine. The original claim was never repeated and does not seem to have been reported again thereafter. Lockerbie is a hot and notable topic but that does not make every rumour, speculation, unsubstantiated report or unverified claim worthy of reproduction on WP. At most, someone might want to add a brief note about this on a Lockerbie page. sirlanz 08:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he comes up often when talking about the Lockerbie attack. Even a basic search comes up with references [34] [35] (references a 60 Minutes interview) [36]. He is kind of a case study in the vagaries of Human Sources like CURVEBALL was. Jbh ^Talk 06:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brit Morin[edit]

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

PR advertisement which was a paid advertisement at that, and the sources and information show this, including the fact it only includes what a PR business listing would say, not an actual encyclopedia, therefore I still confirm my PROD. Examples of sheer blatancy are the fact the PR awards are so damningly trivial and unconvincing as any PR attempt to make substance but it's actually far from it. This is a classic example of an advertisement, including in that it was started along with the company article, also an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that the article creator, JNorman704 has declared paid editing on their user page for other articles, but they have not stated there that they were paid to create this article. As such, it is not necessarily a " paid advertisement " as stated in the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – An option is to merge this content to Brit + Co. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are no compromises when it comes to advertisements, including when both articles were advertisements and in fact part of a PR advertising campaign, suggesting anything otherwise is simply adding fuel to the fires that is current advertising articles, let's not damage the encyclopedia from its current state considering it's been damaged enough as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguably Ms. Morin's more notable than her company (maybe that should be merged here). Just a quick Google news search finds in-depth profiles from CNBC [37], [38], Business Insider [39], The New Republic [40], Observer [41], and the BBC [42], which named her one of its 30under30 entreprenuers last year. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No evidence this is a 'paid advertisement'. Plenty of coverage exists from the likes of Forbes, CNN, Cosmopolitan, BBC, WIRED, observer.com, USA Today, Elle, and sfgate.com, none of which is 'PR'. --Michig (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Once again I have explained why it's PR and paid advertising, because of the sheer fact it closely advertises the woman and her business, these even contain her own thoughts of what she thinks about business, there's no one else who would know that aside from Brit Morin herself. These are also then interviewed statements above, so it's also not taking literal to the concerns stated and instead are simply saying "Hey, but there's additional interviews and mere mentions!". Considering WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, we can delete any advertisement at any given time especially if it considerably damages the encyclopedia, therefore, simply stating that it comes from a news source but not actually showing the contents, especially including the concerns, shows it's simply an attempt at tossing and filling this page with links, not actual conveyed substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you've quite convinced me that the BBC is doing "PR" work and accepting paid advertising on behalf of Ms. Morin. Clearly the license fee isn't high enough yet.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – not the slightest evidence that this is a "paid advertisement" and even if it were it wouldn't matter provided it complies with Wikipedia policy. The fact that some sources "contain her own thoughts of what she thinks about business, there's no one else who would know that aside from Brit Morin herself" is not an indication of "PR and paid advertising", it's an indication that a journalist has used an arcane and little-known journalistic technique called "an interview". As for the claim that the BBC accepts paid advertising, I really don't know what to say. ‑ Iridescent 09:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep. I have no idea why anyone would think a subject with that many noted awards/recognition and that many write-ups in extremely notable venues could possibly not pass WP:GNG and all other sub-guidelines with flying colors. Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but redirect the subject's company (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brit + Co) here. The founder appears to be marginally more notable, and I don't think Wikipedia needs two separate articles on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC, and the article does not have a promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not see a promotional tone here, but the article has problems. The introduction covers more aspects of her life and career than the actual body of the article. Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's clearly no great urgency from the community to delete this article. Any discussion about a merge or page move is more appropriately conducted on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 20:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gardiner's sign list[edit]

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

(This also applies to the subpages, beginning with List of hieroglyphs/A, which I haven't individually tagged.) There are several problems with this set of pages. To begin with, it is a copyright violation of this list compiled by Alan Gardiner, who died 1963, so it's still copyrighted until 2033. And then it's also basically a reproduction of a primary source, which Wikipedia is not for (see WP:NPS). That articles are not even supposed to have hierarchical subpages and that the subpages are not remotely in an article format is almost a side issue. Sandstein 10:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question If its copyvio why not just delete it? Doug Weller talk 19:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around since 2005, so a discussion seems appropriate. Sandstein 19:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some form of keep For starters, GScholar claims 1000+ cites for Egyptian grammar: being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs, so I would assume this has academic notability, and provides multiple secondary sources from which to pick.

I am not sure this is a copyvio; the mapping "character" -> "letter and number" is probably not copyrightable, but the presentation (such as the one in List_of_hieroglyphs/A) might be. I left a note at WP:CV in the hope someone might come help.

While the list articles should certainly not be in subpages, they seem a reasonable size split of the complete list of the hieroglyphs by Gardiner's ordering. It may be argued that this list does not meet WP:SAL but it does not look obvious either way.

Beyond the usual whine when formatting issues are invoked, the current layout of the subpages is actually fairly decent to my eyes. I think readability would be degraded if we converted the current formatting of List_of_hieroglyphs/A to (say) a table such as the ones in List_of_Egyptian_hieroglyphs_by_common_name:_A–L. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the list might or might not be notable, I'm not an Egyptologist. This assortment of pages here, however, purports to be a reproduction of the list, which is something quite different. Sandstein 19:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gardiner's sign list is (probably) notable, that was my first point. I understand that your concern is more about the "List of hieroglyphs" subpages, but I still would mention it.

About those pages, the thing is, maybe a reproduction of the character <-> numbering mapping is appropriate. AFAIK, the copyright applies to the layout of the ideas, not to the ideas themselves, so it would be incorrect to have a list with each entry organized the same way as in the original publication; but the grouping of hieroglyphs in thematic categories, and the numbering within those, is AFAIK not copyrightable and hence can be reprodued by us.

Whether the list meets the notability of WP:SAL is another question, and while I lean towards saying it passes as size split of the main article, I could see the consensus go either way on that point. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only page included in this nomination is the parent article page, which is about the list, it is not a list itself. So whether or not the list subpages that actually list out the hieroglyphs represent copyvios is irrelevant to whether the article about the list(s) should be deleted, about which no argument has been presented. And as the list subpages have not been tagged with notices and not included in this nomination, their deletion is not under consideration at all. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then I'll just speedy the subpages after the AfD if nobody here feels like discussing them as well... Sandstein 19:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The type of copyvio argument you have made here about those lists is not CSD#G11 eligible but instead requires more analysis, whether that's done at a proper group AFD nom for those lists or at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. postdlf (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are here, we might as well discuss this. We can also consider this as a group nom and do the analysis here (without the need to actually put an AfD tag on all 26 pages, its unnecessary bureaucracy). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giving proper notice that a page has been nominated for deletion is not "unnecessary bureaucracy", it is necessary deletion procedure. And I see many editors have edited the subpages but never the main parent article, and so can't be assumed to have watchlisted all of them or notice if it is only placed on the parent article. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we really need all those subpages? Personally I see this is a reproduction of content. While an umbrella article about Gardiner's sign list is notable, the subpages may not really be. How about redirecting them to the main article? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirecting from the current subpaged titles? I would bet there is a guideline against that... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Tigraan, is there something like that? I am personally not very well versed with redirect guidelines and stuff. However, I do know of at least one case like that. Kallang/Whampoa redirects to Kallang. If this is not correct, we might have to think of a better solution to merge these pages or failing that just delete/userfy them (or move them without leaving a redirect). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wrong, so I struck my comment. There is indeed a guideline, WP:NC-SLASH, but it says that article names with slashes are allowed (it may cause small problems with the talk pages, but the mainspace is not "subpaged"). Unless there is something very strange going on, this means redirects are okay as well. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well, the sign list is definitely notable. The classification system itself may be copyrightable, but the content of each list is *not* the same as Gardiners (e.g. unicode chars), which puts it equivalent to a dictionary. Add in the educational value, and the copyvio argument fails for the individual pages. You could make a NOTDICTIONARY argument, I suppose. The content is readily available elsewhere. The Steve 17:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more definite opinions please — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restructure. Egyptian hieroglyphics are clearly an important subject, so that a classification system ought also to be notable. It is a purpose of WP to bring information together, so that arguments about it being available elsewhere should not hold water. On the other hand an article so much of whose length consists of headings for links to sub-articles is unsatisfactory. That part of the article needs converting to a table, which will provide a much more legible list than what we have at present. In saying this, I am not even considering the issue of whether there may be COPY-VIO issues, though I would have thought that there were none. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian hieroglyphics are clearly an important subject, so that a classification system ought also to be notable. Hmm, no. (Though that particular system is.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rewrite - as per Peterkingiron, as the topic is notable but it would not survive if not given the proper rewriting and fixes.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 11:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of Egyptian hieroglyphs doesn't exist, and Egyptian Hieroglyphs (Unicode block) is just about the Gardiner list as represented in Unicode, while Wikipedia's HEIRO extension is also the Gardiner list. We should have a list of heiroglyphics separate from the Gardiner article, with the HIERO extension image, the Unicode image, the Gardiner code, the Egyptological notation for its pronunciation, the ideological meaning of the glyph, in a list. I suggest that List of Egyptian hieroglyphs be created as being a list (with all the HEIRO and unicode glyphs, and any missing from these two systems would be represented by a picture file and the Egyptological pronunciation and meaning. Gardiner isn't the only source, after all, Champollion's works are now Public Domain -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 20:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hungerball[edit]

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

Non-notable and WP:Too soon Jimfbleak (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. trivial coverage so far. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has received some coverage but nothing major, right now it is a non-notable variation of football Spiderone 12:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hashmi Duvvapu[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with no roles in any notable films or other productions. Google returns no significant coverage from secondary sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Absolute zero hits. Fails EVERY WP:N criteria. Anup [Talk] 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the editor above, all my search efforts gave zilch results. Non-notable subject. Lourdes 10:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The only thing that is crawled by Google and is of any notability about the subject is this lone article on WIKIPEDIA and this "proposal for deletion".Now that fails the WP:NOTABILITY category quite easily. Doesn't that speak for itself? Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 17:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Wgolf (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 11:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and WP:NOTSTATS. Let's call this Statscruft. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 11:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and WP:NOTSTATS. Let's call this Statscruft. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- definitely "cruft" of some sort. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and WP:NOTSTATS. Let's call this Statscruft. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macau at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and WP:NOTSTATS. Let's call this Statscruft. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- same as Brunei at the 2016 Asian Beach Games etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific city in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syria at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and WP:NOTSTATS. Let's call this Statscruft. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Taipei at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and WP:NOTSTATS. Let's call this Statscruft. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. The other articles of a similar nature should be deleted as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike other XXX at the 2016 Asian Beach Games articles, in this one there are more sources in the article now from independent sources. but the article should be expanded with more sources and etc. Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it can be includedWorldlinguistic (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pakistan at the 2016 Asian Beach Games & others. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Not enough information for an independent article. (Note: I recommend putting all of the articles you nominate for the same reason into one.) Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 12:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and WP:NOTSTATS. Let's call this Statscruft. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Michael McGoldrick[edit]

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

I found this in the backlog at NPP. Since I am unsure of the standards for this sort of article, I'd rather have a consensus decision than try to make one myself. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per good sources, per WP:GNG. per WP:CRIME. per attention both nationally and internationally. BabbaQ (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep decently sourced article on a notable crime. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- reasonably sourced & provides enough info to put the crime in historical context. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StreetCred[edit]

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

Non notable website. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sourcing. Currently cobbled together from partners, passing mentions and press releases. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete everything about this article says "this subject is not notable and wasn't for the year it existed either". At best, merge and redirect to T.I. - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, at best merge into TI. Non-notable website without significant independent reliable sources for notability verification. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about a short-lived website with minimal evidence of lasting notability. Besides the sourcing problems, it name-drops "Hip hop icons" which had embraced it. Without a source for such an "embrace", I would worry about a violation of the BLP policy: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MomentCam[edit]

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

I still confirm my boldly removed PROD yet it was specific and genuine about the concerns listed including that this article is only existing as PR advertising, and that is actually emphasized by the fact the advertising-only account "MomentCam" removed it (note how this one account has been the only one to ever actually contribute to this article). SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete TheNextWeb is a minor RS, but it's fluff coverage and not enough to base notability or indeed an article on by itself - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep NPOV - Direct links to mobile app listing on the Google Play Store [43] and [App Store https://itunes.apple.com/app/id687624831?id=com.manboker.headportrait&hl=en] are used to state unbias facts about description of app, for example, when it was launched, languages and description of app. These references are unbias and have no purpose for PR, simply used to describe app. Problems with other articles used to cite information can be fixed through editing to ensure non-PR sounding tone and the whole article doesn't need to be deleted. TechInAsia,TechNode(part of TechInAsia) and VentureBeat are all credible 3rd party news sources. No information comes from company created PR materials. Citings from the NextWeb were facts that were cited in the original news article based on facts from AppsFire and App Annie. --MomentCam (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)MomentCam[reply]

Editor blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment app listings mean nothing for notability and that not every news source, by name, is going to be notable --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam on an unremarkable app. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brit + Co[edit]

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

PROD removed yet it was specific and thorough therefore it still applies, paid advertising by paid advertising users with they not adding anything else but what the company imaginably of course wanted to put as if this were their own PR and that's not surprising examining everything that is listed, as it actually goes to specifics about what the business wants to advertise. Once we succumb to advertising, we're damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that the article creator, JNorman704 has declared paid editing on their user page for other articles, but they have not stated there that they were paid to create this article. As such, it is not necessarily "paid advertising" as stated in the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's quite clear that he then actually stated he has worked for client agencies which therefore involve companies, and this is then also emphasized by the fact the article contains only what the company wants to advertise about itself, therefore advertising. There are absolutely no compromises that can be taken seriously for keeping any advertisements lest we be damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several significant mentions in Fortune [44], [45], [46], [47], the LA Times [48], and TechCrunch [49] seems to be enough to sastify WP:CORPDEPTH. Problems with tone can be solved through editing (e.g. removing stuff sourced to the company's own pages and PR Newswire). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources above are still only actually PR, put aside nearly half of them (such as the second half of the list) since they only focus with what the company talks about itself of its financial and funding which also then includes its investors; the first 2 Fortune actually then go to talk about this also, and then actually listing to say how advertising has worked for the business and its current situations about it. The second article from this source then goes to actually state how the company hired a new employee for its own business and then goes to actually state the interviewed information about it, and then going as far to actually then listed its own company investors. Since PR and advertising is exactly what I stated with my nomination, citing PR sources is not actually convincing or suggestive there would be significantly better. I could literally copy and paste all of the blatant quotes from these sources but that would literally need another article-size page because it's that PR-focused. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shockingly, business journalism often focuses on the business finances, business funding, and who's investing in what business. If reliable sources report on them, then that goes towards meeting our notability guidelines. If the first two Fortune pieces are talking about how the company's successful advertising ventures, that's even more significant coverage than a run-of-the-mill business journalism piece about deals, mergers, and acquisitions.

People getting hired by businesses can be newsworthy coverage – the source I cited clearly thought of it was. Would you dismiss a secondary source citing sources from two sports teams that they traded a player as PR for those sports teams? Just because something is neutral or reports facts that reflects well on a company doesn't mean it's PR. Can you give some examples of business journalism that don't criticize a business and which you wouldn't consider to be PR? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to ask what examples of PR exist since this is exactly what it is, therefore the statement of "business journalism often focuses on the business finances, business funding, and who's investing in what business. If reliable sources report on them, then that goes towards meeting our notability guidelines", yet what is better than that is any statement that removes advertising (such as WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT), and that's something we should exactly make goals of making. An example of a non-blatant PR article is any global company such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, as these articles have meticulously been kept to not be a blatant PR like this one. As yet again, there's no compromises to keeping advertisements because that will be when we are killing this encyclopedia with unconvincing questions of "An advertisement? But it at least has sources!" SwisterTwister talk

Please see WP:THREAD for how to properly indent conversations on Wikipedia. Not exactly sure what you're trying to say in your first sentence, but yes, we shouldn't have advertisements on Wikipedia. However if it means that any news coverage of businesses that doesn't criticize the business is to be dismissed as "PR", then yes, we should be having a discussion on what qualifies as "PR" and what doesn't. If a business gets in-depth coverage from independent secondary sources, it's notable. If the article seems too biased in favour of the business, the solution is then to edit the page, not to delete it. If you don't want to do it, slap a tag on the top of the article; PR people hate that anyway.

I didn't ask you to name articles about businesses that are notable. No one is arguing that the articles on Facebook, Google, and Microsoft should be deleted. I asked you if you can pick an example of a work of business journalism that presents neutral or positive facts about a business that you would not consider "PR".

BTW, all three of those pages use sources in ways that found problematic with this article. Secondary sources talking about what the company says about itself ([50], [51], [52]) and hiring employees ([53], [54], [55]) Are these all just "PR" articles? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Concerns with promotional elements can be addressed by copy editing the article. Below are the sources I am basing my !vote upon. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

CNN
USA Today
Fortune
Fortune
Los Angeles Times
TechCrunch.
Fortune
TechCrunch
Fortune

(EC) Comment - The USAToday is a blatant profile listing for the woman herself and services no convincing other than PR, since it advertises her career and everything there is about her and the company, the same can be said for CNN which is the same contents and I'll note both actually the include interviewed information such as what her business thoughts are and the businesspeople she thinks about. With time going, TechCrunch becomes a worse and worse source to expect notability because it is and has become quite noticeable with PR, including (1) is that the journalist is listed as a "special contributor", suggesting questionability alone (simply the overall formatting and tone of article suggests this also), especially whether there was some enticing for PR and (2) the article, as expected, is also then only advertising what there is to say about the company including what the company has to say for itself. None of this can therefore be expected for substance and it's not helping anyone by listing them without taking these said concerns and acknowledging them seriously, instead of actually, yet again, tossing in PR after PR, instead of actually noticing the damages it causes. Let me also note that as I was clicking "save", yet another pile oF PR was added.... I will also then note the LATimes is literally an agenda listing what the company's own plans are, including the specifics of its own comapny situation and architecture, all in a thinly-sorted 7 paragrpahs. Also it helps no one to literally repeat them in a large list yet again as this is not only making the number of sources seem larger than they actually are, it's yet again completely ignoring the actual concerns listed here, which have been listed above; regardless of whatever or whoever says this or that, this is still an advertisement and we, as has happened at AfD, finish them with the best solutions which is deleting them. When we continue to allow such blatant advertisements especially when they have been company-influenced, we're damned. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All of the article I posted above are bylined articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that regarding the latter, these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. The term "pr" is a simple, two-letter acronym that is sometimes used much too liberally to dismiss entire swaths of sources as only one type. For example, USA Today and CNN were not paid by the company to publish these article, nor were any of the other sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As overwhelming consensus has shown here at AfD, not every blatant PR is always going to contain "This was paid", but it can still be shown and that's what my analyses has shown above, therefore the statements of "But these are news sources!" is not applying to the staunchly stated concerns above. There is nothing "independent" about PR, and the fact I myself stated above that one of them was by a blatant "journalist" listed as "special contributor" (this is actually what churnalism emulates, surreptitious attempts at making "news" seem like it's that, when it's in fact not), clearly meaning it was someone not from the actual news source. To state that "said news sources are dismissed in swaths because of supposed PR" is unconvincing as PR sources are still in fact PR sources no matter what they are perceived to be or whatever or whoever they may contain, therefore stating otherwise is not applicable here, if it's still PR. We seriously need to be careful about accepting such blatant advertisements, because it honestly is in fact what damages us each and every day, "news sources" be damned. This is exactly why WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT exist, which can be used in any case that would mean saving the encyclopedia, still yet again damning any supposed "news sources". SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm unaware of any "overwhelming consensus" at AfD that not every blatant PR is always going to contain "This was paid", nor of any consensus stating that AfD nominations are irrefutable based upon the opinion of the nominator. No overwhelming consensus exists for these notions, nor are they a part of any of Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages regarding deletion. Regarding the notions of churnalism, not all sources that provide positive coverage about companies are churnalism as some sort of default. See also WP:CHURN for an interesting read. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than adequate coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is contrary to the specific and exact analysis shown above clearly stating the concerns of the sources above, therefore it helps to substantiate one's own comment about what the concerns are and then actually acknowledging them. After showing the sources simply advertise the company's own words and what there is to advertise about the services listed, that's not "adequate" or "coverage". SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because your analysis is wrong. Stop badgering every editor who disagrees with your nominations. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when does Wikipedia do punishment beatings? This is an obvious "I don't like the nominator" AFD, since the sourcing isn't just adequate, it's considerably better than most articles on companies this size, and the garbled "analysis" displays a severe misunderstanding of Wikipedia; it's perfectly acceptable to include a secondary source discussing what a company says about itself. If not for the fact that I've already commented in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brit Morin and am thus WP:INVOLVED, I'd have speedy-closed this and warned the nominator for timewasting. ‑ Iridescent 09:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per North America.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 11:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brit Morin who appears to be marginally more notable. The article is badly promotional, while this minor tech company is not notable per encyclopedia standards. I don't think Wikipedia needs both of these articles. See WP:BOGOF: let's not encourage spammers by keeping this article. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per NA1000's links listed above, the company clearly has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It meets both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: GNG is not the only criteria for evaluating an article. See for example this self-cite content (which I can only describe as spam) that I just moved to the Talk page: Partners. This content is not acceptable, and if the article is kept, more would need to be removed, reducing the article to a WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it clearly meets both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Problems with specific content can be taken up with normal editing, as per usual. AfD is not about current article content, it is about subject notability. See WP:DISCUSSAFD. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG (a guideline) does not trump WP:NOT, which is a policy. Determining that an article only serves a promotional purpose is a perfect valid grounds for deletion. In fact, I believe it should be encouraged. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to re-read WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which clearly does not apply here, as the wiki article is not and will never be any of the 7 items in that list. Provide your own rationale for your own !vote, but don't counter others' rationales with rationales that don't even apply. I'm done with this conversation and will not reply further; my !vote and rationale re: clear notability are already backed up with evidence. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of editing -- it looks like article's creators has been involved with related articles in a paid capacity (per their user page). @JNorman704: Could the editor please clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH per sourced listed by North America and Patar knight. The possibility that paid editing may have occurred doesn't have any bearing on whether the article's subject meets our notability standards. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources prove notability. If the article has too much AdSpeak, well, that can be edited out and it's no reason for deletion. Paid editing ditto. Yintan 07:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains 12 sources and there are apparently more available. That is more than enough evidence of notability by Wikipedia standards. NPOV concerns can be addressed by standard editing. Dimadick (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

`cd It doesn't matter if the company is notable, if the article was written for promotional purposes. WP does not serve for this purpose, and that is one of our basic policies. The correct way of thinking about this is WP:TNT, which says that is the company is actually notable, the first step is to delete the promotioanl article,and the second step is for someone to write a new one. Keeping the promotional material even in the history is a violation of our basic principles. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VersionOne[edit]

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

I still confirm my extensive and specific here which clearly states this was yet another article part of a PR advertising campaign and there's nothing else to suggest otherwise. As I noted with my PROD, this has been deleted before as advertising and it was actually not only restored by request of 1 user, but then this different version of an article was started by another advertising-only account, showing the sheer persistence and blatancy, therefore we would literally damn ourselves as an encyclopedia if we accept such BS advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's statement --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom - the REFBOMB is extensive but doesn't stand up to examination - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Incredible. 21 sources and not a single mention of the company's software, their applications, or any particular impact on the wider culture. I am not convinced this counts as in-depth coverage. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Doerksen[edit]

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

Literally an advertisement, simply enhanced with equal advertising and that's not surprising given this was part of a PR advertising campaign. Therefore, I still confirm my PROD here as it still applies. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of passing notability guidelines; GNG claims to fame are for non-notable things. Basic WP:BEFORE turns up nothing actually about the subject - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a founder of a company is not in and of itself an automatic notability freebie, per WP:NOTINHERITED — it can get a person into Wikipedia if the article can be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but none of the sourcing here does that. It's almost all primary sources, like his own company's press releases about itself and a chapter he wrote in a book metasourcing itself, and the only one that qualifies as a reliable source at all is just a glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite rather than an article that's substantively about him. That's not the kind of sourcing it takes. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His main claim to fame is directing a single film, Pipe Dreams: If You Build It They will Come (1989). According to its listing in the IMDb, it was a direct-to-video film and lasted 45 minutes. No indication that the film is particularly known either, with less than 5 ratings in the IMDb. Does he really count as a notable film director?Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth D. Thompson[edit]

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

Delete as utterly non-notable -- joke of an article about a political sinecure. This is one step below campaign literature. Quis separabit? 03:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep just about fits through WP:GNG as was mentioned in a speech of a us president, also is now a high ranking official at pepsi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poor sourcing and formating of the article. I am not convinced than anybody with the slightest association to Barack Obama is himself/herself notable. Dimadick (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His postions in both the Obama and Biden administrations were way below the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WiSpry[edit]

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

As I still confirm my extensive and specific PROD here, this is still an advertising for a company who involves itself with an advertisement and the users who were involved with this article clearly started it for exactly that, therefore we make no compromises at all to keep or improve this, because it would otherwise damage us as a serious encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Another Corporate SPAM Wikiepdia facing these days in abundance! Light2021 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable startup (which has been acquired). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Tok-hun[edit]

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

declined PROD. the one source introduced in declining the prod is merely him saying something as spokesperson for the government rather than him being the subject of coverage. there is no inherent notability being an ambassador let alone deputy ambassador. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 10 October 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 October 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I will concur with the nomination in this case as I examined the article and thought deeply, but simply came to the conclusion that his actual position is in fact not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN and is otherwise not suggestive of his own article. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even ambassadors are not default notable, deputy ambassadors even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Jayendra Golden Jubilee School[edit]

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

It has poor source and non reliable source, and failed to satisfy WP:ORG. ~AntanO4task (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a tricky choice as the school exists according to the official affliation portal "http://cbseaff.nic.in/" (the affliation no. is " 1930230"), but there is no verifiable independent source for its existence. Keep as per the existence of the school and community consensus about schools as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. vivek7de--tAlK 16:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. School board website confirms its existence. Not truly independent from the school because it is the central authority that governs it, but I would consider the source reliable enough to verify that the school isn't just made up. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vivek7de clear as day admits there's nothing to confirm its existence and I myself cannot find anything either, Consensus was to keep per schooloutcomes however consensus changes all the time and consensus for schools is that a source needs to confirm its existence which at the moment I can't find anything, As the saying goes "No source no article". –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources have been provided which confirms the schools existence so I see no reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacking coverage in independent sources. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES makes it clear that articles about schools that lack independent sources have tended to be deleted in the past, and I haven't seen a convincing argument for making an exception here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added sources. One from the Ministry of Science and Technology. Another from the Central Board of Secondary Education, Government of India. And a third from the Tamilnadu Government. Lourdes 10:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Okay, here are some secondary, independent and reliable sources that confirm the existence of the school. While it is possible, but, when did C.B.S.E registered a non-existent school? Anup [Talk] 21:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Anup, like I mentioned in another Afd that you commented in, please first check the sources others have placed before suggesting sources that have no relevance to the article. It takes away the time of volunteer editors to check your wrong sources time and again. Take some effort and realize that the sources that you have quoted are of another school in Tirulenveli, some other place in Tamilnadu. Please don't take my suggestions otherwise, but you really need to do the first diligent step of checking your own sources before documenting them in discussions. Again, check the sources already provided in the article, the school exists. Please don't hesitate to ping me for more clarifications. Lourdes 03:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newgistics[edit]

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

My PROD removed with the basis of adding paywalled sources yet I was explicit with the concerns of this clearly being a paid advertisement the fact not only are there several accounts only heavily involved with this one article, but the fact the contents themselves are advertising, My PROD covers all of this genuinely and thoroughly therefore I still confirm it. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom's statement. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm not sure I see evidence of this being a paid advertisement, or the sources being so. Certainly neither the NYT nor the Austin Statesman are. And while the article history shows some single-purpose accounts over the years, any blatantly promotional edits have been dealt with, and what remains of undue weight can be resolved via regular editing. It's not that bad to begin with. Huon (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as corporate spam, which conveniently includes an Office directory. No value to the project; strictly WP:PROMO on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TOWER London[edit]

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

I still confirm my extensive and specific PROD here which listed the advertising concerns and the facts of this not actually containing something convincing; what is listed is simply either advertising by people who are choosing to advertise the company or actually then republishing the company's own words. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - no coverage that isn't part of a company PR push. Willing to be convinced - is there any RS coverage that isn't from a PR push? - David Gerard (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression this was resolved before when it was edited to be factual, and using reputatable sources such as Drapers. As ever, its always better for Editors on Wikipedia to edit articles to a level they see fit rather than spend hours and hours discussing its deletion. There are thousands of poorly made wikipedia pages relating to companies which can read badly when looking at it with cynical eyes. Edit the article to the way you see fit, dont complain and offer no suggestions thats not how the community will survive, its already struggling to get new editors on board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmorgans (talk • contribs) 11:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Another Corporate SPAM Wikiepdia facing these days in abundance! Light2021 (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable and lacks sufficient RS to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Awards are niche and possibly non-independent. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Russell (Voice Actor)[edit]

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

Another local voice actor, had died a few years ago, but still no indication of why he is important. Tim Marcoh in Full Metal Alchemist is his most notable role and that's way down in the supporting cast. Kiril in Dragonaut is supporting, General Froi in D.Gray-man is supporting, Saburota in Princess Jellyfish isn't main cast, neither is Tubai in RomeoxJuliet, Mr. Cho in Witchblade isn't main, Kogan Iwamoto is main on Shigurui but it isn't strongly notable. Papa is a recurring but is a once in a while character in Initial D. I don't see what kind of biography can be written other than the standard obituary paragraphs as with ANN and Dallas Voice. [56] He did found the Stage West theatre group in Fort Worth so Texas may have a different viewpoint so need some feedback as to how Wikipedia-notable he is with those news sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sheer volume of roles in notable films and tv makes me think atleast 1 is not supporting — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being an additional voice or a minor character doesn't really help notability. There are plenty of non-Wikipedia-notable actors that can be called upon for that. It's different from the "guess what, you're carrying this title as the lead character". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am insufficiently familiar with his roles to comment on whether he played high-profile ones. His profile in the IMDb mentions a few live-action roles: an appearance in an 1995 episode of Walker, Texas Ranger, and a minor part in the thriller film Odd Man Out (2014). His voice roles were more extensive, but most of them seem to involve dubbing of non-American series. Dimadick (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a slew of minor roles does not add up to a notable career.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. volume is not notability in this field; major roles is what makes for notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doja Cat[edit]

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

PROD removed here, one day because its scheduled deletion but I still confirm it, article for a new and starting person and none of this actually establishes what we need for independent notability and substance, the one link is still not being the substance we need for an article, and it merely emphasizes how "starting" her career actually is. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete as a WP:TOOSOON - I see a mention on the most minor imaginable Billboard chart, and not one that swings it for me. Willing to be convinced though - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom, I'm also finding tons of articles by this creator that I've been putting BLP prods/prods on that just don't seem notable. Wgolf (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The half-beard guy[edit]

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

Fails BLP1E (2016 Chicago Cubs season). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article should not have been started, not only because it has not actually been substantiated by both information and sources for better convincing but then the fact there's nothing to in fact suggest this can improved beyond expectations. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page & WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia, vanity page and certainly fails WP:GNG. Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is a obviously a mess and desperately needs rewriting and formating. However, the sources are actually legitimate. So subject has some RS regional coverage, which does WP:GNG. If it's kept, I hope someone will fix it. X4n6 (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economia agro-alimentare[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no evidence of notability, fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as a week gas not suggested anything else and there are no serious concerns (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signature dish[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for verifiability and original research for over 6 years now with no significant improvements. Was also PROD'ed back in 2008 but removed. Article is nothing more than a definition of a term violating WP:NOTDIC and doesn't seem to meet any WP:GNG guidelines. SanAnMan (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly good stub, blatantly notable, not in any way a candidate for WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many reliable sources which mention this term turn up in the various gSearches. But isn't it really a dictionary definition? See, for example the entry for the term here: BRAND sense: Sensory Secrets Behind the Stuff We Buy (2008); Martin Lindstrom; Simon and Schuster; Page 31; ISBN 9781439103456 ; found here. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dish (food). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. Redirecting to dish wouldn't help readers at all, as the term isn't defined. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is worth an encyclopedic entry. Signature dishes, signature moves, signature models etc are all symbolic of a particular genre/trait. With close to a thousand hits on Google Scholar, I think this is a no-brainer. Lourdes 09:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, almost all of those GHits are examples of the style, nothing to prove encyclopedic worth. Again, you're proving my point, this is a definition of a term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. You missed a line in my comment above. It's not the definition which is the key, it's the genre/trait/era that the signature dish defines that is more important. And that obviously cannot be described in a dictionary definition. That's why I gave Google Scholar references and not Google references. Certain signature dishes define the era of a particular time, and certain ones describe a whole culture. How can one encompass all that in a dictionary? That would require an encyclopedia. And this is it. Lourdes 17:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or transwiki to Wiktionary If it can be demonstrated that this term has widespread use in its area of interest, this article should remain on Wikipedia. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a meaningful concept, which therefore makes it more than a dictionary entry, which is just for a word. There are sufficient sources available--probably hundreds more could be found. A redirect or merge to "dish" is ludicrous and is a misreading of the article. User:DGG

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

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

The result was merge to List of churches in Nigeria. Sandstein 09:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Churches in Port Harcourt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has previously passed through Afd but no consensus was reached. So, had to bring it back up because the list really doesn't worth keeping per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOSTATS. It should be deleted permanently and should not redirect anywhere. The little remaining content can be moved to List of churches in Nigeria. Stanleytux (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. In the first AFD I said pretty much this: User:Postdlf has a good point ("There don't seem to be enough articles on notable churches in Nigeria to merit splitting below the national level; see List of churches in Nigeria. Page could be redirected there."), but merging partly to List of churches in Nigeria, would be better than "Redirect", because there is content (a number of Port Harcourt churches) that is not included in that list-article. Also the content might be used to create or expand "Nigeria" sections in existing lists of churches by denomination (i.e. the lists listed in Template:Lists of religious worship places), so some material could be merged to those. For some reason there are not a lot of lists of churches by geographic areas in Wikipedia, or at least I notice there is no List of churches in the United States (currently a redlink), though there are U.S. sections in the lists by denomination. If some of the Port Harcourt churches or other Nigeria churches belong to a denomination whose notable churches are not yet listed, then create a list (or move this one) for that denomination (and ping me to come help develop it). By the way, this seems to be a list of Christian churches. Does the word "church" refer only to Christian churches? --do ncr am 06:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD is unnecessary. Any editor could just perform the suggested merge. All the AFD could accomplish beyond that is get complete deletion of the article, instead of leaving a redirect. Like to be punitive/insulting to the articles' contributors. And leaving a redirect is fine. :) --do ncr am 06:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect and Merge: to List of churches in Nigeria article. FTR, I was the one that created the article lol. Darreg (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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