Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 October	20 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) 05:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritesh Malik[edit]

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

Surviving part of a walled garden of promotional entries. Founded a number of nonnotable internet companies, sand a promotional article with irrelevant claims " journey of Transformation of India into a Product Nation." DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I comment so soon because I myself had planned to nominate for deletion for several days now as the article is simply an advertisement and was in fact apparently part of a PR campaign, which I have outstandingly been getting s lot of "but Ritesh Malik's article exists!" which caused some concerns, especially considering the now-nominated for deletion of his companies (which were also blatant advertisements). Everything here is simply PR and republished PR, something of which is not surprising at all for these subjects, and it's in fact so common, that we cannot take bare and basic named news sources as a confirmed given of notability and substance; the Forbes itself then actually simply states an apparent self-autobio. There are no compromises when it comes to such blatancy and there's nothing to suggest we should start accepting said blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: reads promotional. Involvement of pr agency and undisclosed paid editing cannot be denied. Looks like Indian entrepreneurs are more interested in starting a Wikipedia article before the 'start-up' itself. I didn't analyze every sources available for this person, but whatever did I see make me believe that it doesn't meet our general notability guideline as well. Any request at del-review claiming that 'tone has been fixed' should be rejected and requester, directed at wp:afc venue. Anup [Talk] 08:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such promotional articles go against the premise of an encyclopedia. I would recommend closing this Afd as delete with no prejudice against early recreation provided RS are provided. Lourdes 03:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Medicine Olympiad[edit]

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

Restored as a contested PROD but there's honestly actually nothing for any independent notability and substance, searches are not finding anything actually better and there's nothing at all from the current information to suggest there would be hopeful and meaningful improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the official website of the International Medicine Olympiad: http://www.medicineolympiad.org, as well as another website that documented all 3 days of the competition, with photos, competition rules, and competition results: http://www.bioagents.org. This is the biggest international competition in medical biology for high school students that is generating enormous interest in China and America. Please define "independent notability" and "substance", and I will be able to demonstrate them to your satisfaction, as someone who independently investigates and reports on higher education in America and Asia. For the importance of this competition to high school students who may look to wikipedia for information on similar high school competitions, please refer to the following: ^[1] JL905 JL905 (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.franklinregional.k12.pa.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_76266/File/News/Pawprints%208.31.16.pdf

What we need for independent notability and substance is actual in-depth third-party news sources and substance, and not simply something the company influenced or PR-initiated, and it seems there is none thus the considered deletion. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a journalist, I received news releases from competitions such as the USA Math Olympiad, USA Physics Olympiad, and USA Chemistry Olympiad. ALL the information reported in third-party news sources is company influenced and PR-related, without exception. The same must be true for international competitions. Should we consider all the wikipedia pages for these competitions for deletion? If not, may I ask why not? JL905 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JL905 - There is no doubt other articles exist that shouldn't, many arguments are invalid in these discussions, see WP:ATA and save much typing. WP:RS will detail what references are acceptable, Discovery, Scientific American or any editorially reviewed magazine like these would be acceptable, if not available then subject is not notable. You can continue to improve the article Cotton2 (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cotton2. Per Wikipedia's explanation of what counts as a reliable source, "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: ... Mainstream newspapers". I found a news article in a mainstream newspaper, the World Journal, which, again per Wikipedia, is "the largest Chinese-language newspaper in the United States". I have added the citation to the Wikipedia article on the International Medicine Olympiad, and I respectfully ask Wikipedia editors to remove the article from consideration for deletion. Thank you. FYI, I do not work at the World Journal. JL905 (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no RS available to support anything under the GNG/SNG universe. I recommend a WP:SOFTDELETE here due to absolute lack of sources. No use re-listing this Afd again (and wasting away our volunteers' time for another week, for this to close as no consensus). Lourdes 03:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - looked for independent sources and found only scattered references to these event in a few "local kid does good" stories, in small, local papers. fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mattia Manzaroli[edit]

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in any WP:FPL and also not enough to pass WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 21:40, 19 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) 00:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable footballer JohnTombs48 (talk) 07:18, 21 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. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've burnt my hands trying to save earlier borderline players and learnt from that too. Sources to qualify the subject on NFOOTY or GNG are unavailable and there's no reason for this Afd to continue beyond this week. I recommend a close now. Lourdes 03:24, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ghans Foot Sport Agency[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 20:16, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could've been CSDd, to be honest. Couldn't find a single independent source. User has attempted to remove the tags twice as of this moment. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Also looks to be WP:SELFPROMOTION. MarnetteD|Talk 20:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references don't even mention this agency. Also, its official website is just a Facebook page; probable candidate for speedy deletion. Spiderone 13:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. A minor agency at best, doesn't seem to represent any top level footballers. Fenix down (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, the refs given do not mention the agency. Eldumpo (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as literally an entire advertisement of only what the company would advertise to clients and investors, none of it actual substance and nor would it be with such blatant triviality. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 25 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, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rai (paradise)[edit]

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

A regular non-English word with no usage in English, nor special meaning beyond "paradise" in native lanhguages. Belongs to wiktionary, not to wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REmove from WP. not sure if it belongs in Wiktionary. I leave that to others. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Musical Dimension[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Five separate articles about musical theories theorized by a single musician, whose only discernible evidence of usage is in that musician's own work -- there's no evidence shown that any of them has ever been adopted in anybody else's work, and one of the articles in fact entirely fails to explain the theory at all, simply asserting that it exists, the end. So these things can certainly be mentioned in He Xuntian's main BLP, but none of the articles does anything to demonstrate why standalone articles would be needed about each theory separately from the main article about him. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "musical dimensions" is pretty common and definitely not attributed to He Xuntian. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The theory principle has been expression clearly in References (The Compositional Concept and Theory of He Xuntian and Thus have I heard He Xuntian,etc.).Ytbr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those references are about He Xuntian and his work, and thus fail to demonstrate that these are independently notable as standalone concepts separate from him. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 26 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, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mastermind (TV series 42)[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced list of every single non-notable contestant across an entire broadcast series (reminder, that's UK English for what North American readers call a "season") of a television game show. We don't have lists like this for any of the show's other 41 prior series, nor indeed for any other game show at all — and without reliable sources to support the names, it starts to pose WP:BLP issues since nothing's stopping anyone from altering a contestant's name or occupation. There's just no value in maintaining this kind of WP:CRUFT — ten years from now, readers are simply not going to be looking for a comprehensive list of every single person who appeared on one episode of a game show in 2015. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a precedent of deleting this cruft for TV shows that list contestants by series (look in the AfD archives for The Chase, etc). There's no value in creating lists like this. I've started, now I'll finish. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 14:23, 24 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amita Chapra[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Terrible article, but with cabinet level positions at the state level -- if I understand correctly -- the person would meet WP:POLITICIAN. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shawn. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blow it up and start over. Yes, subject is notable but we must not it keep it in present shape. It was created by Adi.chapra which I assume is somehow related to subject of article. To fix the article it needs to be re-written from scratch and preferably by a non-COI person. If you are going to re-write, when done, ping me - I'll change my !vote. Anup [Talk] 21:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've TNT'd it, blown it up, kept the stub as everything else was unreferenced. The subject qualifies on POLITICIAN per sources I've placed within the article. Lourdes 03:36, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ParcelDirect.ie[edit]

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

Per WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP. "Save up to 80%" is a pretty big red flag here. Provided sources do not support notability. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete the provided references are PR push stuff, and I get a total of four hits in GNews, two of which are listed here and two of which are a competition. No evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - WP:TOOSOON - not enough significant coverage in reliable sources found in standard searches. Best so far is a brief writeup in the Irish Independent [1] -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP. Issues in particular with GNG and CORPDEPTH. Provided and independently "Googled" coverage seems routine and trivial. The seemingly only "independent" source (Joe.ie from Jul 2015) upon investigation also doesn't all that independent ("we’ve teamed up with ParcelDirect.ie" Joe.ie Jun 2015[2]). Also not in keeping with WP:NWEB (not every website needs an article). General promotional tone also concerning. Guliolopez (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. Class455 (talk) 04:11, 26 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. And salt. No genuine editor wants to keep this, apparently. Sandstein 23:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zagace[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Relatively new startup company. Only passing mention in sources. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- *this is not a new startup company. the previous article that was deleted had more citations. it has been a subject of various media all over the world for a long time now. a quick google search can show the same. the comments of sabiel are libelious and there are clear and valid citations. yes its a new company but its a valid encyclopedic content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the source of information on this company is those articles that clearly when put together are a topic of encyclopedic content. not some random advertisements written on grounds that are dumbfounded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 01:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- *the content about this article is related to an individual and the citations are valid for the content posted in the article. i dont understand how a new startup company cannot meet encyclopedic contentjane22 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - no reliable 3rd party sources found for this company. Cotton2 (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- the links posted have reliable sources of information consistent with the content of the article. the source of this information is those articles. thats why its a topic in the first place. aren't forbes reliable? aren't business insider? these are provable links with information sufficient to have the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- the links include news and publications from persons whose opinions are third party to warrant a valid source of information on the article. all those articles are not from one person. so saying no 3rd party sources doesnt make any sense at all.a company is run by people who sell opinions and provide information to third parties. and in this case third parties have verified the information by having information on the same in various links and news articles which they have published. how is that not 3rd party?jane22 23:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I checked the reference from Forbes, it's barely a mention of anything, but what's there is not about Zagace. Please review WP:RS to understand why these references do not make the grade as reliable detailed 3rd party references. Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). Cotton2 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~-the article has a statement "Zagace, which has raised funding from local investors, is a cloud enterprise software that helps companies manage inventory such as accounting, payroll, stock management, marketing and many more all bundled in a simple and easy to use format called Zag apps." similar to what is on the article. this is written by a forbes staff by the name kerry dolan. and this is contained in the first paragraph after the first picture appearing on the page. forbes staff is a third party and credible source. The content of this article has the same exact wording. how is this not reliable? are you even reading this? Ierierie 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:jane22 for joining this discussion. All contributors are encouraged to participate at Wikipedia! I am having trouble leaving a message on your talk page, could you be impersonating another user? That is quite difficult to do here, every entry is logged in a page history file. I can't find an entry by User:jane22 in this page's history, here Cotton2 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that was a typo . the messages are continuous and am the same person writing the response. Ierierie (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and optionally Redirect to Mubarak Muyika who appears to be marginally more notable. Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:K.e.coffman for joining this discussion. The concern on the article was about whether the 3rd party references were reliable not whether the content is notable or not.According to WP:RS. The contents in this article are independent work whose citations and as an independent topic and qualify as different to warrant a different page. They may be sourced from articles where other persons are notable but because its a different topic, hence the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Quick online search produced enough sources to easily pass WP:GNG warranting existence of the page. Notification or concern should not be about deletion but other wikipedia article issues. users comments on page warrant other reasons of concern that can be solved without deletion as this is a credible independent topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs)

Delete - After cleaning up Mubarak Muyika, very few sources discuss this company in any depth, and sources like this suggest it's a very small operation, possibly just Mubarak himself. Maybe not, but sources don't clearly say otherwise, so... Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article cited by Grayfell is just in passing. other articles suggesting larger operations like this and citing the same has grown to be an independent topic warranting a separate page. From various links such as this.various other people are involved proving the operation is not just Mubarak himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs)

I stand corrected. That source does say he employed twelve programmers, but it barely mentions the company at all. It's five short sentences in a profile that is focused on Mubarak as an individual businessman. The Forbes list (which is heavily over-used as PR) is likewise about him as an individual with only a single sentence about the company as it relates to him. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Investors have also been mentioned who are other people. Companies started by notable individuals such as this qualify as a topic of their own as they have been corraborated as existent for the content herein and is verifiable. this is an unnecessary exchange of arguments that is drifting from the initial reason for this article being posted for deletion review. All arguments here have been elaborated. so we will keep looking for mistakes to justify why content is up for deletion? this is an unnecessary fight. How does one employ programmers in the same article then again running only one company. this argument doesnt make sense at all and is very unnecessary. let other parties give other arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs)02:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

You do not get to dictate who does and does not get to participate in this discussion. The company's notability is not inherited from Muyika's notability. Just because his article might meet notability guidelines doesn't automatically mean the company is notable. Twelve employees is very small for a notable company. WP:NCORP was cited by the nominator, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and other reasons for deletion could be brought up and discussed. That the article has already been deleted twice before suggests possible promotional issues which go against Wikipedia's principles, for example, and suggest that the article and its sources should be examined carefully. Grayfell (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in your previous comment you stated it was muyika alone involved. i cited that he is not alone. now again its too small of a number. Am not dictating any terms. so its promotional because you feel like without a valid argument. how is that making any sense? all things stated in the article have been properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs)04:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

As I said, "I stand corrected", which means that I admit I made a mistake. It was a minor one, and I stand by my point that this is a small company which doesn't warrant an article based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Not everything that in the article is properly sourced, and not everything that can be sourced belongs in a Wikipedia article. Are you affiliated with the company? Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am not affiliated with the company and i still stand to believe that it is a valid independent topic whose source is articles related to muyika. its a different subject with wide coverage by mention in more than 10 reliable citings whether in passing or in full. i see no reason why the page should be deleted. the articles clearly elaborate and explain the company as an independent entity despite the connection to muyika Ierierie (talk contribs)04:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salt as well; unlikely ever to be come notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is a subjective opinion with no basis based on a biased perspective because user was involved in argument prior to responses given. so article will unlikely ever become notable based on K.e.coffman imagination???. or is there any other reason this user has intentions to have this salted???? Ierierie (talk contribs) 11:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article and promo piece. WP:CORP applies. Kierzek (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- *concern clearly addressed and elaborated in previous comments showing article easily pass WP:GNG. This is a repitive comment with no clear reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as the advertising here has not only been blatant and massive but also emphasizing its actual basis: the company is not notable so it lists sources to make it seem as if they were sources, but they are not because it's all simply published and republished PR, that's not something we'll accept as actual substance, nor should we. The GNG means nothing if it's still advertising and it's something we delete, with no compromises. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- *Reasons placed above have clearly elaborated why its not republished PR. The company does the same thing and if multiple cite verifiable information about it that matches how does that become republished PR. These are separate people and citings not connected. Business Insider is not connected to Forbes, Abdijan TV is not connected to Daily Nation. This doesnt make any sense at all and article. There is no content in the article that is not cited, proving there is no promotional content here. As a wikipedia user i have no reason not to defend verifiable and notable topics that pass WP:GNG in clear ways and from verifiable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ierierie (talk 22:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I was able to find a lot of sources for the company, including at least four in-depth sources that are very reliable for the minimal information in the article [3], [4], [5], [6]. I could possibly be convinced to !vote keep but more independent sources should be added. Frailo 22:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frailo (talk • contribs) — Frailo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Routine listings, such as Crunchbase, are not sufficient for establishing notability. The "Linkedin Pulse" article appears to be WP:UGC with no fact checking or editorial oversight at all, and is a passing mention anyway. The significance of the Anzishi Prize has not been established by reliable, independent sources, and was given to Mubarak Muyika as an individual, which is already explained at his article. The Disrupt Africa story is a trivial passing mention in a source why may or may not be reliable. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Frailo is a sockpuppet of User:Ierierie per investigation. Can this be closed? Cotton2 (talk) 14:51, 31 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) 05:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feras M. Freitekh[edit]

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

Non-notable person involved in some press coverage of an event doesnt make that notable for a biographical article per WP:BLP1E MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - under the guidelines at WP:CRIMINAL, it is far too early to judge this crime as sufficiently notable to grant the criminal a page. If he and his crime are still being written on years from now, that'll be a different matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PSEUDObiography of one event/BIO1E. The article has one sentence about the person. Everything else is about the crash. A somewhat unusual apparent suicide, but no indication of continued RS interest beyond the October 12–14 news cycle. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one event notability that is not enough to justify an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 21 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hershaft[edit]

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

Can't find independent reliable sources or other ways to establish notability. Most promising source is this local newspaper article. Utsill (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an animal rights activists without a significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with the vote, I don't think it's Wikipedia policy to use "animal rights activist" or "significant impact" as criteria. Maybe you just mean notability. Utsill (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your personal opinion, or based upon notability guidelines? Note that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which is a basis for notability on Wikipedia. See sources I have provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His name comes up quite a bit in reliable sources when I search for it at Google Books with "animal rights activist". I'd say he's notable in his field, with significant coverage. ABF99 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Still Delete~~. Not finding any WP:RS from Google Books searches, even though there are quite a few results. Utsill (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination counts as a delete !vote, you don't have to repeat delete, although comments are allowed. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Farm Animal Rights Movement, I think he has just enough coverage to pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage qualified as WP:RS? Utsill (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find enough coverage to pass WP:BIO, notable in his field. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what's the coverage? Utsill (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Jerusalem Post
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Ynet News
The Huffington Post
Jewish Journal
Haaretz
The Baltimore Sun
The Jewish Chronicle
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Jerusalem Post (subscription required)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barsha (Ritu)[edit]

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

Strong delete-The topic is entirely about a Bengali word-transliterated to English; written in the manner of an entry in dictionary!The English equivalent of the topic is well-covered in the article of Monsoon which also have it's sister article in Bengali language!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 05:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator. Seems like someone unknowingly tried to write an article on a topic we already have an article about. Anup [Talk] 19:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOTDIC. Yintan 19:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. Nobody is going to type "Barsha (Ritu)" to search for this page on Google. In whichever case, dictionary terms don't belong here. I suggest closing this Afd now. Lourdes 03:42, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A State of Mind (band)[edit]

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

Actually deleted in 2012 but, given that it is not exactly the same thing since then, here we are again and I can confirm I have searched and examined but found nothing to suggest what we would seriously need for a substantially convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment fr:A State of Mind (which this appears to be at least partially a translation of) has some RSes. Interviews: [7][8] Reviews: [9][10] Not quite sure those three alone bring it up to WP:NMUSIC, but it's not implausible ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment Not to be confused with the Polish band also called A State of Mind - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I will note that I've reviewed the original deleted article and can confirm that it was not about the same band, so this is definitely not speediable. That said, this article makes no strong claim that this band passes WP:NMUSIC for anything, and cites no reliable source coverage to support it — and I don't see David Gerard's new sources above as improving the notability case at all. It's a standard rule at AFD that because they represent the subject talking about themselves, a Q&A-formatted interview cannot assist passage of GNG — it's a type of reference that can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been passed, but not a type of reference that can bring GNG in and of itself. And the reviews are in a blog and a user-generated discussion forum, so they're not reliable sources. And while France Info has the possibility of counting toward GNG, in this case it's just a blurb wrapped around a YouTube video of the band in performance rather than a piece of substantive coverage — and even if we did accept it as a GNG-eligible source because France Info, one GNG-eligible source is not a GNG pass all by itself. So no, nothing shown so far is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 26 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 22:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Crawford[edit]

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

I'm unconvinced of subject's notability. Sources are poor. Some are deadlinks, primary sources etc. Cannot see any significant coverage of the individual beyond these articles: http://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/the-mad-blogger/Content?oid=2457188 & http://www.houstonpress.com/music/cold-cuts-bun-b-vs-byron-crawford-6546177 Article has numerous issues such as unverifiable claims and departure from NPOV but this nomination is based solely on perceived failure of WP:GNG Rayman60 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep the article is terrible and tempts one to set it on fire, but he's been interviewed a fair bit concerning his book, including internationally: [11][12][13] - may be legit famous - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What we need is articles about him, not just interviews about his book. Nothing else suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable blogger. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 24 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, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Asher[edit]

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

Person not notable, seems like a page written himself. Listed as born on earth milky way and has an irrelevant trivia about his hair in a cameo appearance. D3athstardisco (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and subject lacks significant notability. I removed the "milky way" bit from the infobox. Meatsgains (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: going by the fact that the article creator appears to be an SPA only working on Jon Asher-related records, the nominator may well be correct in his assumption that this is a vanity piece by the article subject. Fails WP:COMPOSER as it all appears to be inherited notability: the song being notable and charting doesn't make him automatically notable. And even most of the songs listed in the article fail WP:NSONG notability themselves, despite their blue links (often to an unrelated article): "Mood Ring" is just an extra track on the Japan-only version of the Britney Spears album, "I" is one of five tracks on an EP, the Aaron Carter song didn't chart, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 21 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 delete. unsourced, no indication of notability, not a cookbook Jimfbleak (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cucumber in Sauce[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a cook book. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator and completely unsourced. Meatsgains (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete: WP is not a cookbook and even if sourced I cannot see this being notable; it is just a way of cooking vegetables, not a well known dish or distinctive technique.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete: while individual dishes certainly can be notable and there many examples of good articles about them, there isn't anything here worth keeping. Jonathunder (talk) 16:47, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Baldwin[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. No evidence of playing at a pro level. Also WP:BLPPROD applies as this article has no sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability per WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. He Fails WP:HOCKEY because he only plays in a minor league. The article is completely unsourced. Searching for this player reveals almost nothing except a few passing mentions. Apparently he is a youth player but there is zero coverage in RS and almost nothing in non RS too. It also has been created by a single purpose account and is written a bit advertorial, it reads as if some overeager parent/relative/trainer did create this article. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dead Mary said everything that I could have said myself. Ravenswing 02:18, 22 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 userfied. Already done by administrator User:Guettarda (aka Ian (Wiki Ed)); not sure that was technically allowed by deletion policy once the AfD has started, but if not it was an obvious WP:IAR move. (non-admin closure) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of overtime[edit]

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

This seems to be purely original research, without any attempt to base it on reliable sources. That's not so say that such sources can't be found, but they should preceed the article, not be added to it after it is written. If references are found, the material would be better added to Overtime. Gronk Oz (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page is completely WP:OR. Meatsgains (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a student draft that shouldn't have been moved into mainspace. Anyone have a problem with me userfying it to see if I can work with them and their instructor to try and turn their effort into something viable (though probably an addition to the overtime article rather than something stand-alone). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Userify away - that sounds like the ideal approach.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool. Done. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:36, 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 Speedy Delete. Article has already been Speedy Deleted per A7 and G5. (non-admin closure) Dead Mary (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan Boro[edit]

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

Article about a nine-year-old boy receiving a sports scholarship "despite being from a modest upbringing" appears to fail WP:BLP1E: single event, little significance, otherwise low-profile individual. McGeddon (talk) 13:47, 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 Keep as a technicality considering the nominator has now been uncovered as a [past advertising user] and this subject is in fact notable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L.A.X (musician)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted. According to WP:PAID. A strong believe that this Editors Obari2Kay and Oluwa2Chainz are on wikipedia to make money. According to this statement . This users might be related. Historical Ben (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources provided seem enough to pass WP:GNG. The comment cited doesn't show that there was someone writing for money (someone claimed they weren't and then without proof claimed that someone else was). There are some promotional issues that could use cleanup in terms of the words used in the article, but that's easily fixed in a manner other than deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: @TonyBallioni: This user Obari2Kay stated on my Talk Page that Oluwa2Chainz collected money to writes articles which i believe. The question is "How did he know Oluwa2Chainz?". Their must be a relationship between the two Editors as a freelancer. On Obari2Kay User page he wrote "Good bye" to his Co-worker which are the freelancer on wikipedia. I don"t trust this people.--Historical Ben (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They said that they were not a freelancer and paid, and then made a comment about the article creator getting paid as a freelancer. I'm going WP:AGF here and based on context think it was a young editor with a non-native grasp of English trying to defend themselves. Regardless of the paid vs. not-paid conversation, I think it meets WP:GNG and needs cleanup, not deletion. CSD G11 says that re-writing a notable article is preferable to deletion. There is enough here to scrape by GNG in my view, so we can fix it, not delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the previous SPI for the user, and based on the past, have stricken my comments here. I still think the coverage passes GNG, so I'm fine with keeping, however, and working on the articles to improve it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I don't know @Oluwa2Chainz: but what I know is article written by any Wikipedia Editor and at the end of the article you find this "Authority control" and if you click on the link it takes you to the freelancer company..@TonyBallioni: As you all know freelancer get paid. The only relationship I have with @Oluwa2Chainz: is he keeps deleting my contributions on articles. Note:- I said "Bye Bye Editors & Freelancer" that does not make me one. I was a P.R & Publicist to Kiss FM 98.9 Lagos, I get paid well so why should I be waisting my time looking for someone to hire me, as you all know I use wiki as a par-time to get busy; check ever article created. I can creat today till 5 days, a week/2 or month before I created another due to am busy, but now am free and my article are been norminated for delete for no reason. On the "Authority control" it is written their "Musicbrainz" so read this [14]..--Obari2Kay (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a laughable afd thread because the criterion for deletion is quite invalid. Aside the poor grammar, @Historical Ben: is a new user who has made less than 90 edits and yet made the bold move to nominate the subject for deletion before going ahead to request on this talk page that I get blocked. Some sort of conspiracy?. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this afd should be closed as the nominator has been blocked as a sock per this thread.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Agree with above users per notability. Carbrera (talk) 03:10, 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) 05:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Amo[edit]

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

Take away all the primary sources and social networking links and music downloads, and there are just two or three dubious Ghanaian sirsofferin some coverage. Article is written in the 1st person by a family member. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The artist does not seem to be notable per our guidelines, neither per WP:MUSICBIO nor generally per WP:GNG. The sources in the article are not RS (except that concert report in modernghana.com), and I couldn't find anything on her in the web which would resemble coverage of her at all - in RS or non-RS. There seems to be nothing out there about her. She seems to be clearly not notable this way due the lack of RS. The only weird thing is that the 2 non RS in the article from some Ghanaian websites make some pretty outlandish claims about her success, which could indicate notability. However since I couldn't find anything which would confirm those claims we probably have to discard them. Therefore due the total absence of any coverage of her person at all this article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 21 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, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Babak[edit]

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

No indication of notability, just a man with a job. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 10:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A biography referenced only to two incidental mentions of the subject. No indication that the subject is more than a person going about their trade. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable TV news producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in the article and a cursory Google search suggests that subject meets WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 04:08, 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. Yes, there is no quorum here, but even the main commenter admits that it does not exist any more. The website of the same name has a total of 12 advertisements on it. This is therefore an IAR delete, but appears to be a sensible one. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Southampton Advertiser[edit]

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

Tried finding secondary sources on Google, and failed. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses:

You tried finding secondary sources on Google however there are no sources on Google. The Daily Echo / Southern Daily Echo lost interest in The Southampton Advertiser in 2008 and have failed to provide any historical evidence regarding the domain. You can clearly see on the Web Archive that in 2002 it was owned/advertised as The Hampshire Chronicle.

Any other references to The Southampton Advertiser's history do not exist. It is still a well known name throughout Southampton and many people (roughly 300 per month) still search for it. I'm not sure how to prove this as I'm unaware on how to link to Google Keyword Planner as you need an account to use it or if you know how to use it.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:01, 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 delete (G7) by Titodutta. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Yinji Aluminium[edit]

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

no news article hit for "上海银基铝业有限公司" or "上海银基", a small company that create an article for their company in wikipedia as Ad. Matthew_hk t c 06:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 06:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rather, Shanghai INGEEK Information Technology may be somewhat notable. (Chinese: 上海银基信息科技) Matthew_hk t c 04:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Matthew hk, if you don't mind, could you inform the article creator using the Template:Afd-notice ? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:34, 9 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) 17:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:24, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Philippines relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. the actual bilateral relations are very small. no resident embassies. the level of trade is relatively small, even the cited sources says "a small chunk of both nations' trade." LibStar (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-important topic as such relations are small and of course, not covered by any local newspaper. Fails WP:GNG as what Libstar said.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has cited sources but not good enough for a standalone article.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not familiar with specific notability guidelines for diplomatic relations, and I don't know whether the sources are good ones. The article creator has recently been adding or improving a lot of articles regarding bilateral relations between the Philippines and other countries, clearly in good faith, but I'm not sure how many of them reach WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see evidence the subject is notable. We should not be turning red links blue just to do it. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 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. Soft deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birdie Try[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of WP:BEFORE check was used to determine this article's notability? Given the game's age, online sources are unlikely to have covered the game, so I very much doubt that an online-only search, looking for reliable sourcing covering the topic in-depth, is sufficient to meet WP:BEFORE. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 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 00:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:15, 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 keep per WP:SK#1 A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented (e.g. such as the subject potentially not meeting WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, etc). For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Senanu[edit]

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

article is poorly sourced jane22 09:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quick online search produced enough sources to easily pass WP:GNG. I've added these links to the article and removed a big amount of puffery. RollingFace99 (talk) 13:21, 21 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 delete (G7 Author requested) by Boing! said Zebedee

Cold Detonation Physics[edit]

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

The page seems to be a publication of original research by its inventor, documenting the fact that patents were obtained; page creator concedes that the research has not been peer reviewed or otherwise discussed in independent reliable sources and that it seems unlikely to be. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author's assertion that the work is ill-suited for peer review (because no one else is likely to reproduce his experiments) shows a lack of understanding of the peer review process. Peer review of the results and conclusions, without needing to reproduce the experiments, is a common part of the scientific process. Lacking such peer review, patents alone are not sufficient to verify that the process the author has described is actually a correct interpretation of their experimental results. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, delete. It seems entirely probable that the author/inventor is onto a good thing here, but Wikipedia is not the platform to disseminate it before there is ample and reliable coverage from other sources. No prejudice against recreation once there is a better basis in coverage and some replication.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the page had blanked it; I restored it but added an author request speedy tag. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 21 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 Biosemiotics. There seems to be agreement that there is not enough substance here for an article. Editors are divided, however, over the question of whether the content should be merged to a semiotics-related article. The redirect reflects that lack of consensus in that it enables subsequent discussions to reach consensus about what, if anything, should be merged from the history. Sandstein 22:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edusemiotics[edit]

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

A neologistic discipline. It appears the term is used only by a narrow circle of its proponents. article is tagged since 2014, but still in a sorry state, which speaks of dubious notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Looks like there is enough coverage in books to qualify for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the argument. Did you look at authors of the books? - all the same author. Wikipedia needs independent coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (very selectively – a couple of sentences) to Semiotics per WP:UNDUE and GNG. As other contributors note, there are a few reliable sources, but nearly all of them are written by one of the two scholars who originated the approach. Compare law and semiotics or theatre semiotics, each mentioned in the general article but lacking individual coverage. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. (By the way, take the Google Books search with a grain of salt. At least one of the books that search returns [Kaufman 1995], and likely others, does not mention edusemiotics, nor education or semiotics. There may well be some funky lemmatisation or other Google-fu at work.) Cnilep (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. incomprehensible jargon. If someone want s to write an understandable article on this, they should be encouraged, but I'm not sure its possible--the topic maybe too vague to permit encyclopedic coverage. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Semiotics, if there is anything worth saving here among the fluff, (perhaps only the title). If there is genuine meat here, then it can be explained in plain language, and cited to multiple, independent, reliable sources. As Ernest Rutherford said to one of his young researchers who told the cleaning lady that nuclear physics was too complicated to explain, "Young man, if you can't explain it to her, you can't explain it to anyone". I doubt there's anything like so much substance here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and oppose merger to semiotics. This is almost exclusively the pet topic of Inna Semetsky and (to a lesser extent) Andrew Stables. If Semetsky were notable, I'd support a merger to her article; but I don't believe she is, and in any case, there's no current article to merge to. This is simply not a sub-topic that has been given independent coverage by others in the field of semiotics. In a very real sense, Semetsky is something of a fringe thinker in that regard (when she's not writing about this sort of thing, she's writing papers on the psychology and symbolism of tarot; Martin Gardner considered her work psuedoscience). Of the sources provided, none of them are independent of Semetsky, including the 2010 piece by Danesi—it is the forward to a volume edited by Semetsky (and, indeed, that forward makes it clear that he is using the term directly in the context of Semetsky's work). The only truly independent examination of Semetsky's concept of "edusemiotics" that I'm able to locate is in this paper from Global Studies of Childhood, which is... well... you really have to read it to get the full effect. I don't wish to cast aspersions regarding the quality of scholarship in that field or that journal, but I struggle to see any such paper could be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's WP:FRINGE then we should delete it. Sounds as if that's probably the case? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the corresponding guideline is WP:NFRINGE. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please set out your reasons for believing it meets that criterion, then; I am open to evidence, as certainly are other reviewers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is simple: zero independent discussion of the theory. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to biosemiotics. I have stubbified tha article based on some reliable independent (of Semetsky and Stables) sources in the form of book reviews published in academic journals:

Review of Edusemiotics
Review of Inna Semetsky, The Edusemiotics of Images: Essays on the Art–Science of Tarot

There is also a university course on edusemiotics [15] but I don't know that this counts as an RS. The reviews may not be in enough depth to pass notability, but the basic facts in the stub are verified and may be suitable for a merger. As this is in the biosemiotic tradition, I recommend a merger to biosemiotics; due weight would be easier to achieve in that article than in semiotics, which is a huge field. --Mark viking (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to concede that the independent reviews of Semetsky's works contribute to her potential notability, but I don't think they really serve as independent examinations of this field/concept. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews are bunk. They call Inna Semetsky a "prominent scholar". A book that applies the obfuscatory language of semiotics to reading of Tarot cards is one huge red flag, for credentials both the writer and a positive reviewer. Staszek Lem (talk)

Strong oppose of merging to biosemiotics - there is no slightest evidence they have any relation. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, biosemiotics is mentioned at several points in the first review article. Read it for yourself. The relation is also discussed in the primary sources, too, such as Semetsky's book[16]. You are welcome to hate this topic and claim all sources are bunk, but it doesn't change the fact that the sources discussing edusemiotics assert a biosemiotics connection. --Mark viking (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Semetsky has a section about biosemiotics. Please provide a quotation which claims that edusemiotics is part of biosemiotics. Vague "connection" is not enough. And I don't 'hate' this topic, but it doesn't change the fact that wikipedia relies on reliable sources (pardon the tautology), not just on any sources. I don't hate Tarot cards, but it is already well-established that anybody who discusses Tarot cards pretending of doing real science is not a reliable source in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the author of the review you mentioned writes texts like "learning is the Universe’s way of discovering itself through life forms, " in his Ph.D., which makes me wonder about his sanity, not only to be a reliable source for wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. The description of biosemiotics as " The field, which challenges normative views of biology, " is a prime red flag for pseudoscience, and promise I will not hate this article either, but take a good look for obfuscation. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:24, 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) 05:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pravda International[edit]

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

As suggested by the BBC, this appears to be a hoax using the same of other historic newspapers and publications JMWt (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing against myself a bit, there seems to have been quite a lot of coverage about the opening of a "Pravda International" office in Scotland in a lot of British media, so maybe what is needed is to WP:TNT it and rewrite it to reflect what was covered in the media. But then the whole thing is a carcrash if the media itself was using dubious sourcing, including the WP page, to write their stories. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with your first point and I was just reading that BBC article too. This article appears to just reference sites referring to the historic Pravda, and the media attention is similarly obfuscating; I don't think it meets WP:N in any case. gbrading (ταlκ) 12:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Yintan 14:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Jr8825 • Talk 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a hoax as per BBC story. -- Marjaliisa (talk) 02:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinwendu Ihezuo[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:57, 18 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played at a level to meet notability guidelines for footballers. There is not enough coverage to pass GNG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has played in a major senior tournament. this page shows her UEFA Women's Champions League appearances history.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in the Champions League; the highest level of club competition Spiderone 18:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any in-depth coverage by independent sources. Eldumpo (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails NFOOTY (keep comments that she has played in the champions league are unhelpful as they are not aligned to any guidelines. However, the player passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:

Ajegunle boys made me fall in love with football — Ihezuo - lengthy interview with the player from The Punch, a long-standing Nigerian daily newspaper
PELICAN STARS PROUD OF IHEZUO ACHIEVEMENT - medium length article on her nomination as CAF female footballer of the year
Chinwendu Ihezuo delighted to join Falconets - brief article with quotes on her call up to the Nigeria U20 team
CHINWENDU IHEZUO Makes History With Nigeria - brief report on her record-breaking goal scoring feat
OFFICIAL: DELTA QUEENS FORWARD CHINWENDU IHEZUO COMPLETES MOVE TO BIIK KAZYGURT - medium length article on her move to Kazakhstan
Ihezuo, Ayinde to receive FIFA honours - brief article discussing her award of the U17 WC silver boot

On top of the lengthy interview and handful of medium length articles, there is a reasonable amount of match reporting of her international performances which would help flesh out the article. To my mind, BASIC is satisfied here. Fenix down (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes the WP:GNG bar. Edited article to make notability more clear from sources. --LauraHale (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Laura.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fenix down, meets the GNG. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to pass GNG and Footy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Champion's league performance clearly meets basic criteria for sports notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. WP:GNG also clearly met. WP: NFOOTY rarely applies to the majority of women's footballers except for players who play for a senior national team or 3 active "fully professional" leagues (Netherlands, Sweden, U.S.) although there are numerous top-division leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 20:28, 25 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. Author request. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hae-Geun Park[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not notable. Sawol (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawol:If you were unable to find anything (and thank you for your research on the other articles), I would be happy to speedy-delete this and save time. But, I just Googled 박해근 스카우트 and got some possible hits, can you take a look? Thanks either way!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpikeSource[edit]

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

5 line profile written by none other the company officials. Non-notable. nothing to write about as being Encyclopedia notable. Light2021 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are finding nothing better than routine coverage of product announcement and then the 2010 acquisition of the firm's assets by another firm (itself deleted at AfD recently so not available as a redirect target). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and above, I can't find anything except passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are few news articles and other passing mentions about SourceSpike in the InfoWorld magazine (2004, 2005), but nothing close to real broad coverage. Pavlor (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- heise.de has several short news about SpikeSource; mostly mentions in articles about other companies in The Inquirer; The Register has at least two detailed stories: [17] and [18]. Worth to add to the article or waste of my time? Pavlor (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I usually check The Register for IT companies but plainly hadn't on this one. The David Norfolk article from 2006 is useful. I would still say that it was speculation about what the company may accomplish, largely on the basis of the known names then on its board: were that now, then WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTINHERITED would be applicable, but it does indicate there was some attention during the company's lifespan. AllyD (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was entertaining experience... I removed all unsourced informations (horrible article!) and added (more or less) RS based text (using two The Register references mentioned above, two short news from iX magazine/heise.de, one Ars Technica article about consortium they co-created and two InfoWorld articles about first products). I also corrected broken references to SpikeSource website (for date of founding) and Black Duck Software press release (for date of purchase). If the article is kept, someone should anglicize it, because my English is poor... Pavlor (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant advertisement, regardless of the company's fate, because everything that is listed is simply about what there was to actually advertise about the company including about its business information and services and who was involved with it; none of that suggests any substance, and we can certainly delete it alone with that and blatant advertising attempts. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the revised article is not convincing either; nothing stands out about this unremarkable company to warrant an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: What is needed for an encyclopedia article about company? I thought only significant coverage in reliable sources is necessary. Are sourced used there non-reliable? Or more sources needed? Or sources are OK, but their coverage of the article subject unsufficient? Pavlor (talk) 08:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ServerAxis[edit]

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

This article tells nothing about the company. Reads like Incident covered by daily news paper. Why this article is even here? and who wrote this? is doubtful. Light2021 (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text concerns a single incident's impact on other organisations and my own searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:NOTNEWS #2 and WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete similar to a bio WP:ONEEVENT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ONEEVENT only applies to biographies, and the incident received significant coverage in Forbes, FiveThirtyEight, and other reliable, independent sources, enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Barring that, Redirect to Downtime#Famous outages, which briefly mentions the incident, as it is a plausible search term at the very least. Smartyllama (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I'm convinced it's not notable enough for its own article, but it's a plausible search term and should redirect to where it's mentioned. Any discussion on whether it's notable enough to be mentioned there belongs on the Downtime talk page, not this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as what still stays and is noticed here is the fact it not only simply lists the expected company information, but then the noticeably large section for its attention about the sports events, none of this actually establishes independent notability and substance and there's nothing suggesting otherwise better. To note also, the sources and information are all trivial and unconvincing so there's literally nothing else to say about this article. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So delete it because it has more than just the basic company information? I'm confused. And "instead" of what? Keep or redirect? That's not an argument against the latter. Smartyllama (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable private company. 90% of the content is about the outage. If the outage were notable (of which I'm not convinced, see WP:NOTNEWS) then an article should be created on that. Otherwise, nothing stands out about this one and coverage is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Downtime#Famous outages, where ServerAxis is mentioned, in lieu of deletion. There is significant coverage about the outage in this article in FiveThirtyEight and this article from Fortune. Cunard (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge if it's still advertising and if it can simply be solved by briefly mentioning the company (as it should be) at the other article; the 2 listed sources are currently listed at the article as it is and they are no exhibiting any convincing signs currently used as it is. SwisterTwister talk 23:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge if it's still advertising – the article discusses how ServerAxis caused controversy by having an outage that had a major impact on women's basketball statistics and coverage of the sport. That cannot be considered advertising. More material about the outage can be merged to Downtime#Famous outages, which is why I support a merge. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Material which reflects poorly on the company cannot be considered advertising. Smartyllama (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an unremarkable, non-notable company and trivia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no need to merge/redirect). This is pretty much WP:NOTNEWS. A bit of coverage about the server outage is the only thing available. I am opposed to merging it as it was not a notable downtime/outage. These kind of outages are routine for companies and Wikipedia would become a repository of trivia if we start keeping information about random outages. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? What appears to be a permanent outage is "routine for companies"? That seems unlikely. It's more than a random outage, at the very least. Maybe it doesn't deserve its own article, but at the very least, redirect it to another page where it's mentioned. And if you don't think it should be mentioned there, discuss it on that talk page, not on this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To those who voted delete, why not redirect it to another page where it's mentioned? Pinging @AllyD:, @TonyTheTiger:, @K.e.coffman:, and @Kierzek:. The other two already gave a reason, though I fail to see how this is "advertising" as SwisterTwister said or a "routine outage" unworthy of mention on the downtime article, as Lemongirl1942 said, and in any case, this isn't the appropriate place to discuss the latter. Smartyllama (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, still delete, fails WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an argument for not keeping the page, it's not an argument against redirection. Many pages which fail WP:NOTNEWS are redirected rather than deleted where a suitable target exists, and redirects are cheap, so there's really no good reason not to here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- okay, delete first, and then redirect at editorial discretion. There's no need to keep the article history as it's strictly WP:PROMO content. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how material mostly critical of the company qualifies as WP:PROMO. If it were, it's failed miserably. Smartyllama (talk) 02:01, 30 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) 05:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coho Data[edit]

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

From Promotional writing of an article to references. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. Awards and nominations press coverage. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. It does not list for companies who got awarded by local or regional awards. There are tremendous of cases happens all over the world. Light2021 (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PR advertising information being literally only supplied and supported by PR advertising sources and information, and my own searches are finding this which is not surprising, considering everything about this article emphasizes it, especially the fact there's the sheerness avidness of company advertising (the sources, information and the multiple "apparently new" accounts involved with this). Another blatant and damning note is that the first account involved literally reviewed and accepted their own Draft, showing the advertising attempts we all know so well and still see today. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 21 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AltexSoft[edit]

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

This one is well written professionally "Promotional" Article, nothing but mislead to its profile. From Promotional writing of an article to references. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. Only the company officials can approve the content of this article like 1 Paragraph profile, History, and Awards which are non-notable in nature. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 21 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MBJ London[edit]

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

From Promotional writing of an article to references. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. all references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. company only mention the Investment news where thousands of company gets seed, angel or any kind of funding on daily basis on each part of the world. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. It will be flooded with thousands of worldwide funding company daily. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article's references are largely a mixture of primary (the PR item and The Guardian piece by an employee), about an award co-organised by the firm and passing start-up coverage. The most substantial is the Deutschlandfunk item about the firm seeking to start operating in Berlin, but that too is essentially propositional coverage. I am seeing nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH to demonstrate that this website firm is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can folks stop using "promotional tone" as a reason to delete an article? That's a reason to clean up an article. With regards to this one... references 1 and 6 don't represent depth of coverage, reference 2 is a press release, reference 3 isn't about the company, and references 4 and 5 are from questionably reliable sources. At least for now, this doesn't pass WP:CORP. A Train^talk 08:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't directly a reason (unless it's so bad as to inspire calls for WP:TNT, but it's indicative that an article subject isn't actually notable because the article wouldn't exist unless created promotionally rather than because it was organically noteworthy enough that an uninvolved third party would create it. Also, people despise spam - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:A Train's point and am wary of based anything on sensibilities about what we may dislike. However I also stress that encyclopaedic purpose needs to be maintained, especially with companies. Firms have departments whose entire day job is to obtain media coverage, which is far easier nowadays with minimal entry costs to publication. However, in this and other company AfD discussions, my view is that a very high bar is needed: that the media coverage to demonstrate notability should already be quasi-encyclopaedic in itself, i.e. involving exercise of critical discernment. Without that, Wikipedia is just one more PR outlet. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the repetition, the accusation of promotionalism used as a siren call in nominations and !votes. It has devolved to the point where people who concentrate on WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues are ignored because of their past history of crying wolf, or they are simply used as a Streisand effect pointer to find interesting articles that need cleanup. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apart from the promotional sources in the article, a basic WP:BEFORE shows little to no non-PR or non-PR-initiated coverage in WP:RSes apart from passing mentions (there's one PR-initiated story about WB21 that drops their name). No indication of organic third-party coverage, which strongly suggests they're not actually noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a directory of unremarkable private tech companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising alone and this it helps the fact there's no actual notability, the current contents and sources are simply advertising which was literally contributed by a few several recently started and heavily-focused accounts for only this 1 article. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 24 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agriya[edit]

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

From Promotional writing of an article to references. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. Still trying to find what NYtimes really covered for this one? all other references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a notable company. The references clearly do not demonstrate significant coverage of this company. There is no significant coverage available elsewhere, never mind independent coverage (there isn't any) - it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. This company piggy backs its apps onto software such as Facebook and Groupon by imitating these without copyright infringement - there is no significant impact by anything developed by this company.

To answer the question pertaining to New York Times coverage, there is a one line mention of this topic in the article discussing niche web companies that have emerged - by carving out "territory" from Groupon and drilling down - [19].

The article notes, "Groupon caters to the masses, which means avoiding the obscure corners of any particular product niche." and "Why jump into the gold rush when you can sell picks and shovels to the prospectors?" Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam, with sections such as "Headquarters: The company's headquarters is located in Kamdar Nagar, Chennai. There are 200+ employees in its headquarters". Wikipedia is not WP:WEBHOST for a company's web site materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as I have been watching this and the sheer floods of several accounts show the blatancy of advertising and how the article is literally only consisting of company-initiated information, therefore there's no actual notability and it's a damn advertisement, sufficient enough to delete at any time, especially when such news sources as the ones listed are notorious for pay-for news. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 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 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TravelTriangle[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor in terms of coverage they provide. No depth coverage by independent media for its notability but script given to large media group. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria for companies. Once in a lifetime coverage in popular media is not enough to be part of its significance. Light2021 (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable "full stack (??) Holiday Marketplace" company. Article created by Special:Contributions/Shazahmed11 who only edited other articles to spam them with links to this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. promotional article about non notable travel service. A number of references,a ll of them hopelessly unreliable for notability ss either just notices of funding, or PR. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 24 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 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Georgievich Derevenskij[edit]

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

An autobiography written by a not notable person. No independent RS coverage, just self-published sources. Sealle (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer lacking reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources when searching his name in English or Russian. Doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR either. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What. The. Hell? This badly fails every guideline including the general one. There's no evidence this author is notable. BLPs require every statement of fact to be well-sourced with significant coverage, and this is severely lacking. We are a charity, not a web host for any rando pushing an agenda for profit. It might be snowing in Russia. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Whitney[edit]

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

This article idea about a movie producer with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. All of the sources in the article serve to verify statements in the article but none of them represent significant coverage and I am unable to find any either. Whpq (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I couldn't find anything substantial to backup WP:GNG claims. May fail at WP:FILMMAKER. Hitro talk 10:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh God, not another article about a producer who claims to have helped develop a film and put together the financing of some B movie. We almost always delete articles about producers because they are so run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve- The article has more references than many other articles of "notable content" on Wikipedia, and the consensus on Mr. Whitney's contributions to the films he has produced is unwavering; the overall result being films that have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, unusual in the horror film market. Rgelb93(talk) 20:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the quantity of references; it's the quality. --Whpq (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve- Steve Whitney is a notable producer because for more than a decade – and still going strong – he has played a key in the creation of several notable films and has overseen the creative and business sides of high-grossing movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:989:4200:5F8:102B:3D18:2785:37BA (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable producer. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Balser[edit]

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

Minor basketball player who fails to meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH, either. A Train^talk 08:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remain. Meets WP:NCOLLATH Gained national media coverage as an individual player throughout High school, Professional and International Career. Bryan has represented England Basketball at every level U15 to Senior Men. Won every nation trophy of his generation for both school, county and club from U17 and U19. Played in the British Basketball League for 8 years winning a Uniball Trophy with London Towers and competed in the Euroleague with the London Towers. Balser was selected for the England Senior Men's team by Laszlo Nemeth at the age of 25 in 1999 during his professional career at TV Tigers. Balser was top scorer in the Budweiser League Championship final at Wembley Arena in 1998-99.Derick Balser (talk) 06:58, 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) 05:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Squirtwoman[edit]

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable film series; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The article does not cite any sources that are not award materials or PR driven. The industry awards do not overcome of reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable film, fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates this series is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 24 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 Deep Creek Lake State Park. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny's Bait House[edit]

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

Completely non notable bait shop. There's simply nothing of note here. Kbabej (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. N. GASIETA|talk 02:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 03:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first ref is actually in-depth coverage, sort of an obituary on the business when it closed. The rest are passing mentions. Not enough to establish notability. Created by SPA with only four edits to this article. MB 04:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCORP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This former business established long running Fishing Contests that exist to this day and also established fishing reporting to the State of Maryland and for the region. These events began in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and unfortunately little of the documentation from this time period exists online. I did find one here.^[1]NewRefs (talk) Joh7586 (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep:~~ I have added additional valid references to this page. Particularly the Mountain Discoveries Magazine article ^[2] provides specific evidence of notability. NewRefs (talk) Joh7586 (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep:~~ Many pages on the internet cite this establishment. Google search results yield 718 results for the page title as an exact phrase. More google results for partial matches as well. Linked (talk)Joh7586 (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I have formatted these discussion entries incorrectly. Joh7586 (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/27775198/
^ http://www.mountaindiscoveries.com/stories/pdf/fw2003/lakereflections.pdf

Additional !votes by Joh7586 stricken. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Deep Creek Lake State Park. The aspect of records management over many years combined with the fact that this institution is defunct and the piece is therefore non-promotional would indicate that a short section containing a great deal of the information in this stubby piece would be appropriate. I hope that Jon7586 will consider this option. No problem with leaving a redirect if such sourced information is written into that piece. Carrite (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The place had local prominence in the park but nothing else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Deep Creek Lake State Park, which presently has no mention. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 28 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. After discounting contributions of editors ineligible to contribute, we have a majority but not a consensus for the view that the sources are sufficient for an article. A procedural closure of the AfD would have the same effect, but I don't think that this would be appropriate given that there are multiple legitimate opinions. Sandstein 20:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Internet Defense Force[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jewish Internet Defense Force (3rd nomination)

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

This group falls short of WP:SUSTAINED. All reference coverage is from 2008, with one small thing from 2009, apart from primary sources and blog entries. Group is not notable over a brief period and not ven active in years. Good times charlie, he walks like this (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC) This user is not allowed to vote in AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was always a negligible organization and now it is even more negligible. I suspect it consists of only one or two people who had a good laugh when they were taken seriously for a month or two. These days they only exist to collect donations. Zero^talk 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes on WP:GNG. Founded by a rabbai — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC) This user is not allowed to vote in AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Wikipedia is not a place where internet trolls should be legitimised. Their Alexa rank is 4 million (in other words, their website has next to zero relevancy on the web). Amin (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)This user is not allowed to vote in AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Shrike (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Politics and propaganda is the last thing we all want to see here, in Wikipedia, the-huge-community. God bless all the jews Amir R. Pourkashef 13:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Amir R. Pourkashef(talk)This user is not allowed to vote in AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The group had already attracted international media attention as shown in the article, and all-in-all, the article is well-cited with reliable sources from news websites. So long any of the crufty, promotional or non-neutral content is removed, I don't see how the article fails WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary. This article has clearly demonstrated notability through interest from international media. ~~Also I call into question the neutrality of some of the !voters above.~~ Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This AfD was started by User:Good times charlie, he walks like this, which clearly is a new user and has a single-purpose starting this deletion discussion. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, as a new account who has not yet made 500 edits nor been here 30 days, the OP is precluded from editing this article at all, and had no business proposing it for deletion. I think this whole discussion is invalid. RolandR (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Changing my vote to Speedy procedural close as mentioned by other editors that the nomination breaks WP:ARBPIA3, and the nomination was no doubt spurious, as a creation by a blocked sock SPA. My reasons for keep under WP:GNG and WP:NOTTEMPORARY stands. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 01:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the other guy. Falls short of WP:SUSTAINED ("Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability"), reference coverage is from 2008, Group is not notable over ~~a brief~~ an extended period etc. Peter Damian (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEMPORARY. What do you mean by "brief burst of news coverage" as what the guidelines said, and then say "it was not notable over a brief period"? It's completely contradictory. You are telling me that it fails the policy because it was only notable briefly, and then you tell me it was not notable briefly. What are you talking about? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like @Peter Damian: made a typo. Presumably he meant group is not notable over an extended period. Blackmane (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Well-referenced. Gained international coverage and plenty of home coverage, even if short lived. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously: we do not need to have an article on every web-site started by an anonymous user. And to User:JohnTombs48: though the person behind this web-site is anonymous, it has been linked with one, shall we say, slightly "disturbed" named person, who is definitely not a Rabbi, Huldra (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It was moderately notable in the past. In retrospect, it does seem to have been a one-person operation. But then, so was Wikileaks in its early days. John Nagle (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks had an actual effect on history. What effect did this "organization" have? Zero^talk 23:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. jps (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what ways do being on CNN and international news fail WEB or even GNG? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN mention was a tiny flash-in-the-pan, vastly too trivial for WP:GNG. Almost all of the paragraph which mentions CNN has to go anyway as it is all from a self-published blog of someone who describes himself as "an authority on body dysmorphic disorder, male eating disorders and addiction"[20]. Zero^talk 05:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple non-trivial" references are the key things I am looking for. I see passing trivial references only. jps (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Have you taken a look at the articles by Haaretz, JP, the Dubai National Post, Telegraph and BBC? Those are not passing references. For all of them, the JIDF formed significant portions of their articles, and for JP and Telegraph, they were the exact subjects of the entire news articles. Did you even read those sources? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The triviality of the coverage in the sources you cite is quite self-evident to me. "Significant portions" of the articles? Not really. More of object lessons that seemed to be written by people who did not understand the internet. For the two "exact subject" articles, I found the coverage to be of the flash-in-the-pan sort. Unimpressive. Fails WP:WEB by a fairly clear margin. Not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. jps (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is not self-evident to me, and could I say, false. Maybe your idea of the internet should be without any mention of the Jewish Force, or any other Israeli hacktivism group, perhaps. I don't care about what your ideas of notable internet content is. Whatever you have said about WP:WEB is your own !vote and I couldn't care less too. But even if it fails WEB, this article still passes WP:GNG because it has clearly been sufficiently backed up by sources. The fact is that those outlets cared enough about the subject to write about it. WP:GNG clearly says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Not only is there a combination of both articles which approach the subject of Israeli/international hacktivism from a broad view before giving JIDF a specific mention, there are clearly articles from major international news outlets which gave full attention to the subject. Maybe you think they have absolutely no idea how the internet works in your mind or in fact, but they writing about it alone satisfies GNG and also WP:RELIABLE's guidelines on what reliable, published sources are. Just because you disagree with the source, doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a source. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you want to make Wikipedia into something other than a WP:MAINSTREAM WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA doesn't mean everyone else has to follow suit. jps (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's exactly my point. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and so I agree with you. That is why my vote is speedy keep (especially since this nomination is essentially a sham). Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say it scrapingly could conform to WP:WEB given some of the sources available for the site during its period of highest activity, but it definitely would not pass WP:SUSTAINED. The lack of sources since the hey day of their activities is more likely to be due to their going underground, but that's another story. Blackmane (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have started an WP:AN/I discussion regarding this AFD--Shrike (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After doing a Google search, there is certainly sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The first coverage begins in 2008 and reaches its peak in 2010. That certainly doesn't appear to be a "brief bursts of news coverage", so I don't see how it falls short of WP:SUSTAINED? --I am One of Many (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes notability requirements, and this nomination is itself suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the edit restrictions on this article is not obvious, the notice being on the talkpage only, to stop this sort of thing happening in the future, would it be appropriate for this (and similar articles) to have some sort of edit protection placed on it? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re ANI: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AFD started by ineligible editor in WP:ARBPIA area. This AfD discussion seems to fall under the terms of the general prohibition in WP:ARBPIA3:

"All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."

Please don't participate in this AfD unless you are a registered account that has been here more than 30 days and has more than 500 edits. The admin who closes this AfD should discount the !votes from anyone who is not eligible. Except for this concern, in my opinion this is a valid AfD and should be allowed to run for the normal time. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article, as I find its unfixable (due to the way this website is run) errors, glaring omissions, and completely misleading claims make a handy tutorial for what a mess Wikipedia is. There are of course countless other examples, so I will soldier on in the event of deletion. But this one is as near to perfect an example as any.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep With articles centered on JIDF or his activities in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post or CNN, notoriaty is established even if it is clear that it is not deserved. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for Administrative Close per WP:ARBPIA3. I realize this is a bit late but the OP (now blocked) was ineligible to open the AfD. Additionally there is compelling evidence that this AfD was not opened in good faith and that attempts were made to stack the deck with sock-puppetry. Finally allowing this to proceed undermines the rules. It is for essentially the same reason we almost always revert any edits from banned and blocked editors, even if they are non-controversial. This AfD represents a flouting of our rules and guidelines and should be closed forthwith. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the case for questioning the legitimacy of the AfD itself is strong, the article stands on its own based on the sources provided meeting the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicely done, well-sourced piece. I found coverage in the Telegraph article to lend support to the fundamental notability claim, which has already been affirmed at AfD. Notability is not temporary, etc. Carrite (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that should be an obvious and uncontroversial decision...not sure why it was nominated again. --Fixuture (talk) 19:06, 25 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. The article appears to meet WP:GEOLAND and has been cleaned up to establish that. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaharsree[edit]

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

Nothing notable that would justify inclusion in the encyclopedia. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing notable here, and with talk about "aristocratic families" living there with mentions of non-notable people it smells of WP:PROMO. Kbabej (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GEOLAND. It does appear to be a population center [21] and it is a government recognized village. [22]. Article could use some wiki copyediting. --Oakshade (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:GEOLAND holds all population centres to be inherently notable. Needs a drastic cleanup for tone which I'll undertake myself right now. A Train^talk 08:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Per the cleanup by A Train, I think it now is acceptable. They've removed the obvious promo. Kbabej (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, a legally recognised place, see Population & Housing Census 2011 Community Report: Maulvibaza (page 93). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 21 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 Vet Tech Institute. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vet Tech Institute (Pittsburgh, PA)[edit]

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

Article is written like an advertisement and does not seem notable per my search for news information on this place. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like an advert. As this is not a degree awarding institution it does not get automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vet Tech Institute. The article is written like a promo, which sucks, but is not a reason to delete. The article says that the institute confers associate's degrees, which would make it a degree-awarding institution that complies with SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but I agree that there isn't enough independent coverage of this branch to warrant a separate article. A Train^talk 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main Vet Tech Institute article. Not enough significant coverage for a stand alone article, and therefore does not distinguish itself enough from the parent institution to have its own article. Nothing remarkable about this Pittsburgh branch. Steve Quinn (talk)
Redirect in line with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to Vet Tech Institute, no need to have a separate article. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 21 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.

[1] ttp://www.franklinregional.k12.pa.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_76266/File/News/Pawprints%208.31.16.pdf

[2] ttps://www.newspapers.com/newspage/27775198/

[3] ttp://www.mountaindiscoveries.com/stories/pdf/fw2003/lakereflections.pdf

[1]

[1]

[2]