Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 October 1 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 88 Films releases[edit]

List of 88 Films releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list of films that are or will be reissued. Smell of advertising The Banner talk 13:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • MERGE should be merged with the 88 films article, sourced of course.Zlassiter (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 88 Films and consider the whole thing as one entity. The size of the two articles mean that one article (at most) is sufficient. --Michig (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a suitable list article and borrow sources from the MANY blue-linked films on that list. Expand with info from the studio's article. Schmidt, Michael Q. 12:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "88 films" is not a film production company but a re-issuing label. The Banner talk 17:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note the parent article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/88 Films. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for all the problems you seem to be finding, how about messaging me first before deciding to delete my work. if you're going to delete this article, then i suggest you delete every other article which is similar to mine. list of arrow films, list of.....films. you see my point. there is a category. Lists of films by home video label. this is my contribution to that category. it is a complete list which i update every time 88 films make an announcement. it is simply a reference article for collectors who wish to collect their films. my references on the article got removed not by me. whereas the list of arrow films have references that link their titles to their website for purchase. i do not have these links on my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kn5150 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Michig and Zlassiter: Merge is no longer possible. What are your views now?  Sandstein  22:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:54, 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. And salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InApp[edit]

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

Given sources are mainly press releases or directory type entries in various industry related publications. No sources given from outside the industry. This company does not appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Article was previously deleted a number of times under CSD A7 and/or G11. Current title is WP:SALTed, but article was recreated under a variant capitalization and then moved here. Given that the current incarnation of the article makes a credible assertion of significance and is not blatant spam, I think AfD is the appropriate process, rather than another attempt at speedy deletion. Safiel (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 20:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt given the damning number of 4 deletions , three of which simply happened in the past few weeks and the first one happening in 2006, so that's troubling enough as it is to show such blatant advertising, we should not risk yet another 5th deletion, especially if only to use G4; therefore there's also such blatancy to start an article which has been shown as currently non-notable and unacceptable as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt per SwisterTwister. Seems to be excessively re-created and does not meet the policy for WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Dane2007 talk 05:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per the uncontested evidence of notability. The PROMO claim appears to be thinly grounded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High-Tech Bridge[edit]

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

not notable firm; all of the notices and minor awards are just routine for any business of this sort. A concentration of really minor awards and promotional articles is characteristic of an attempt to write a promotional article about a minor company. Some of the articles like this are done by paid editors; some by good-faith editors copying what the paid editors do, because they think it's what we want here. It's time to put an end to it, and remove the bad examples. Only then will we be able to teach the true volunteers how to do it in a proper encyclopedia manner. We can permit promotionalism and decline into a web directory, or we can remove it--all of it--and become a reasonably reliable encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference  Unscintillating (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom also, the attempts at inheriting notability. Basic WP:BEFORE shows me press releases, press release reprints, passing mentions and the phrase "high-tech bridge" - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:IAR. A small firm using Wikipedia for promotion. Other than some sparse coverage in non-RS or tech blogs, I don't see anything. I also agree with the nom's statement that it is important to remove these articles (particularly in cases where the company is not unambiguously notable) and encourage a culture of writing better articles free of promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here are the sources from the article, with obvious press releases and primary sources removed.
Unscintillating (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  There are many sources in the article.  A little reading and clicking shows that this company outed Facebook, Twitter, and Google in 2013 for harvesting the URL from private messages.  See Google news for ["facebook" "Matthew campbell" "high-tech bridge"] for international attention to the suit against Facebook in late 2013.  This is one of the links there.  The suit was certified in May of this year.  Clearly notable as per WP:N, and a company that touches the lives of every editor at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only policy-based argument for deletion here is lack of notability. The 'me too' !votes from the usual suspects don't really add anything. Those editors who believe anything with (in their view) a sniff of promotion about it should be deleted really need to start a policy discussion rather than flooding AfD with these nominations. On the issue of notability, the company in my view looks borderline. There are articles such as these: [1], [2], [3]. Ideally I'd like to see more. Most of the sources cited in the article don't really contribute to establishing notability. --Michig (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:51, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooouuu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Non-notable song, even if it did chart. Unable to find reliable secondary sources to support notability. Nearly the entire article consists of a single quote by the singer talking about the song. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator. My search for sources misspelled "Ooouuu". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Are you actually serious? The song charted on Billboard which makes it notable enough. Have you read WP:NSONGS? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agreeing with JustDoItFettyg. JayPe (talk) 19:34 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I also agree with Fettyg, that's why I withdrew my nomination (it was there before you responded). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:37, 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 redirect to Phillip's Flat, California. Unnecessary DAB page per consensus. Hat note exists in target article. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 05:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips Flat, California[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation page for two articles, only one of which actually looks similar to the name. As far as I could determine, there are no other instances of similar usage. Hence, per WP:DAB, there is no need for a disambiguation page and the ambiguity should instead be handled via hatnotes. Praemonitus (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary dab page. PamD 08:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jetfire (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:RS sources in the article, the French equivalent article is if anything even thinner, Google turned up nothing by 3rd parties, even the Allmusic and Discogs entries look like everyday self-publicity (good enough for those sites, but no way WP:RS except perhaps for things like release dates and serial numbers). Narky Blert (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Otto_Knows#Discography. Consensus appears to be redirect per WP:NSONG with no prejudice against re-creation if the article is expanded. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 04:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dying for You[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Non-notable song. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirect as per Jax. Possibly a bogus chart included? Not notable under the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Otto_Knows#Discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect – Per Jax's rationale. Also, it did chart in Sweden, it's just that currently, for some reason, the singlechart template isn't working with ampersands. Of course, besides that, it does need additional referencing. Ss112 07:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification on the chart, changed to Redirect, as per the guideline under WP:NSONG that says "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I think this applies here? Karst (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article can certainly be improved upon. Not only has it charted in both Sweden and Belgium's Dance chart, but it has also received media coverage as required by WP:NSONG. Here's a couple of sources to get the article rolling again:
Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/dance/6844205/otto-knows-dying-for-you-featuring-violinist-lindsey-stirling
The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hugh-mcintyre/lindsey-stirling-and-otto_b_9131166.html
Warner Music (German): http://www.warnermusic.de/news/2016-02-02/otto-knows-veroeffentlicht-video-zu-dying-for-you-ft-lindsey-stirling-and-alex-aris
AllMusic (for references to writers): http://www.allmusic.com/album/dying-for-you-mw0002894226/credits
Music Times: http://www.musictimes.com/articles/61962/20160115/otto-knows-releases-dying-for-you-lindsey-stirling-alex-aris.htm
We Got This Covered: http://wegotthiscovered.com/music/otto-lindsey-stirling-dying/
Your EDM: http://www.youredm.com/2016/02/26/your-edm-premiere-otto-knows-dying-for-you-feat-lindsey-stirling-alex-aris-the-him-remix/
EDM Sauce: http://www.edmsauce.com/2016/02/07/57197/
Good Music All Day: http://goodmusicallday.com/2016/01/otto-knows-ft-lindsey-stirling-dying-for-you/
—SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No objections after 3 relists and over a month at AfD. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess of Desire[edit]

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

This band fails the notability guidelines, as tagged since August 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:33, 8 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) 08:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 21:16, 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 already deleted and redirected to Cision by TomStar81 per G4. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 21:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IContact[edit]

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

This page has been recreated despite the fact it's been deleted more then once by consensus. It's content is promotional and appears to be used only for a promotional nature. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. There are many independent reliable sources about this company plus there are several awards won by iContact. These are not press releases. If the concern is promotional then the article is salvageable. --Krielmasin (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We need a consensus without any prejudice as all the references are reliable sources and there are many more. Krielmasin (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Data Infosys[edit]

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

Similar to the Ajay Data, this is completely written for Promotions alone. References are being used to mislead and building foundations to create such article. These days Wikipedia is filled with such promotions. Not-notable for encyclopedia material." top 20 most promising enterprise software product companies by technology magazine CIO Review" - is a hoax and blatant degree of spam. Wikipedia blocked such awards categories. Light2021 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as blatant advertising and no foreseeable chances of notability at all, listed information and sources are simply advertising and republishing company words, therefore there's nothing independent, significant or substantial, case closed. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XgenPlus Enterprise Email[edit]

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

Similar to the Ajay Data, this is completely written for Promotions alone. References are being used to mislead and building foundations to create such article. These days Wikipedia is filled with such promotions. Not-notable for encyclopedia material. Light2021 (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Important This article is written by Company associate and has been notified the same in Talk page. It has clear violation of COI. As appears the definite comments below as well. Light2021 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its a good deletion case. XgenPlus is being used by millions and Notable, which can be also seen just by google. They have recently announced support for IDN, which is first email server in the world, and all over new. XgenPlus now also gets mentioned in draft paper https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-elkchow-iea-deploy/?include_text=1 and great email server platform from INDIA.

Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.128.132 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This does not fall within the purview of general and useful knowledge to me, as it concerns only the product and its application and therefore violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. Had the article been written in the larger context of the industry as a whole that might have been different. But it merely expounds the virtues of this particular Linux technology with no attention paid to the broader scope of its impact and application within the computer industry. If this is truly a transformative or revolutionary technology that would certainly change my opinion, but only if the article conveys that fact in an unbiased and useful way. The fact that XgenPlus is used by the Indian Government and 9 million customers is presented without qualification and is worth no more than a subjective "wow." This article's sole purpose is apparently to extol the virtues of this "product" while offering little in the area of general and useful knowledge. Nor did The "Awards and Achievement" provide convincing evidence of distinguished recognition or achievement. A complete rewrite more in line with Wiki's guidelines may produce better results. But as it is now, I prefer to see it Deleted. It is promotional in nature and not at all in the spirit of encyclopedic knowledge. It reads more like the sales page of a company website. Thanks for allowing my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely advertising and we have and are still wary about such questionable sources as the ones listed because of the notoriety of simply republishing company advertisements and quotes words, therefore there's then nothing here for actual substance, significance or notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a product brochure in the guise of a Wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All advertisement, no notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam and paid editing with a side of WP:COI. -- Dane2007 talk 05:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted by TomStar81 per WP:G11. North America1000 07:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Data[edit]

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

Non-notable person in general Highly doubtful whether he is known to in a same industry by name. Article is written like a Award saga for this one. Clearly influenced by himself and even written by himself. No significant person would write about himself in such a manner in encyclopedia. Highest degree of blatant promotions. References are used to mislead writing for such individual on wikipedia. He is definitely not an encyclopedia material by any means. Speedy delete. Light2021 (talk) 19:06, 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 Speedy delete.The page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted under A7 on 14:07, 2 November 2016. (non-admin closure) Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 12:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TeleDNA[edit]

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

what is remain after speedy deletion and tagging is "One Line". Not at all encyclopedia material. Only a waste Wikipedia links remain for such company. Speedy delete now. This article has really nothing to write about or talk . Non-notable company. Only made for customers or employee for online reputation. standards Popular media references are being used to create an article here. Light2021 (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the other closures I've made regarding this nom - WP:BEFORE wasn't followed and as always WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, no objections to renomination by anyone in good standing. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actifio[edit]

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

This article has really nothing to write about or talk about except read like a brochure. Non-notable company. Only existence proves for promotions alone. Only made for customers or employee for online reputation. Not an encyclopedia material at all. standards Popular media references are being used to create an article here. The way it is written not sure it is written by neutral contributor. definitely influenced by company.

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

Light2021 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

Light2021 (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as much as I dislike the apparent origins of the article, and its present promotional tone that does have parallels to Veeam, it does appear to be backed with credible sources such as Forbes and The Wall Street Journal. Efforts would be best placed in scrubbing out the promotion (as I started to do already [4][5]). - Brianhe (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As written on nomination "standards Popular media references are being used to create an article here " What can we do? does it really make it an encyclopedia material and people really care about this company. I am doubtful anyone even know this company beyond their positioned/ Target customers (for them this is even written) or shareholders. :) Light2021 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is quite honestly speedy material considering how literally blatant it is, regardless of a blatant involvement of whatever, because even what is listed was still advertising-founded and there's simply not enough of what we would need, both non-PR and uninvolved by the company's own materials. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: continue Micro level, non-significant edits are made by J. M. Pearson. Looks related to this company as there are hardly any other contributions. Clear Sign of COI. No one made such changes for any article except if it is their own. One vote is definitely compromised. (just my opinion) Light2021 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Is there any nice way for me to say, don't be ridiculous? My changes are not at all insignificant. I do think you speak rashly. I am not related to that company, please don't risk offending well intentioned contributors with possible insults. I'm not angry, just telling you. Be fair minded and informed before you speak ill of others, that's my advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another Note And let me point out, if I'm only making non-significant changes then what does that say about the nfd? If that's all that was needed then maybe that editor made a mistake in the first place with that nfd? Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Speedy Keep I'm going to agree with the editor below. I think this article is out of the woods. There's still room for some improvement, but I don't think a delete should even be considered. But given my inexperience I accept I could be wrong.
  • Speedy keep Once again, an egregious lack of WP:BEFORE from the nominator who still doesn't understand notability criteria. Non-trivial, RS coverage easily addresses WP:CORP; one sample: "Actifio Joins $1 Billion Valuation Club With $100M Investment" (from The Wall Street Journal). There are plenty of other non-press release articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) ansh666 18:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Experion Technologies[edit]

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

This article has really nothing to write about or talk about except read like a brochure even after cleaning in Speedy deletion or tag process. Non-notable company. Only existence proves for promotions alone. Only made for customers or employee for online reputation. Not an encyclopedia material at all. standards Popular media references are being used to create an article here. Speedy delete material Spam is tagged as achievement like Red herring awards. Banned on wikipedia as a reference as being the fraud. Light2021 (talk) 18:58, 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) 06:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuliza Technologies[edit]

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

This article has really nothing to write about or talk about. On company locations 1 paragraph is wasted. and others does not even talk about their impact or even why they exist. Non-notable company. Only existence proves for promotions alone. Only made for customers or employee for online reputation. Not an encyclopedia material at all. standards Popular media references are being used to create an article here. Light2021 (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and this should not have been accepted from AfC, but then again Wikipedia was seriously damned and troubled with advertisements at the time, something that we still battle with today and that's why we need to take these subjects seriously, because there's literally nothing, the history also shows how it's been maintained as such by what seems to suggest are the company employees themselves who are of course the best and only people when it comes to advertising themselves. As such there's nothing to suggest we need tolerance of it, especially when the literal PR awards are unconvincing and as is everything else listed. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll stand by my AfC decline.[6] Being among a crop of fast growing companies does not show notability. There are many ways to measure growth: revenue, capitalization, employees, .... The measure can be absolute or relative. Landing a $100,000 contract might increase revenue by 2000 percent. Even the Deloitte article implies the company is "small" (but pages are offline now). Also, restricting the sample to a small subset (particular technology in India) does not suggest significant impact on the community. Choose the measure that makes you look good. BusinessLine article says there were 371 startups; article is also an interview with the CEO rather than an independent analysis. Flinging buzzwords like "social networking" and "mobile platforms" does not make a company notable; the first paragraph is meaningless. WP:CORP teaches that capitalizing a company or having employees does not make the company notable. The second paragraph does not show WP:N. The only stated claim in the article is it is a fast growing software development/business consulting firm (with only 70 employees, how big can it be?). There is absolutely nothing about what the company has done for its clients let alone something that would cause the public to take notice. Glrx (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- strictly corporate spam on a non-notable entity. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not sure where the Promo or Spam thing is coming from because I don't see anything like that in this article (at least, blatant promo or what we do normally observe in company related articles). It should be deleted because it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 21:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sankalp Semiconductor[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Only existence proves for promotions alone. Only made for customers or employee for online reputation. No significance or even popularity in general Awards tagged such as Red Herring even questionable by Wikipedia guidelines, others are awards given with no significance. Not an encyclopedia material at all. Light2021 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the large storm of coming-and-going IPs and accounts noticeably show the advertising actions and intents and that's not something we compromise with nor shall we if we want to be confided as a no-advertising encyclopedia, and the information and sources listed all are advertising with only specifics about what the company wants to advertise itself. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zilch/zippo/nada on HighBeam; just routine funding and executive appointments on Google news sources, the usual promo for a WP:TOOSOON in the article itself. - Brianhe (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promo for a seemingly non-notable company. Current version contains such PR gems as "We engage with design engineering teams...", "We are a leading provider of ...", and "We help our customers achieve..." Meters (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is a pure advertisement for the totally unnotable company. I couldn't find a single reliable source that would not read like a PR piece. Anup [Talk] 20:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete after I speedy tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annamalai Palaniappan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:ACTOR, and WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:13, 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vineet Bajpai[edit]

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

Speedy deletions and many tags are being deleted. still questions of Tag deletions. This is written by either the person himself, or being a writer hired by him. His biography is no body interest because of such non-notability. If you go by press you can easily find the blatant promotions on himself is made. this person is not notable Indian Entrepreneur and article is written like a saga, even the photograph. No Biography has such blatant promotional article in place as is this, or they are also in same place. Speedy Delete material waste into AfD. Hardly think anyone knows him even in the same industry leave apart in general being famous or public figure. Light2021 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as entirely advertising and claims of "founder and CEO" in fact mean nothing and are especially not convincing, the entire history suggests rarely used accounts only focusing with this one article and thus are suggested to be paid advertising accounts, especially since the article is literally formatted as a business job listing. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 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 speedy-deletion (G7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Udayveer Singh[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable WP:SPA author. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just social media and book blogs. Speedy removed by several obvious sockpuppets: no doubt "they'll" be along to the AFD shortly. Wikishovel (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA biography of a blogger and CreateSpace self-publisher. Looking at the article Talk page, there may be some confusion that when WP:AUTHOR #1 says "widely cited by peers or successors" this has social media followers and retweets in view: it means something substantially more than that. Both the standard Google and tailored Indian media searches finds various references to a politician of the same name but not to this person. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete-Why this is even an AfD?It should be speedily deleted.Completely non-notable author. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO.Best way-out for closing admin will be to block creation of articles in this name.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 06:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Crabb Revival. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 05:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Oak Tree (Crabb Revival album)[edit]

Live at Oak Tree (Crabb Revival album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Crabb Revival - album hasn't charted anywhere and I can't seem to find major news sources on the album, but Crabb Revival is notable enough for a redir. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that independent reliable sources show notability which passes the WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 talk 05:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Simon[edit]

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

Refs are directory listings, trivial mentions, and/ or primary sources. No evidence of real-world independent notability is established by this article, and though the subject does show up in Internet searches, the results are more of the above (mostly trivial mentions) plus Facebook, LinkedIn, executive profiles, whitepages, Twitter, Livestream, etc. etc. KDS4444 (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable architect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has won awards and plaudits for her work on at least two major buildings, the San Francisco Main Library and Ferry Building, as well as the Monkey House at SF Zoo and 140 New Montgomery (piece includes an interview with her, she was also a guest on KQED radio to discuss her work on it). She was said to be among "the most accomplished women architects in the United States" in a women's encyclopedia. About her 1996 work on the library, a book said she "garnered immense attention in San Francisco and publicity in national media"[7]. Other coverage: [8],[9], SF Gate coverage including this profile, [10]. Another profile in Contract magazine, independent bio by Texas Tech College of Architecture. She was a judge for the 2013 Rudy Bruner Award for Urban Excellence.[11] and the 2012 Progressive Architecture Award[12]. Fences&Windows 20:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with User:Fences and windows that the subject appears to be notable in her field and would like to add that the references in the article are not trivial mentions nor social media accounts, rather they are from credible and respected sources such as Metropolis, Architecture, The New York Times, The LA Times, and The Atlantic. These sources feature and review her architecture and design work, and specifically credit her by name. UC Berkeley maintains the archive of the firm she founded, SMWM,[13] which in many sources is refered to as an "influential" firm. She is profiled on the IAWA Database, hosted by Virigina Tech[14] Rscooli (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Good find of the IAWA database entry. It lists many awards and notable projects for her. Fences&Windows 07:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me highlight quickly: being mentioned in a book by name once as part of a list of influential women in a discipline is the definition of a trivial mention. The encyclopedia mentioning her does no more than that: it mentions her name, and says nothing more. This is why it is not useful for a Wikipedia article. Likewise for entries in databases: they say nothing about her, and therefore are not useful for creating an article about her. None of the references to the NYT articles have links, making them less than helpful for assessing notability (though her name does not appear in the title of any). The reference in the Atlantic is a citation to where she is quoted-- the article is not about her, it is about the city of San Francisco, and she happens to be someone worth quoting there (the article in the Atlantic actually says nothing at all about Simons). The first SF Gate article is the same: it says not a thing about her, but only quotes her as saying something about the SF zoo. Look, these references are all great, but they still don't amount to a hill of beans until one of them focuses on Simons and her work specifically rather than quoting her or mentioning her in passing. If she is genuinely notable, this should not be so darned difficult. On the other hand.... KDS4444 (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually several references are specifically about her, she has won multiple awards for her work, and she has received significant coverage in multiple sources independent of her. She easily passes GNG. Your opening nomination shows a cursory search asserting only "directory" type listings - you were wrong, but you won't admit it and have dug your heels in. Fences&Windows 23:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources brought by editors above suffice to establish notability, including the profile interview in the San Francisco Chronicle.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good sources found above to establish notability and I found another in EBSCOhost which I'm adding to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. But it seems there's also consensus to merge these all into one article.  Sandstein  10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)[edit]

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

Non-notable series of anthologies. The editor is notable and it seems like most of the authors are, but I can't seem to scare up any notable stories. The collection of stories is not notable by inference, so these titles don't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Also nominating these articles for the same rationale:[reply]

Alpha 2 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alpha 3 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alpha 4 (anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alpha 5 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alpha 6 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alpha 7 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alpha 8 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alpha 9 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Mikeblas (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • And while I am at it another user suggested that use the longer and more descriptive article name. They renamed the article moved it to the longer name which I really liked.--DominicCapuano (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what "notable" means but the term sounds a little subjective. The authors are all long time contributors to science fiction. Because a story has not been made and subsequently remade into a movie where they blow everything up or kill everybody does not mean there is no value to the stories.--DominicCapuano (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that an editor removed the AFD notice from, and then renamed Alpha 4 (Robert Silverberg anthology). -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Robert Silverberg; the anthology does not appear to be independently notable and no sources have been presented at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ISFDB shows reviews in notable genre magazines for most volumes in the series. There are quite a few notable stories in the volumes, not all properly linked, as well as award-winning and -nominated stories that don't yet have articles. The real issue here is whether to merge these entries into a single series article or maintain individual articles, and that's not an AFD issue. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- change to keep per arguments present, but if kept, then merge all sub-articles into one article on the anthology.K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William H.[edit]

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

Another BLP without independent reliable sourcing or nontrivial biographical content. Just a list of not-very-important awards. PROD removed on the claim that the subject passes PORNBIO by winning a well-known/significant award, but there is no evidence that "Best Director - Non-Feature" even approaches meeting that standard. Even if it were to squeak by by a whisker, the technical SNG pass would be far outweighed by the complete failure to meet the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting WP:CREATIVE criteria 4(c) with his multiple award wins. Director awards were divided into two major categories, features or non-features. Two very distinct style of pornography video. It is inappropriate to dismiss his awards as being non-significant in the field because there weren't single director of the year award cross-category in those years. Non-contentious parts of his biography can be fleshed out through the trade journals, AVN[15][16] and XBIZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject here "has won significant critical attention" for his work as a director, namely multiple award wins over many years for "Best Director" for non-feature films at two different adult film industry award ceremonies, so far. All citations that are currently in this article here are reliable for the information that they cite. Guy1890 (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The discussions around an actress that won a relatively new & likely minor niche award ("Girl/Girl Performer of the Year") at the XBIZ Awards obviously doesn't apply to the subject of this AfD here, most importantly because the subject here has apparently won no XBIZ Awards at all and the most relevant inclusion standard that's mostly in play here has nothing to do with PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Other tHan AVN there's nothing to confirm notability, AVN were no doubt paid to write these sources anyway, –Davey2010Talk 23:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. on the basis that the awards are unimportant. But meeting a SNG can be enough, because the point of using them is that whether sources are considered substantial (or independent, etc. ) is as much a question of hard a supporter or opponent of the article is prepared to argue than the actual sources. One can almost argue either way, depending on the actual way we decide, which is a global decision on whether the article is worth keeping. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleix Manzano[edit]

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. Page Aleix Manzano Berrio was already PRODded and deleted before. MYS77 ✉ 16:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T. B. Werapitiya[edit]

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

Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as an elected member of a national parliament satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surely this isn't a serious nomination? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll grant that the article needs further sourcing improvement, but a person who can be properly verified as a former Member of Parliament and cabinet minister has a clean pass of WP:NPOL #1. Flag for reference improvement, sure, but there's no deletion case here. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – Member of a national legislature. MB298 (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As elected national politician meets WP:POLITICIAN.--obi2canibetalk contr 16:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per WP:NPOL --LahiruG talk 04:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ceylon in World War II#Preparations for war. There's not strictly a consensus to redirect here, but WP:ATD argues for the redirect (even though this is probably not a very useful search term). If somebody wants to mine the existing article for material to merge, it's still available in the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal defences of Ceylon during World War II[edit]

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

This is not a well sourced list and is redundant Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Freier[edit]

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

I'm a bit torn on this but so far the only claim of notability is that she's the first Hasidic women elected as a Judge. That being said, is that really notable enough to pass guidelines here? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -- I will withdraw this nomination. I see the article has been expanded a bit and the subject can pass notability. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:22, 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 redirect to 2011 Leinster Senior Cup. Consensus is to redirect, Any merges should be discussed on the talkpage. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target changed per the comment posted on my talkpage - Could I ask everyone in this AFD to infuture provide redirect targets when !voting - I'm not a mind reader and I sure as hell am not going from one article to another trying to find a redirect target - I mean this in a nice and polite way but that's your job, Anyway all amended, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Leinster Senior Cup Final[edit]

2011 Leinster Senior Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

County cup season article - not notable Kivo (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (edit to add: To the relevant Cup article if that is kept or) to Leinster Senior Cup (association football) as WP:NSEASONS says that is preferable to deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above; not notable enough for a separate article. GiantSnowman 18:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per WP:NSEASONS, a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NSEASONS doesn't mention league or cup seasons, but rather individual team seasons, so I fail to see how it's relevant. --SuperJew (talk) 21:09, 31 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 31. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with relevant seasonal articles which in turn should be kept. This prejudice against Irish related footy articles needs to stop. It is getting ridiculous. Djln Djln (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with season articles. In the seasons and finals of the Leinster Senior Cup in question, all the top League of Ireland sides from Leinster competed and deemed them worthy enough of playing their strongest teams, therefore individual season articles are useful in giving more background info. --IrishTennis (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the individual cup seasons seem notable, the final would be notable too. --SuperJew (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a notable match, and also per SuperJew's argument. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danick Paquette[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leading the QMJHL in penalty minutes is not close to a preeminent honor.Joeykai (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We actually list what the pre-eminent honours are in that one. Top-ten all time career scorer or a First-Team all star. It used to say "such as" but when a certain user started making a similar argument to this and was using any award given out at all such as scholastic player of the year a discussion removed the "such as" to make it only those two. That being said not saying leading PIMS can't get your enough sources to be notable, but he will just have to do it through GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and NHOCKEY, can't find anything that makes him particularly notable, leading a statistical category for one season in junior does not help.18abruce (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no records in major junior hockey of Quebec are alone to establish notability. Paquette is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find anything meeting GNG and pre-eminent honours for stats is restricted to being one of the top 10 best career scorers of all time in the league so leading PIMs for a season doesn't do it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Crew[edit]

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

Small music group only notable for part of their group being involved in a murder trial. Lacks secondary sources, unlikely to expand. Nordic Nightfury 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A terse entry with a sensationalist overtone. There's nothing in the article that tells us why this "grime" band and the related convictions deserve an encyclopedia entry any more than the other gazillion murders every year. The article seems to lack any recognizable import. Is it intended to be more about "grime" bands in general? this band in particular? or the murders the article claims some members were convicted of? This would probably be great for a "Wiki-National Enquirer," not a general encyclopedia of useful knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boy Better Know: Jme and very obviously Skepta have since gone on to bigger and better things, but if the Meridian Crew have any notability at all it is for the murder trial, which is purely WP:ONEEVENT. The BBC news source in the article doesn't mention any of the crew's notable members, or even give the crew a name, so it provides no support to this article at all – in any case the ONEEVENT is mentioned in the Boy Better Know article as well, so there is no need for this article as well. Richard3120 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubted it's notability months before but never got around to AfD this. I cannot see how this is notable other the murder trial though I won't mind on a merge as mentioned above. Donnie Park (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud API[edit]

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

This article doesn't describe anything significant - it just summarized PaaS, SaaS, and IaaS, and says you can have APIs to them. It doesn't need an article. The existing "Cloud Computing" article is much better, and perhaps an extra sentence or two in that article could replace this entire article (essentially just saying, "APIs usually exist for *-as-a-service platforms".) GameGod (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain Article I am learning about Amazon AWS and specifically googled this page title. It is a very helpful explanation on the topic and meets the standards of providing useful information for a newbie developer/business enterprise buyer. I would not easily find PaaS, SaaS, and IaaS - whatever they are - at my skill set level. This article is very readable and non-techy. It is a good starting place to explore the topic.Kyle Andrew Brown (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Original research that, as the nom points out, doesn't really offer any stand-alone information over the main article (cloud computing). As it's entirely unsourced, it's doubtful there's anything worth merging. Kolbasz (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every combination of two buzzwords does not merit an article, if the topic is not independently notable. My usual technical pet peeve of course is that "API" is not really accurate for these anyway, since they are usually really protocols, not programming interfaces, a subtle difference though, since almost all modern usage confuses the two concepts. W Nowicki (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Article speedy deleted, rendering this discussion moot. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Empress (film)[edit]

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

Speedy denied. Prod removed by original author. Absolutely no notability. In fact, nothing other than it will be made. Postcard Cathy (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the nominator says, there's no indication of notability (or even significance) provided here, and no sourcing is provided; I found nothing in a search that would suggest notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. At the very least, its WP:TOOSOON, but with no information or sources, either on the article or revealed by searching, we can't even be sure if this film even exists, let alone has any notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:22, 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 keep. Who does, and who does not, accept that Shahba region is a valid name is not relevant to an AFD discussion. Or at least, those are arguments not based on policy and administrators are obliged to give more weight to policy based arguments. All that matters is that it exists and that reliable sources discuss it. I note that no one has disputed that the de facto administration of this region are using this name. SpinningSpark 10:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shahba region[edit]

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

There is no such area. No reliable sources. The name Shahba is used for Aleppo city itself. This article is POV by certain users with a political agenda (propaganda type of article) Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am going to read the article and remove all obvious unreliable sources, add tags where needed.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was already debated when created when the (semi-) autonomous Shabha region was established and article created. The result of this was keep. No need to discuss this again. The article is about a existing de facto establish autonomous region, with own administrative organs and actual full control over it's present day autonomous region. Offcourse there are people that do not like it's existence. But that does not change it's existence. Wikipedia is not the place to remove something because you consider it's existence not compatible to ones personal political wiches.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion nomination of this article is a blatant example of grave NPOV pushing of the user nominating. It was done by a arab nationalist user, that politically opposes the (multi-ethnic) de facto autonomous regions and cantons established by the Rojava administration in North Syria.

The Shahba region is a self-governed region with it's own Regional Assembly, a council, senate and administration and military counsils defending the self-control of the autonomous region. This nomination is as absurd as a Georgian nominating 'Abkhazia', an Azerbijan nominating Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic an Armenian nominating Nakhchivan_Autonomous_Republic, a Ukrainian removing Donetsk People's Republic, ... Trying to remove already established de facto selfgoverning autonomous regions because you politicaly oppose it's existance is completely against wikipedia phylosophy and grave NPOV pushing.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Do we have an article about al-Baraka vylaiat ? (thats the ISIL name of al-Hasakah province). The case of ISIL provinces and their de-facto existence isnt different from the de-facto existence of this "Shahba" region. Since this region have no historical existence (Shahba is the title of Aleppo city itself not the region around it) and no international, regional or local recognition, then its not a de-facto anything. Its just parts of Aleppo province controlled by QSD.
Secondly, the Syrian rebels are attacking (and will take soon) Tell-rifaat. Turkey is pushing toward Manbij as well. Meaning, very soon, this so called "region", even though its existence is doubtful just like the ISIL provinces, will seize to exist.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Daesh provinces are not self-governed autonomous entities like those of the Rojavan 'Federation'. Nor does Daehs has governing control over al-Hasakah. Comparing that does not make any sense and says nothing.
Not self governed ! so ? is that a criteria !. For two years ISIL controlled most of Hasakah.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Shabha Region might be the newest of the 4 autnomous regions of Rojava, but it exists for more then half a year from now. An autonomous self governed region that exists for more then half a year is encyclopedia-worthy and important knowledge.
(3) You're personal guesses/wishes about what will happen in the future have not any relevance to this discussion or wikipedia.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your political stances (ultra left hippie lets all unite...bla bla bla) have not any relevance to this discussion or wikipedia. What will happen with that region is obvious even to people who live in a bubble. You are creating a fake entity. This is a civil war and land holdings change by the day and you cant give the claims of every militia legitimacy! Just like ISIL provinces have no importance, so are the ones created by the YPG mercenaries.
Last thing User:Niele~enwiki, stop your pushing attitude and do not talk personally to me, focus on the topic like I did before you presumed my "wishes" using your amazing very smart/know all brain. Why did you even replied to my comment !! I didnt come to argue with you, but to say my opinion. Please stick to your own opinion and dont shove yourself in other peoples comments. Please do not reply to me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Please refrain of trying to insult other wikipedia users ultra left hippie, smart/know all brain,...
(2) This is an internet-encyclopedia, not a forum. Again you're wishes/guessings are not relevant here. This not a place for pushing political views but for documenting reality for informational and encyclopeditional objectives.
(3) Please stay factual: Shahba region is not created by the YPG as you claim, but as sourced by several conferences held with local representations from all parts of Shabha region, it is governed by the Syrian National Democratic Alliance (TWDS) not by Democratic Union Party (PYD) led Movement for a Democratic Society (TEV-DEM). Military it is under control of the multi-etnic Syrian Democratic forces and in Shahba region is the Army of Revolutionaries not YPG the largest force within Syrian Democratic forces.
(4) Shabha Region has been quite a remarkably stable entity since it included the major town Manbij and it exist for more than half a year now and successfully fully fended of all treads against it's integrity, especially the previous days.
(5) You are only proving all the evidence that this deletion-nomination is fully politically motivated,part of NPOV pushing agenda and coming from a politically objection against its existence, not from a encyclopedian-based neutral point of view. Thank you for that. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean POV pushing, not NPOV (neutral point of view) pushing. Do not play a victim, you are presuming my beliefs, political stance, wishes...etc and I didnt come here to argue with you. You are shoving your nose in other peoples opinions. This isnt a talk page, it a place to support or oppose a deletion, so stop arguing with me and just say you argument without shoving your nose into every word I write.
Now User:Niele~enwiki, can you please revert all your argument with me and leave me alone and restrict your self to your own opinion about the supporting or the opposing of the deletion of this article instead of making my comment a forum ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article concerns a significant and relevant political reality phenomenon in the region concerned, of clear encyclopedic value, and should as such be kept. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My main recommendation for the article would be to "de-militarize" it, in particular the infobox, but also the text in general. Shahba region like the three other Rojava cantons is a civilian-political administration concept, not a military concept. There is a lot ongoing in terms of civil administration and society in the areas around Manbij and Tell Rifaat, and I would find it very appreciable if an editor who can read the sources in Arabic and/or Kurdish would elaborate. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more point, when I last went through the article some weeks ago, I helped make clear distinctions in every section between on the one hand the claimed region as a the whole and on the other hand the part of it which is actually under administration within the Rojava framework. It seems that later edits have blurred that line, and I think that for the sake of clarity, it should be reinstated. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, can anyone show me serious international media using this name for this "region" (Aleppo Governorate)? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some respectable media like ARA news frequently use it (and for example also the official Iranian FARS agency occasionally does). And this discussion is not about replacing any other lemma with "Shahba region", but about having an additional article for a distinct, additional reality political phenomenon. By the way, geographically "Shahba region" does not denote Aleppo Governorate in its entirety, but only its strip between the Kurd Mountains and the Euphrates, to the north of the city of Aleppo, see the official map of the Rojava administration. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you consider ARAnews, Hawar news, Dars Agency, and some other Kurdish sites and blogs respectable media sources, but I don't and Wikipedia doesn't. The least we can say about them is that none of them is neutral. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does consider ARA news a respectable and professional independent media source, just like all of civilized humanity does, because it is. With ANHA (hawarnews) I would be careful, not because it is "Kurdish" (I do not share anti-Kurdish racism), but because it is the official news agency of the Rojava administration. Talking about official news agencies, for those of us with particular interest in "UN recognized sovereignty", here is the official news agency of UN member state Iran using the term "Shahba region" for the area. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page started as Shahba Canton not Shahba Region, a page over the newly founded autonomous administrative entity part of Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava.
But because the SDF considered 'Shahba Region' geopolitically a less controversial name than 'Shahba Canton' for now it was more frequently used in official documents and communication.
As a result the 'Shahba Region' name for the autonomous administrative region was more frequently used by sources it was renamed.
This obviously does not change or migrates the subject of the article to 'Northern part of Aleppo Governate'-region.
That would be very confusing and make this page a battleground page of different parties and would become very messy.
Shahba region/canton' is now renamed to 'Shahba region (autonomous region)' so any confusion to the subject of this article is prevented.
'Northern part of Aleppo Governate'-region" or 'Shahba region (geographical area)' if this is an existing concept(not used before foundation autonomous entity), should be a different page because it is a completely different subject. 2 different subjects on one page will create a lot of confusion and make this page a battleground of people with different interpretations. Neither-mind the subject of an article should not be changed to something else that it is not. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, all this information is OR. There is no notability or even mention of such region (only in Kurdish propaganda). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Politics aside, "Shahba" is a clearly defined place and has been for a very long time. JohnTombs48 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JohnTombs48: Politics aside, where is the evidence that the name "Shahba" has been a "clearly defined place" for a "very long time". That seems to be a highly inaccurate statement. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is undeniable that the Shahba region has its own government and is recognized by at least the local Kurdish population as well as the local pro-Kurdish Arab militias; as such, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. If we delete regions/states for not being recognized, we would have to delete all non-recognized puppet states on Wikipedia like the Republic of Benin (1967), a proclaimed state that existed for one day, had no effective government and was actually controlled by Biafra, which in turn was not recognized by most of the world and collapsed after a few years. If you compare it with this example, the Shahba region is actually more qualified to stay, because it has at least some kind of stable leadership. Applodion (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your reference for the name "Shahba region" or canton? Shahba is an Arabic nickname for Aleppo city (see infobox in there), although some people here are trying to imply it's Kurdish. Also remember, the local population in this area are overwhelmingly Arab (see CIA maps). The only thing that is Kurdish in this area is YPG militia trying to make facts on the ground (helped by some users here for the propaganda part). I hope you do some research before commenting here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all Arabs in this area reject this new government, we cannot deny its existence, which proven by Kurdish sources. Even if it is only a Kurdish puppet regime, it warrants its own article by its sheer existence - otherwise regions like the General Government would have to be deleted as well. Applodion (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I see no legitimate case for deleting this article anyway, I would like to point aout that your claim "the local population in this area are overwhelmingly Arab" is simply not true. As the most used and respected ethnic map of Syria by Gulf2000 project of Columbia university shows, the area is very mixed, and the Manbij area majority Kurdish. However, the administration of Shahba region is polyethnic, dedicated to a political agenda of good government and not an ethnicity, and international media reports clearly point to consensus from the ethnic Arab population as well, Link -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That map isnt the most used and respected, the CIA map is. Your "Columbia" map (nice move so typical of your "NPOV" nature, mentioning the university but not the author) is made by Mehrdad Izady, a notorious Kurdish nationalist who claimed that Elam and Kingdom of Pontus are Kurdish kingdoms in one of his worthless books (dont start your usual accusations of racism, that guy is the worst type of nationalists). Ofcourse, he didnt have any data to base his funny map. So, you are, as usual, wrong and biased cause the CIA maps shows a Kurdish minority in those areas. (I replied to you cause you are replying to anyone opposing this article, try to give people a chance to breath without your input if you dont like the fact that I replied to you and indicated how unreliable your "map" is).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per Amr's request for my input. With these pages about very recent and highly fluid geopolitical situations we need to be wary of original research, the use of reliable, scholarly sources (as opposed to opinion pieces by Western journalists and Kurdish activist websites) and not becoming a tool for the militias on the ground and their agendas. This goes for areas controlled or contested by Kurdish separatists/autonomists, Arab/Turkmen rebels, ISIL and jihadists of all stripes, etc. These regions have no political recognition beyond the parties/militias that control them. With this article in particular, the "History" section is entirely OR and imbued with Kurdish nationalist advocacy. I hope uninvolved users and admins could read and see for themselves the OR, non-RS and POV language that this article consists of. I do not necessarily advocate deleting any material about the creation of "Shahba" by the Kurdish militias, but I believe a separate article is undue and unwarranted. I think that's why we don't have articles on all of the "provinces" ISIL created in the territories they control and administer, or for those swathes of territory controlled and governed by various rebel alliances throughout Syria. Why should we make an exception with Kurdish militias? --Al Ameer (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, my impression is that you do not understand the facts on the ground here. The Rojava canton civil administrations including the Shahba region civil administration (having no equivalent in rule of law, effectiveness and sophistication in the "rebel controlled" territories) are neither created nor run by people for being "Kurdish", nor as an enterprise of "militias". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, a sophisticated militia. ISIL is much more effective running its "provinces" BTW. Al-Ameer understand perfectly and neutrally (unlike passionate editors who have a fetish for rojava). If what you say is true, then the "Shahba" article wouldn't have focused only on the ethnic history of Kurds in the region. This is just a militia enterprise created by a militia called YPG and its puppets to give a civil face to their military aggression, and its obvious to everyone, specially the international media which dont use that term at all (yea yea, fars agency, we know). Last time I checked, the people of tell-rifaat didnt beg the YPG to invade them.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it inappropriate and I regret that the "historic background" section of the article is exclusively focused on ethnic Kurdish history, and I would wish that some editor would add to it to make it more complete. However, your attempt to draw conclusions from an inappropriate bias in a section of this article to reality on the ground is a fallacy. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I dont think any editor will do such a thing cause only one group of nationalists (from a Kurdish or pro-Kurdish affiliation) are trying to shove those notions of a historic land bla bla bla.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It goes several ways, Arab supremacists and Kurdish nationalists and Assyrian nationalists and Turkmen nationalists and so on all have their historic narratives, and seek to push them to the exclusion of all others. Actually this is the most obvious symptom of the tragedy of the Middle East, in my humble opinion (and the Rojava approach is the most convincing attempt to overcome that which I have seen in decades of studying the region). You may feel invited to consider your own attitudes from this perspective. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My attitude is perfectly fine and much more real "NPOV" than yours, its a reaction to Kurdish supremacist and it is needed to keep their dreams on a leash, specially that they know no limits, they would even claim a neighborhood of a city like Aleppo to be their "Rojava". However, you will not see me writing about how Jazira "canton" has been Levantine and Mesopotamian Semitic for the last 5000 years until refugees and some nomadic tribes came and now, some of their chauvinist descendants, are trying to separate the region from the mother country and call it "Rojava" literally means the West, and what west ? its Western Kurdistan (land of the Kurds !!!!)
Maybe you will understand when Kurdish nationalists in Germany have enough numbers to demand a Bavarian Kurdistan or if the Turkish nationalists established a YPG and started invading the German provinces after 150 years from now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot "keep their dreams on a leash" forever. I recommend to you this interview where a PKK leadership guy (sic) says that "we prefer the use of North Syria Federation and call for the removal of Rojava from the name because Rojava denotes a federation of Kurdish identity. North Syria is home to all of its constituents". The add-on "Rojava" is a matter of political need for the people acting on the ground to have broad support among the local Kurdish population for the progressive polyethnic project. If I could decide it, the English Wikipedia would completely replace "Rojava" with "NSR" for the sake of clarity. And I use the term "Rojava" on Wikipedia with that meaning. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said the dreams of Kurdish nationalists, not Kurds. For those nationalist dreamers, the end wont be nice if the civil war was over and they had to deal with a unified Syrian army. Anyway, you just used the words of a PKK leader !! an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Amazing. If they want the support of only Kurdish people, then they should stop invading non-Kurdish lands.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note::::::::: This is over, cause it turned into a forum like argument, Bye.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This article is pure OR and, even worse, faking facts. we are not voting here. This artcle simply violates most basic Wikipedia standards of notability and neutrality. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep - This AfD vote is just blatant POV pushing. International and personal recognition is not a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia; the Shahba region certainly exists de facto. The article appears to be written froma neutral point of view so that seems to be a non-issue as well. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 10:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously many users voting "keep" are not aware that this is not a vote. So far, the creator of this article and other users supporting it have failed to provide proof of notability. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just another reason why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There is no such thing on the ground, it's all fluid border as part of the Syrian civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.38.117 (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please have comments by established Wikipedians rather than mostly bickering informed by personal views about the conflict in Syria? The above discussion is mostly useless for determining policy-based consensus.  Sandstein  11:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, Please click the news link above, you'll find 17 results, all since June 2016, when this article was first created. Six of those news hits are from Ara news and 2 from Rudaw, both Kuridsh websites. Among all these there is no notable or reliable source. This whole article is OR and has no notability. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, but this is not a place that exists. Please read the discussion above. Places with the name Shahba exist elsewhere in Syria (Aleppo, Shahba District), but not as described in this article. No reliable source was provided to support the claim of this region. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its a subdivision of a de facto autonomous area. If the article on the larger region was deleted, I'd be more inclineded to agree, but so long as we have that on Wikipedia, it makes sense to have the subregions. They are very much a real concept in that they are not a hoax. I'd be open to considering whether every breakaway/autonomous area of Syria should have its own article in an RfC, but right now, considering the heated exchange this AfD has caused above, the best option is to keep it, maintaining the status quo, because it does seem to be an actual region that some significant portion of people refer to by this name. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to disgree again. There is no reliable source showing the name besides the propaganda of a military side in the Syrian civil war. Does it make sense to make an article for every area under the control of ISIL? I guess not. Inventing new names does not make new facts on the ground. Wikipedia has to be a little more careful with what is allowed to stay as this can be interpreted as taking sides or publishing propaganda/false information. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry Photos (podcast)[edit]

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

The article is about a podcast which hasn't been covered in any significant sources. It has been nominated for a Parsec award, which possibly would confer notability if it had won, but to date they have been unsuccessful. Bilby (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - can't find any RS showing notability. JMWt (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete Lacks notoriety, and also violates WP:promotion. The fact that "Blurry Photos" performed a live show on the "topic of Aerial Mysteries" is offered without qualification and therefore bears no significance, no citation tells why this should be considered worthy of an encyclopedia. And the "finalist" status does not confer any special significance without elucidation. Thousands of people and organizations every year win awards and are "finalists," but few are worthy of an encyclopedia. I have nothing against podcasts, this is not personal for me. It's simply that the article is self-promoting in style and does not justify its existence beyond self-aggrandizement. Would work much better on a Facebook page, not an encyclopedia. Please delete this advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly how you decide what's up for deletion or not, but I know that Blurry photos is a fairly wellknown podcast in its field, and that it has been mentioned by other notable casts as a source of inspiration (for example the Tardis podcast); it has been around since 2012 and is growing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.148.185 (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southend Triathlon[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. not all triathlons are notable. And this is a future one so WP:CRYSTAL applies as well. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus - no input Nordic Nightfury 11:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 11:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Notability not ascertained as has no secondary sources. Nordic Nightfury 11:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Violates WP:NOT#DICT, also the last line, "Southend Triathlon will support up to 200 local athletes and support Havens Hospices who provide healthcare in Essex" is written as a promotional, as it lacks context and offers no information beyond the service it provides. This "article" is more of a news item of some future possibility, not established fact or well-grounded theory worthy of an encyclopedia. And probably also, WP:NOTNEWS--J. M. Pearson (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as literally nothing else for actual significance as it is, let alone notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attiya Mahmood[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. No inherent notability in being ambassador. Article relies on one primary source which merely confirms person held position. Watch as the keep !voters come forward with the invented criteria "ambassador to/from major countries are notable " and supply no third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, you called it. Keep, because ambassadors to/from major countries are notable. If you knew how this was going to go, why even bother with the nomination? Did you just want an excuse to vent? That seems point-y. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely no inherent notability in being an ambassador. Interesting this is your first edit in 2 months. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it "interesting" that I edit sporadically from a dynamic IP? I'm mostly tired of Wikipedia at this point, having started editing back around 2005 or thereabouts, but I still stick my nose in from time to time. Also, if you want your argument to be taken seriously, you need to present something more substantive than a "Nuh-uh!" Have you made even a cursory effort to look for Pakistani sources in Urdu, Punjabi, etc. to determine whether or not the subject actually meets WP:GNG? Or are you just assuming that because there wasn't much in the first couple pages of English results for a quick Google that no sources exist? -208.81.148.195 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate existence of sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that essay was started with material rejected from WP:ATA because it was not policy compliant.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While this is true now that the nomination has been made, I felt it should be noted that your nomination did not follow proper deletion procedure, assuming that you did not take the steps that I listed. See WP:GD, which states, "First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." Your decision not to take those steps, among others listed on the page, undercuts the presumption of good faith in your nomination. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete No ambassador is default notable. Ambassadors must pass GNG with quality sources, and such are entirely lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Figured it was worth pointing out that even without getting into Pakistani sources, which properly should be the first recourse for an article about someone from Pakistan, there are plenty of English-language articles discussing Mahmood's diplomatic work. E.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
all routine coverage and mostly saying things as a spokesperson of the Pakistan government. None of this coverage qualifies as indepth where Attiya is the subject . LibStar (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What alternatives to deletion did you consider as part of your WP:BEFORE preparation?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What alternative questions did you think of in your preparation of the above question? An AfD has been commenced. LibStar (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was a real question based on both WP:Deletion policy and WP:BEFORE.  What alternatives to deletion have you considered?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG. TushiTalk To Me 06:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't see enough secondary coverage here to be able to write an article per WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The arguments to keep here are mostly based on demonstrating notability, while the arguments to delete are hinging on the article's promotional nature. Although this is not a clear cut case, I find the delete argument more persuasive. I would entertain a request to userfy. Vanamonde (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VMoney[edit]

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

high degree of promotions. Coverage on Popular media are just for Investments of Script writing/ Coverage. Similar to larger scale Grofer, Delhivery, and other startup story. it is not notable at all. Light2021 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While the page could use some improvements, the subject is covered significantly in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the WP:CORPDEPTH. Linking a Google search is not sourcing - quite a lot of those appear from the blurb to be PR-inspired or at best passing mentions. Could you please post the specific links you consider are quite definitely genuine organic third-party coverage showing WP:CORPDEPTH? - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a ton out there but below are a few additional sources:
Should be enough to qualify for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO with a good dose of WP:TNT. Even if the company were notable (of which I'm not convinced), the copy is too promotional & there's no point in keeping the advertising messages in the article history. The sources offered above are not convincing; they speak about company plans and aspirations without any depth. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think WP:TNT is a little excessive? Certainly the article could be trimmed of some promotional fluff before "blowing it up" and starting over.

Meatsgains (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the company were notable, I believe that it's better to restart from a clean slate, and let the draft go through AfC. This would ensure it's not a COI driven article, while eliminating marketing messages from the article history. I also subscribe to the spirit of WP:BOGOF: i.e. let's not encourage spammers by fixing up promotional articles for them. In any case, as I mentioned above, the notability of this entity looks dubious to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well referenced, needs toning down but could still use more sources from Google news.--RioHondo (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly promotional; the necessary rewriting would remove almost al l the article, so the appropriate course is WP:TNT--remove it, and if any NPOV editor cares to write a proper article, then notability can be considered. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not seeing sourcing available that is both sufficiently in-depth and adequately free of promotional tone such that intellectual independence can be inferred. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Ferraz, Ezra (2014-08-16). "What entrepreneurs can learn from Jollibee's 'Chickenjoy' supply problem". Rappler. Archived from the original on 2016-11-02. Retrieved 2016-11-02.

      The article notes:

      Some high tech startups require even more BCP than normal. VMoney, which was founded in 2013 by CEO Ralph Santos, is an end-to-end financial platform, offering everything from debit Mastercards and scratch cards to point of sale systems and tap and pay solutions.

      As part of their BCP, Santos and the VMoney team keep track of where to direct their R&D by monitoring market needs, the challenges faced by their partners and other providers, and security advancements across the ecommerce world.

      The startup now works with some of the largest brands in the country, including Guess, Gold’s Gym, EasyTaxi, Mango, Mossimo, and TeamManila, so continuity of the services they do currently offer is of the utmost importance.

      ...

      To test their systems, Santos said that the VMoney team performs integrity checks, quality checks, and security checks on their systems, applications, and databases – some of which are done on schedule, and some of which are done as random reviews. Santos expressed that the goal here is to not only meet regulatory requirements, but to exceed industry standards (which is a particularly fitting remark in the wake of the Jollibee situation).

    2. Ferraz, Ezra (2014-09-18). "VMoney CEO: Apple Pay is a cause for celebration, not fear, for Philippine payment startups". Tech in Asia. Archived from the original on 2016-11-02. Retrieved 2016-11-02.

      The article notes:

      While Santos himself admits that VMoney has not yet reached renown in the minds of most Filipino consumers, the end-to-find financial solution is servicing some of the biggest brands in the country, including cd-r king, Gold’s Gym, Cold Stone Creamery, Team Manila, Mossimo, Samsung, and Agoda. VMoney provides such companies everything from point of sale systems and white-labeled debit cards.

      ...

      Santos tries to hedge his bets by offering a suite of products. The company offers such wearables as TAPnPay bracelets, TAPnPay stickers, and TAPnPay keychain (pictured below) that people can use to store and spend money with.

      ...

      Due to its impending David-versus-Goliath-style battle with Apple Pay in the Philippines, VMoney cannot discount anything that may give the firm an advantage. The firm, for example, has tried to appeal to the adherents of the green movement by allowing the wearables of VMoney users to be reuseable. VMoney users can give away or resell their wearables to friends, family, or colleagues, who can then activate, deactivate, and reactivate them as they wish.

    3. Ferraz, Ezra (2014-08-07). "VMoney CEO feels PLDT buy-in to Rocket Internet skyrockets his company's valuation". Tech in Asia. Archived from the original on 2016-11-02. Retrieved 2016-11-02.

      The article notes:

      Though not yet that well-known in the local and international tech scene, owing in part to CEO and co-founder Ralph Santos’s (pictured below) aversion to frills – you’d be hard-pressed to catch him at a startup schmoozing event – VMoney services some of the biggest brands in the country. Their client roster includes Guess, Mossimo, cd-r king, Vans, Gold’s Gym, Team Manila, Cold Stone Creamery, Mango, Agoda, and Samsung. Their partners include major banks like BPI and Security Bank, ecommerce platforms like DragonPay, and government institutions like the Department of Tourism.

      ...

      VMoney’s current valuation – including its assets, financials, revenue, customer base, and current standing and market potential – is pegged at US$105 million. The news of PLDT’s 10 percent buy-in to Rocket Internet, which gives RI a valuation of about US$4.5 billion, surely gave it a boost.

    4. Oriel, Christina M. "How Ralph Santos And Vmoney Are Disrupting The Financial Tech Sphere". Asian Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-11-02. Retrieved 2016-11-02.

      The article notes:

      Currently, VMoney’s Philippine office has a team of 20 individuals who handles sales, marketing, and front-end development. The senior technical team and engineers are based out of Canada.

      ...

      Differentiating itself from services like Paypal, Venmo, and Apple Pay, VMoney enables businesses and consumers to send and receive funds in real-time using a browser or the myVMoney mobile app. The end-to-end structure allows transactions to be seamless, whether it’s for transferring money, paying bills, issuing employee payroll or buying prepaid load.

      The sign-up process is straightforward and simple: potential customers generate a user profile online, using an email address or mobile number, and upload a valid government ID.

      ...

      In addition to the mobile app, VMoney has a line of products (a sticker, bracelet, keychain and ring) that use Near Field Communication (NFC) technology. By tapping one of the NFC-powered devices onto a point-of-sale device (such as a smartphone), money is digitally transferred without ever having to handle cash.

      ...

      ...

      Having actress/model Solenn Heussaff on board as the chief brand officer also helps with getting people to sign up and educating people about the benefits of the platform.

    5. Balea, Judith (2014-11-27). "How Ralph Santos And Vmoney Are Disrupting The Financial Tech Sphere". Tech in Asia. Archived from the original on 2016-11-02. Retrieved 2016-11-02.

      The article notes:

      Think Singapore’s EZ Link card, Hong Kong’s Octopus card, and Malaysia’s Touch n’ Go.

      VMoney developed the Philippine version of these cards: TAPnPASS. TAPnPASS is a stored-value card that makes use of near field communication (NFC) technology. You use the device to pay by simply tapping it on an NFC reader. You transfer funds to it using the same method: by tapping it on your mobile phone using the VMoney app.

      ...

      VMoney also has another NFC product, the TAPnPAY, which can be used to pay an unlimited amount. Transactions using TAPnPAY must be done online however, as there’s a need to validate customers’ account balances and enter a PIN for security.

      True to their goal of bringing convenience to consumers, VMoney’s TAP products come in different wearables like keychains, necklaces, bracelets, and rings, which can be activated and deactivated as the users please.

      ...

      The company has a range of products you can avail of like the VMoney Prepaid MasterCard, which allows you to shop online or at retail stores, and the VMoney Privilege Card that you can use within the network of VMoney-affiliated merchants if you want rewards.

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

    Cunard (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • {comment}} whether it is notable or not, the article is definitely not ready for the main namespace. It is hopelessly promotional and reads like brochureware rather than an encyclopaedic material. If it is retained then please move it to draft: namespace until it is significantly improved. The article also looks and smells like COI. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the coverage offered above is the CEO promoting the company; sample headlines:
  • VMoney CEO: Apple Pay is a cause for celebration, not fear, for Philippine payment startups". Tech in Asia.
  • Money CEO feels PLDT buy-in to Rocket Internet skyrockets his company's valuation
  • How Ralph Santos And Vmoney Are Disrupting The Financial Tech Sphere
This is in no way significant coverage & instead is only promotion. An encyclopedia article cannot be built from such sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I have not yet commented but I also concur that the sources above are literally advertising and it's actual sheerness that every single sentence starts with either something the company wants to advertise or a company quote about that, for example: "VMoney, which was founded in 2013 by CEO Ralph Santos, is an....offering credit cards", "VMoney keeps track of their business needs", "The startup now works with some of the largest brands in the country", "VMoney also has another NFC product", "True to their goal, VMoney", "To test their systems, Santos said that the VMoney team performs integrity, quality checks....", "The company has a range of products you can avail of like the....", "Having actress/model Solenn Heussaff on board as the chief brand officer also helps with getting people", "VMoney's Philippine office currently has 20 employees", "The sign-up process is straightforward and simple", "In addition to the mobile app, VMoney has a line of products", "the businessman hedges his bets", "VMoney’s current valuation"
....and that's not surprising every single source listed would in fact be notorious for republishing company advertising and company interview quotes and that's exactly what they are, there was no actual journalism happening there and it shouldn't be mistaken for being that, especially when there was such damn blatancy of "what the company wants to advertise", and we should also not mistake for being "substantial, independent or significant" because advertising is advertising, regardless what publication chose to republish said advertising, because we are not that PR website, and we actually take articles and contents seriously. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are not reliable enough to satisfy WP:CORPIND. Out of the sources presented
  • TechinAsia, e27.co and DealStreetAsia are companies in Singapore which are more of a platform to connect startups and investors, rather than a traditional media. Unlike traditional media, they often redress press releases and attribute it to the company (or say, "xxx, CEO of this says...."). This doesn't help to satisfy WP:CORPIND as it is essentially any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly.
  • How Ralph Santos And Vmoney Are Disrupting The Financial Tech Sphere in BalikBayanMag (published by AsianJournal) - This is a community magazine which claims to be for the Filipino expat population in the US. It has a small circulation of 15000 (even that is self claimed), so I am not sure how reliable such a small publication would be. More importantly, the content is largely an interview of the founder.
  • VMoney redefines the world’s payment landscape. The Philippine Star - At first glance this seems reliable, until you actually read the stuff. Furthermore, in line with our goal to promote the entrepreneurial spirit among Filipinos, this new feature will instantly allow individuals and small entities to become loading facilities for these stored value cards without much capital outlay. The entire text is a press release which has not been properly redressed (the line I quoted, probably slipped through). This is cannot be used for notability per WP:CORPIND as it is material indirectly written by the company.
  • What entrepreneurs can learn from Jollibee’s ‘Chickenjoy’ supply problem- Published in Rappler which is essentially a social media/citizen journalism website - one of the many which has recently mushroomed in Southeast Asia. These allow anyone to signup as a reporter and start reporting - similar to Huffpost Blogs. If you look closely, the same person who put this rapper article also sent a similar article about VMoney to TechInAsia. We don't use these for notability.
Also, in general the coverage is largely about what the CEO says about the company. These are the kind of promotional sources we need to avoid. It is very tempting to simply look at sources and assume they are reliable. It takes a lot more time to actually scrutinise the sources individually. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we hold stuff to academic standards here. I believe closely looking at the sources is beneficial for the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Android Central[edit]

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

Just another one like The Next Web or YourStory. Made for Promotions by promotions alone and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are several sources in the article but half of them are the subject itself. The rest of the coverage doesn't appear to be in-depth enough to indicate notability in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not the biggest site, but they've gotten enough coverage to be considered at least a bit notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.54.56 (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only getting coverage in few media has become a source to write such article. These articles provide Zero notability or substance for being encyclopedia material Wikipedia is becoming Directory and Press distribution channel for such blog or companies. Serious damage is made to Wikipedia with such presence Where few media coverage makes Wikipedia article. Whole essence of Wikipedia is getting lost with such blatant misuse of Wikipedia Guidelines. Where these are no significance even by Common-Sense thinking. Light2021 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I meant to comment sooner, none of what's listed as apparent sources are both non-PR or actual substance, therefore we cannot simply take into account the mere names of what publication is listed, and the contents themselves are then also simply advertising and republications of it; therefore meaning none of this is convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I'm not seeing any coverage about the site itself; as it stands it's just a promotional blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICracked[edit]

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

Deleted once before so I would suggest Salting considering this is still an advertisement as it once was, my own searches are simply finding published-republished PR, everything simply focuses with what the company would say about itself, and not what an encyclopedia actually needs. Being list at the Forbes list included was simply a mere listing and contributes nothing but PR since it basically means "this company is not yet notable, but keep watching it and help it get there". I'll note this was literally restarted 2 years after the first deletion by an advertising-only account and there have been no other substantial contributing visitors to this at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below are some sources that provide significant coverage about the topic. North America1000 04:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What all of these share in common is the fact they all either show you how the company works either by the publication listing it or the company showing it themselves, which can be said to be supposedly significant but not quite so for convincing notability here, and some of these not only then contain interviewed information, but they then contain questionable puffery such as "It comes to you!", "Give us your phones, says company!" or "It fixes it in minutes!" which may be common for news media, but it also suggests advertising intentions, and the fact some of these are never far from becoming PR and unsubstantial, it makes it questionable; something else is the fact of the weight of these contents which, when put aside the interviewed information or general business information about the company, it's not saying a lot including for a convincing article. As I continued to look at these, it simply shows the thin amounts of thinly-sorted paragraphs, suggesting it was not an article taken seriously, though perhaps it's better if emphasizing heavier PR would've made it worse, but still it was not substantial enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Keep: per ample sources found by NorthAmerica. As for the complaint that these sources only "show you how the company works", yes, that's what WP:SIGCOV is--showing and telling us about a company and how it works. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. See the sources I provided in the two boxes above for examples. North America1000 05:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact the sources are now becoming local TV news station articles show how bare the quality of news actually is, because my concerns still apply in that the few sources there are above are then actually mere paragraphs and then how-to guides, that's not the substance we actually need. As for the comment of "how it works", of course it's not then convincing for an article because Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or collection of it. The WashingtonPost is another example where it has a questionable "It will help you fix it!" (PR), these are all simply advertising the company and how it can be used, that comes with nearly any other company and therefore with they simply showing the company works (because that's what it in fact is!), it's not the convincing substance we need, because in that case, all of the listed sources in the article are PR and PR-like sources, simply showing what the company would also say about itself also. The Yahoo! Tech article, although supposedly claimed to not be connected, still in fact goes to specifics about what he got and the services that came with it, that's not something we accept for substance here, and nor should we. The BusinessInsider article is another example where it actually largely focuses with the subject of phones and technology instead of actual substance, and it actually goes to then state about photos showing how the phones looked, until the article literally ends with that.... The fact what's listed at the current article as it is when I nominated it, it focuses with things only the company would care to mention such as its PR awards and accomplishments, specifics about its business and financials, by actually keeping this, we're keeping an advertisement that was clearly contributed to by SPA accounts, therefore it's not something to take lightly by simply tossing some sources and expecting it's enough. Once we become a PR webhost as is this current article (which actually goes to specify numbers and company operations information), we're damned as a serious encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - I went through that REFBOMB and find it entirely unconvincing per SwisterTwister - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Northamerica1000 and Safehaven86.Your welcome | Democratics Talk→ Be a guest 10:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. The article seems to be written like a complete advertisement to me. There might be sources over the internet but it's against the spirit of wikipedia to allow these type of PR advertisement disguised as articles. Badnaam (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. promotional tone can sometimes be fixed by editing the article. In this case, there would be nothing substantial left besides the mere existence of the company. There would be no reliable refs that show notability -- the WSJ source lists them as one of many, the CR, mentions their instruction video as one of many. All the other sources are press releases. We do have a problem with judging notability of companies by the standard of GNG: it has become clear that there are so very few actually independent sources that only the truly famous companies can be shown notable by GNG. Either we limit our coverage to them, or we adopt alternative criteria, such as size and market share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are not satisfactory for indicating notability - they are unconvincing. For one thing these are not objective reporting that is independent of the subject. Quoting the CEO or other senior executives, or sharing a personal experience as happens here [17], and relying on only the company personnel as sources for a number of articles contravene WP:CORPDEPTH. So does a step by step guide on how to get your phone fixed - as in so what? - besides contravening GNG.
Just because published articles are informational does not mean the topic or subtopic is notable because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook or diary. Big numbers, or arbitrary quantities, such as in this article which says, "5,000 'iTechs' by the end of the calendar year, and [intend] to add 10,000 additional 'iTechs" in 2016'" in 10 countries - do not indicate notability per WP:BIG. And notice it is the CEO being interviewed - this is WP:PROMO. This is not covering a significant impact, such as correlating to an impact on the economy or causing a shift in culture.
I agree with User:DGG - only the truly famous companies that cause cultural shifts on a national or global scale actually receive independent significant coverage. The rest use press releases, re-packaged PR, routine announcements in the press, all of which have no value for determining notability. This is the same as covering what a plumber named Joe does. Is this notable? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO; a vanity page that is being used for promotion. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH but simply illustrate that the company exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:31, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Villanueva (illustrator)[edit]

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

Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content. Not a notable artist. Citations are not relevant (Portals and blogs not recognized in Mexico) Xzit (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a resume and a vanity page for an unremarkable illustrator. Badly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as everything listed is simply trivial and unconvincing, no permanent museum collections or anything at all better especially compared to how unconvincing the article currently is. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:23, 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 no consensus to delete. Whatever we decide to do about Dagar, it won't involve using the "delete" button. We might well end up converting it to a redirect; further discussion about that belongs on Talk:Dagar.—S Marshall T/C 17:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Dagar[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Dagar is a valid disambiguation page. As there's no primary topic, there's no need to add the tag "(disambiguation)", as per WP:DABNAME. BTW, according to WP:DABNAME, Dagar (disambiguation) should be created & redirected to Dagar. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and TROUT the nominator for making a spurious nomination. I concur with NitinMlk that Dagar itself is a valid DAB. The fact that the articles linked there (which are all bluelinks, btw) might fail WP:GNG is not a reason to delete the DAB that holds those links. Delete the articles first, then we can discuss the DAB itself. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primefac, the dab page was just recently created over a poorly-sourced clan article, which is what was actually nominated here. I think the nominator has had enough AfD-trouting lately. – Uanfala (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I invite Krishna Chaitanya Velaga to reconsider their nomination as they might not have noticed the change. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep newly created dab page; don't know about the clan. – Uanfala (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reverted it to the page it was when it was nominated, and created Dagar (disambiguation) with the content of this recent version. The dab page was created by overwriting an existing article, the wrong way to set about it at any time but particularly so when there is an ongoing AfD on the article. The AfD message says Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion. - I think that overwriting an article by a dab page is the equivalent of blanking it, and should not have been done. If the AfD results in deletion, then the dab page can be moved to the base name. PamD 08:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that, I've stricken my !vote/comments above, as I have no strong opinions on a subject I know little about. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:PamD, Irrespective of AfD, there's no wiki policy which allows you to vandalize any article, which you did with this edit. If you think your version – which is full of original research – is better than the then we can discuss that on the article's talkpage. And that's outside the scope of the ongoing AfD. Just because the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE, it doesn't give rights to anyone to vandalize the above article. So, I reverted the original research added by you. Please discuss your favored version on the article's talkpage, instead of reinstating the original research again.
PS: Dagar will remain a dab page, as – other than the current entries – there are five Indian villages named as 'Dagar' – Dagar, Uttarakhand, Dagar, Rajasthan, Dagar, Jharkhand, Dagar, Madhya Pradesh, and Dagar Chowk, Assam – which are all notable as per WP:NPLACE. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, if any edit was vandalism it was yours when you over-wrote an existing article, in the middle of an AfD discussion, to create a disambiguation page. I reverted your edit but created a disambiguation page containing the dab page entries you had contributed. Any "original research" was not mine but was the long-standing page under discussion at AfD. Your edit is not helpful and I have reverted it. Please let the AfD discussion discuss the page which the nominator nominated. 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the versions are written in stone. And it's so unfortunate that a senior user like you is adding the original research. Please just take some moments to think about your latest edit to this article. And you will realize your mistake. BTW, replacing one version with the other doesn't constitute the blanking of the article. It's just a content dispute, which we can resolve on the article's talkpage. In fact, we can add your version if you could provide its merits over the version reverted by you. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NitinMlk, PamD isn't adding original research, but simply restoring the version of the page that is actually under discussion here. PamD, clan/caste clans get turned into surname articles often enough. In my opinion, this practice is good because it preserves the page history which might give possible hooks to future editors willing to expand it with content about the surname's origin etc. – Uanfala (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no policy which backs the unconstructive edits done by PamD at the above article. In fact, had the nom followed WP:BEFORE, this whole wastage of time could've been avoided. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: AfDs are for the deletion discussion of an article, instead of its any particular revision. As the Dagar is up for deletion, we should present its best version here & let the !voters discuss the result. Only way you could convert the above dab page into a clan article is by clearly developing consensus on the article's talk page that the Dagar clan is not only notable but also the primary topic here. But, in reality, let alone being primary topic, the caste even fails the WP:V. So, in the absence of any primary topic, Dagar should remain as the title of the dab page, as per WP:DABNAME. If you still want to create the caste article, you can create it under a title like Dagar clan. But you have to stop vandalizing the above dab page.
PS: I am reverting the vandalism done by you to the above dab page for the last time. After that, its up to others to deal with it. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the fact that Dagar (disambiguation) exists, and having read through WP:EDITATAFD again, I think that the discussion should be about the page as it exists. If it gets deleted, then the DAB can be moved here. If it stays, it can be improved. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: First, read the your cited policy – WP:EDITATAFD – again. It only states that the blanking, redirecting & merging content to other articles is not allowed. I did none of that.
Second, read WP:DISCUSSAFD. It clearly states that disambiguation is not a reason for deletion. Also, read my !vote for other clarification. BTW, you should self-revert, as there's no policy which allows this revert. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, NitinMlk, you've made your point multiple times. I think it's time to DROPTHESTICK. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, you should self-revert. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I gave you two days to think about your deliberate vandalism, but to no avail. In fact, both of you don't actually agree to the original research, with which you are deliberately replacing the above page's content. And thereby behavior of you two is perfectly explained by WP:NOTPOINTy, which states: "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"." Now that combo of you two have done that enough times & other editors have seen your "point", please stop vandalising the mainspace article. Remember that one is 'free to edit' the article while this discussion or that discussion is going on. Also see WP:5P5.
PS: I am using an unsecured connection to make this comment, as my connection isn't working. So, I will disconnect after reverting your vandalism to the mainspace article. Hopefully any of you won't vandalise it again. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely curious - why is it so bloody important that the article that was nominated cannot be discussed? As it is, you're probably going to get what you want anyway, so why not have some patience? The existence of the article in its old/current form is not going to cause the internet to implode, nor is it going to dangerously jeopardize anything. I ask again, please DROPTHESTICK and let the AFD run its course. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, the actions taken by myself and PamD are not "vandalism" - they are perfectly acceptable edits made per WP:BRD (or in this case, BRRR). Primefac (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: First, unfortunately, many naive people think that Wikipedia is reliable, thereby believing the information present here. Along with that, Wikipedia's fundamental policy demands that only the reliably-sourced info can be added to the mainspace. And that's why I am trying to remove the unsourced info from there.
Second, the day users will 'drop the stick' against vandalism, Wikipedia will become redundant in no time.
Finally, in your latest revert, you clearly stated that "Undid revision ... by NitinMlk ... for the last time." Now I will revert you for the last time. After that, I won't revert either of you till the end of this AfD. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: BRRR is indeed effective! Now the mainspace page will keep on spreading misinformation till the closure of this AfD. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page – WP:DISCUSSAFD states that If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. The Dagar clearly meets disambiguation criteria, as can be seen in this revision. As there's no primary topic here, there's no need to add the tag "(disambiguation)", as per WP:DABNAME. And, according to WP:DABNAME, Dagar (disambiguation) should be redirected to Dagar. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outloud Apps[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. Third-party sources are a bit suspect. Both "Company products" and "Background information" are promotional in tone. Searching for the company on google results in more hits for a jukebox app than for a speech therapy app. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Google News had nothing, and there was one hit in Google Books but it did not show the company name in bold in the snippet.  The article has personal opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and is using sourcing from Facebook.  fi.lynkos.com indicates that the company has 1 to 10 employees.  There might be sources in Finnish, but since the company was founded in late 2013, such sources would need to satisfy both WP:CORP and WP:SUSTAINED.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is basically actual speedy material regardless of the "major" claims the article has, because it's still both unconvincing for notability and then it's absolute advertising. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:00, 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) 06:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision News Media[edit]

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

Nonnotable news aggregator Staszek Lem (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not only are the listed sources completely trivial and unconvincing, none of it comes close to actual meaningful significance and substance hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:53, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Marsala[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She receives a passing mention in this book published by SUNY Press, but all it says, in fact, is that not much is known about her. StAnselm (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While she has had a few recurring TV roles they still remain very minor and not enough to satisfy notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is hardly any secondary coverage about the subject here which can enable us to write an article per WP:WHYN. I am also not particularly convinced by the credits. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Guchy[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:MUSICBIO. Even considering that sources from Kenya are hard to come by there are no sources beyond blogs and social media. JbhTalk 16:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:54, 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) 06:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marinette Motti[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and no evidence that she meets WP:BIO. An online search "marinette motti" uncovers no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources except, at best, obituaries. Google Scholar provides one publication by her, which has no citations, and two publications that mention her—one by a Bauer-Motti, and the other, in turn, by a Bauer. Largoplazo (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is currently in French and this is the English Wikipedia. However a translation is not justified because we lack sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The consensus on the french wikipedia is that she is not notable. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Jerkunica[edit]

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

No evidence to show notability. TushiTalk To Me 09:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman 19:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable individual Neither football, nor business activities have received anything other than routine coverage. Fenix down (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Afrojack. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Recordings[edit]

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

A vanity label that lacks sourcing and does not indicate any notability. Redirect to Afrojack. Karst (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Afrojack, the label's founder. 86.84.247.233 (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Afrojack. Certainly notable artists have recorded for the label and there have been hits on the label, but that doesn't make the label itself notable, and there is absolutely no indication of its independent notability. Fails WP:INHERITORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Turner (gymnast)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the notability guidelines. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She had a little bit of success in the women's tumbling team, e.g. they won the Bronze medal in the 2007 Trampoline World Championships and 4th in the 2009 Trampoline World Championships, but thats basically it. Thats not enough for our guidelines, because she never won an individual medal in a notable enough national or international event. Therefore she fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. She also fails WP:GNG, there is not much coverage (or any at all) about her to be found. The article should be therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 17:26, 15 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) 09:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:42, 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 redirect to Social conservatism. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional values[edit]

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

WP:NEOlogism, no WP:GLOBALWEIGHT, unreferenced for 8 years. Looked at some of the places it's used (Poland, Wapo, Tradition) and didn't see any sign of this linked article adding value in the context of the linked from article. Philosophy project rated it Mid, so maybe it has some value? CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to traditionalism (a disambig) or traditionalist conservatism (an article). This phrase/buzzword is essentially indistinguishable from those concepts and can be meaningfully addressed in those articles if desired. Note that a merge appears unnecessary since article is referenced. Neutralitytalk 13:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Traditionalist conservatism Social conservatism seems to make the most sense. The article currently is an unreferenced essay, so WP:TNT applies, but it's a viable search term, so a redirect works well in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to TraditionalismSocial conservatism which correctly identifies both the basic sense (tradition), and alternative traditions. The suggested redirect to Traditionalist conservatism is clearly WRONG, as this is just one (national) form of traditionalism, and the topic is global. I would not oppose keeping the article if anyone can be bothered to find sources for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Social conservatism. Agree this should be redirected, but this looks to be the right catchall. Linking to a dab seems unnecessary if there's an encapsulating article, and social conservatism is broader, with a better developed global aspect than traditionalist conservatism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:20, 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 redirect to Crescendo (TV series). MBisanz talk 01:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crescendo the Musical[edit]

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

This is a non-notable recently released musical. Coverage in reliable sources is severely lacking. As this doesn't pass GNG, I will go for a delete. Note: I initially thought of boldly redirecting, but I don't think we need to create an extra redirect here as this is simply a non-notable derivative work. Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought of merging initially, but this seems to be a one-off musical which received very little coverage if any. English language sources have zero secondary coverage and per WP:WEIGHT I wouldn't really merge it. At best I can add one line on my own, but I don't feel like merging this unsourced info and leaving a redirected hanging around. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hey, Gang, Let's Put On a Show! sounds easy. I searched and found zero news coverage for this 2016 musical. No point in a redirect or merge since there are no sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as absolutely nothing close here for actual substance and it seems like a classic case of no signs expecting it, therefore delete. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:TNT, really the only deletion rationale here, is contrary to typical practice and so especially needs a clear consensus to apply, which is not present here. The list can be expanded from the entries in Category:Fictional models. List of fictional beauty queens probably should have been nominated separately, and its inclusion here appears to have been overlooked by most participants. An immediate renomination of just that list would not be out of order. postdlf (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional models[edit]

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

Listcruft. TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, likewise, List of fictional beauty queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination 2.5 hours since creation, 2 hours since last edit, is just entirely poor manners. WP:BEFORE, WP:CHANCE, and WP:DEMOLISH all seem to apply in some form to this situation. In other words, when the nominator is going to jump the gun like that, I expect the burden of proof to be on him or her that such an article is never potentially encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I simply foresee a list with few 'notable' entries and the potential for a lot of meaningless names, linkable to non-notable novels.TheLongTone (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also "poor manners" to just chuck blatantly unfinished articles into mainspace and leave them there, instead of properly building them up in userspace/draftspace/WP:AFC and moving them when ready. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would this list be categorized with dynamic lists that are listed under the category "List of fictional characters by occupation"? This list seems like it is modeling itself after articles like List of fictional doctors, List of fictional double agents, and List of fictional witches. If so, then this should probably be kept as all of those articles are kept after similar AFDs. I also agree with Jclemens that it probably would have been best to wait a little longer to give the original creator time to expand the article if possible. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a dynamic list, such as the ones I listed above. The article definitely needs more work though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with Satellizer's comment, and have struck out my previous keep vote. The article is unfinished, and has not had any activity since the middle of last month. The article can always be recreated in the future in a more completed state. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename: Seems as reasonable as any similar list. Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft/userspace at the very least. Come on, guys. This article is blatantly unfinished, contains only eight entries, of which only two have pages. I know WP:NOEFFORT is generally not an acceptable rationale, but I'll be happy to go with WP:TNT here. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 10:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Appears to be WP:LISTCRUFT or otherwise not useful to readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:32, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deepti Menon[edit]

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

Fails WP: Author. 1900toni (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:31, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Sam Walton (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Salvato[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a website editor, referenced only to deadlinked primary sources (his own staff profile on the website of his own employer, the program for a conference at which he spoke) that cannot carry notability, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, a person like this is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; RS coverage supporting a proper claim of notability must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being a regular columnist is not alone enough to establish notability. No coverage to establish he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Premios Juventud for What a Hottie![edit]

Premios Juventud for What a Hottie! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced list of nominees and winners in a single category for a non-major teen awards show, voted for by fans. There are a lack of reliable sources to confirm the annual winners, even less the rest of the nominees. I can't find any source at all, reliable or unreliable, that states that this category has an official name in English, so even the title of this article appears to be WP:OR. And just to over-egg the non-notable pudding, the template at the bottom of the article relists the winners of the award, so in fact we have both a list and a template for exactly the same thing.

I am also nominating the following related pages for precisely the same reasons:

Premios Juventud for Best Actor – Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both -- unreferenced essays on an honor which appear rather non notable being a niche category in a fan based award. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:28, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randeep Hundal[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:MILPEOPLE or WP:BIO as a businessman. Speedied twice recently as Major Randeep Hundal. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources: just passing mentions in two newspaper articles about combining a business career with military service in India. Wikishovel (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable to meet GNG; article written like a promo piece or CV. Kierzek (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There are one or two trivial coverage but nothing of encyclopedia use. Anup [Talk] 22:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hound.com[edit]

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

non notable, somewhat promotional, deceptively worded. The college-partnership claim actually means only that the colleges include them as one of many resources. The other refs also are mere listings. Top 20 in a specialized field is not significance. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. The seemingly impressive list of sources is deceptive, as DGG points out. Several of the college job help pages listed don't even mention the subject. If we set those aside, the rest of the coverage is "Top X" lists, which definitely doesn't constitute the depth of coverage demanded by WP:CORP. A Traintalk 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt given the past three deletions in the past 8 years, everything listed here is still only what they want to advertise about themselves and that's not surprising considering the said past deletions; there's nothing listed here suggesting compromising nor that we should even consider it, if it's based solely for advertising. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZipRecruiter[edit]

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

non-notable. Basically promotional. Refs are only about funding. A claim of "1 o f 3 job-focused startups leading the way in 2012" is much too specialized for notability DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- typical "startup spam". K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur with the nomination, there's nothing at all here for actual independent notability and it's clear it's only advertising what the company would use for its own website. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Life Is All We Have[edit]

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

Fail WP:NALBUM. At best, it should be redirected to the album that followed it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jozef Louis Maes[edit]

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

Could not find enough reliable sources about this person. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable individual. Disagree with the redirect suggestion above, it seems that information was added by the person who created this article. Little available on the individual in English language sources. This suggests some involvement in Japanese football, but without reliable sourcing, I get the impression the claims that he essentially founded Yokohama FC are quite overblown. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close as the article was speedy deleted. Although no reason was explicitly given for the speedy, I can only assume it was because the article was promotional in nature. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I AM : The Untold Story of Success (book)[edit]

I AM : The Untold Story of Success (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on a not (yet) notable upcoming book. —teb728 t c 04:16, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Radomir[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. It seems to me like a case of a person who is just living a pretty much everyday life in the media industry, not meeting notability guidelines: the sources are mentioning him in passing or are written by him (ex. he conducted some interviews, but was not interviewed himself), he has not won any awards, he appeared on TV a few times as a journalist/host (i.e. in his professional role), he played a minor role in a single movie, published a single book, written lyrics for one song - no matter which guideline I look it at - WP:AUTHOR, WP:MUSICBIO, etc. - he seems to fail it. The best he has going for him is that he appears on google, but this is true for most journalists, and being a journalist or a television presenter, does not make one notable, even if it means they pass WP:GOOGLETEST. Oh, and it seems he was created as part of the drive to write bios for people associated with Eurovision, but although he "was the Swedish spokesperson at the Eurovision Song Contest in 2004 and 2006, announcing the results of the national televoting" this is not the stuff that should put one in an encyclopedia, as much as it may pain fans of Eurovision - Eurovision-related people are not auto-notable, neither. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -plenty of good references. Has had several media jobs in Sweden and Serbia. Has film roles and has published a book, all referenced. Also per WP:GNG. Seems like the nominator has failed to understand basic Wiki guidelines. I am also confused as to how Piotrus thinks that IDONTLIKEIT applies. Per deletion rationale that there is a "push" for these kind of articles to be created. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there are plenty of good references that he has had several media jobs etc., but having a job does not make him notable, despite that some editors seem to think ILKIKEEUROVISION makes anything and everything related to this show notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete - the nomination is sound and makes a lot of sense, and I can't find anything useful in reliable Swedish sources either. Weak delete because I have not had that much time to look for sources so I may have missed something obvious. Publishing a book does not in itself make a person notable. --bonadea contributions talk
  • The article ha been improved further with more info and sources since the nom and the wd !vote. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do appreciate your expansion, but for me I still feel this fails NBIO (no in-depth coverage, this is cobbled together from passing mentions) and WP:ENTERTAINER/CREATIVE/ETC. are not met. Through I would not be surprised this will be closed as no consensus (which is fine with me, if it is kept I doubt I will revisit this before 5 years or so if at all :D). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The subject of the article is a television presenter in Sweden, has appeared on multiple nationally televised programs, and has received coverage for this in multiple publications. (Granted the references are in Swedish and I am reading rough translations) If anything it's enough to meet WP:GNG it would seem which is enough for a keep. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TV personality for a long period, songwriter, actor, Eurovision personality. The article has many references from independent sources. werldwayd (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has coverage in multiple secondary sources to satisify GNG, and further appears to meet WP:ENTERTAINER given he has held multiple roles in television and other performance work. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Hartman[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rose Hartman wikipedia does not need to be deleted, there are more than enough references and proof of this person existing and being a real author and photographer Brazil201 (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Brazil201[reply]
  • Keep. A very quick search finds a recent documentary film about her; multiple exhibitions of her work, including internationally; and a New York Times review of one of her books[18]. Help is required to assist this new editor to develop the article fully. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: NYT 2012 review of her book, many other sources, etc. Notable. Thanks, @Espresso Addict:, for helping a newby editor. PamD 17:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Needs work, and much better sourcing, but there is adequate indicia of notability here. Montanabw(talk) 07:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged/redirected to Howard University. (non-admin closure) ansh666 06:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howard University Libraries[edit]

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

Non-notable mid-level list article. One library has its own article (Founders Library has some reasonable claims to independent notability) and Howard University is a notable school. But their library system? Does not seem to be anything to say except the simple list and maybe a generic sentence or two about its overall size and services (these are not notable aspects). At most should be a redirect to the school's article. And also could merit being a subcategory of the school and a possibly navbox if multiple individual libraries merit individual articles. DMacks (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article joined to Howard University.--P2prules (talk) 02:46, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7th Floor Group[edit]

7th Floor Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete because:

Narutolovehinata5 and Geogene put this article up for speedy deletion a week or so apart,[19][20] but those didn't work, hence this AFD. I haven't been able to find any reliable secondary sources in my own search. There are currently 3 sources cited, all of which are primary and none of which constitute "in-depth" coverage: 2 of them[21][22] reference the same FBI document on different websites and the 3rd one (CNBC)[23] is a breaking news article quoting an anonymous source taken directly from the same FBI document. According to WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources..." WP:RSBREAKING also advises that material from anonymous sources isn't reliable. Later that same day and the next day, several reputable sources published articles with fully attributed statements refuting the claim about a "shadow government".[24][25] Most reputable newpapers didn't acknowledge that anonymous quote at all.

I don't even think this is something that should be merged into another article since it can't be supported by a single reliable secondary source and it's refuted by other, more reliable sources.

Note: This article was created by user:Shadowxgov who has since been blocked indefinitely because they "abusively used multiple accounts" (see Sockpuppet investigation). The other primary editor of this article, Knowledgebattle, was found to be the master account (but for some reason the SPI is still under filed under Shadowxgov). —PermStrump(talk) 02:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —PermStrump(talk) 02:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —PermStrump(talk) 02:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the discussion at the Fringe theories noticeboard. —PermStrump(talk) 02:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the nominator's analysis is compelling; should follow the way of similar articles:
and be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per K.e.coffman. Even when this first came out, it wasn't covered in enough reliable sources and from the looks of things the story died out quickly (it wasn't even mentioned in Reddit subreddits, from what I recall). Nowhere to merge this to either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree the nominator's analysis is correct. This is poorly sourced nonsense. It's been two weeks since the breaking news story and no better sources have come forward? Sure sign there is nothing here. --Krelnik (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable neologism. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (WP:SNOW) - Agree with nominator. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable conspiracy theory. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of reliable secondary sources. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seventh Floor positions referenced in WikiLeak Secretary of State dump. (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.167.80 (talk) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lack of secondary sources is key. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. Please. Nickm57 (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for clarity: the final agreed result was a redirect, not a keep per se. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow theatre[edit]

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

Looks like snow theaters are only built from one gentleman by the name of Graham Whatmough. Not enough coverage out there to confirm significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a Canadian, I do recall having read about outdoor projections onto snow before -- just as one can project film onto pretty much any white surface. But I agree that this isn't a notable structure or thing. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE [caps intended] A personal "invention" or novel idea that has hitherto had no real cultural or social impact doesn't seem to be encyclopedia material. The fact that it may be a "first" does not automatically make it important, even if it is newsworthy. One could speculate as to the future prospects of such an idea, but it's my understanding that Wikipedia does not indulge in "unverifiable speculation." So although I can appreciate the idea's uniqueness and potential for growth I see nothing in the article or its one citation that renders it worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Such an article would lower the bar for every whimsical idea that pops into humanity's head and would forever be the test case that compels acceptance. The line has to be drawn somewhere or it's no longer an encyclopedia, it becomes an intellectual trashcan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:E467:ECDD:68F8:8DE2 (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has been done before 2016 but there's nothing to really show that this is a notable concept. A search doesn't really bring up anything significant other than someone projecting the Lorax movie onto a blizzard. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it! Yes it was this now-defunct (I think) festival in Winterpeg, wouldn't you know, offered by the National Screen Institute. With animated shorts projected onto snow. And while the online article lists "16 C" as temperature I wouldn't be surprised if that's a typo. -16 C in March is more like it, especially if there's a "metre of snow outside": http://www.straight.com/article/theres-snow-business-like-show-business-in-canada Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Selective merge to outdoor cinema per Shawn below. I can certainly see the possibility of this becoming more of a sourceable and notable thing in the future than it is right now. The fact that it's been done at least once before the time documented by the one source being cited in this article certainly points in that direction — but it doesn't slamdunk this as things stand right now, because two people independently coming up with the same one-off idea 15 years apart does not a notable concept make. If this starts happening a lot more often in a lot more places, then there'll be a case for inclusion — but right now it's WP:TOOSOON at best, and possibly fails WP:MADEUP as well. There's also a conflict of interest of some sort here, as the article's creator has the username "WhereTheHighwayEnds", while the source links to a Facebook video posted on a page titled "Where the Highway Ends". The only thing I'm not sure of is whether "Where the Highway Ends" is Graham Watmough, or whether it's something or somebody else affiliated with Graham Watmough — but it's still a COI either way. As usual, Wikipedia is not a free promotional/PR platform. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another one. A snow theatre has also been a main attraction for a number of years at the Siida Museum's Skábmagovat film festival in Inari, Finland. [26][27][28][29][30][31] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now think a very selective merge to Outdoor cinema is an idea. That article does have a short section on "Unusual locations to show a movie outdoors..." and we do now have refs for screenings projected onto a wall or bank of snow in both Finland and Canada. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm thinking that now sounds like a better solution. I've adjusted my comment above accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I always feel like I'm passing the buck in cases like this if I leave it to a closing admin. So I have gone ahead and added a very brief referenced passage on the winter events in Finland and Canada, at the bottom of Outdoor cinema#Examples, without mentioning any specific event or structure by name (though those could be added). I think that may be enough and if Meatsgains agrees, maybe we can speedily close this as a redirect? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 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. MBisanz talk 01:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salon Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable beauty school/salon lacking any significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched. Found nothing. Looks like mere WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing as Speedy would be dumb considering it's been up for a week, Anyway tons of sources on google & google books so closing as keep - (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ena de Silva[edit]

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

Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep is a notable artist - satisifies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- the first two entries from Google books search bring up Encyclopedia of Sri Lanka & Historical Dictionary of Sri Lanka (link). Obviously notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Osmund de Silva[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Commanded the entire Sri Lankan police force. How on earth could he not be notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG as highest ranking police officer in Ceylon.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion has received ample input, but no consensus for a particular action has occurred herein. North America1000 18:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Akron Rayathon Hawker 800 crash[edit]

2015 Akron Rayathon Hawker 800 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable aircraft accident previously a redirect because of lack of notability but recently restored. Crashes of small business jets are rarely notable unless they kill somebody important enough that they have a wikipedia article or are outstanding for other reasons. Very few of the many hundreds of business jet fatal accidents feature in Wikipedia, nothing that makes this one stand above the threshold MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fairly routine, commonplace accident, nothing notable here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even consistently spelled. Nothing of substance here. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crashes like this clearly at fault of both main and co-pilot, violation of rules, and more relevant now that there was the fight over controls of a plane by a Jordanian student pilot across the street from Pratt and Whitney brings up question of possibility of terrorism, this plane happened to hit an apartment building though investigators has no reason to believe it was targeted or that the co-pilot was playing ignorance as to why he was flying so slow without flaps. There was also a plane stolen from Toronto that crashed near a mall on its way to Ottawa which was investigated, but cleared for terrorist national security concerns. Continuous press coverage since the crash, and October 2016 publishing of conclusions. Crashes of this magnitude with international press coverage are always notable, and have already been noted in two other wikipedia articles. . Bachcell (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Notable, widely covered airplane crash.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like not routine at all, an at-fault crash accroding to NTSB and USA Today Akron plane crash that killed 9 'infested with sloppiness', [32]. Not to mention the Plain Dealer digging out stuff like: Airline altered records about deadly Akron plane crash, ex-employee says, [33].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Still dont see anything encyclopedic about the accident, Just because it is someones fault doesnt make it notable, thousands of aircraft accidents can be blamed on somebody that doesnt make them notable and wikipedia is not a newspaper or tabloid that covers everything possible. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We try not to decide what's notable based on arguments form principle, rather, we follow the sources. If RS such as major national media cover an airplane crash in ways that meet WP:GNG: it's WP:NOTABLE; if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, it is not Not WP:NOTABLE. In other words, when the sources are there, we keep the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sourced newspapers create articles all the time it doesnt make them encyclopedic, in this case they are just responding to the accident report of N237WB which says that this was not particularly notable just pilot error. We dont include every pilot error accident that appears in newspapers because as has been explained they are not unusual or particuarly rare and I still dont see anything that raises it above the bar for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies here. News media outlets report on cats stuck in trees, that does't mean we need to have an encyclopedia article on these incidents and it is the same case here. Bizjet accidents are weekly events and unless they result in changes to ATC or aircraft procedures, Airworthiness Directives or other consequences, they are not any more notable than a car accident is. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not routine. article needs some improvements but that is not a reason for deletion. E.M.Gregory has found plenty of good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event happened in November 2015. The two sources E.M.Gregory mentioned were published nearly a year later in October 2016. If the event were routine, it would not have had continued coverage 11 months later in a national publication like USA Today. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not really continual coverage the latest reports were triggered by an accident report as is usual and routine. MilborneOne (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it isn't continual coverage. There was coverage of the crash and then nothing new until the report came out, which is common in the general media. There is just nothing notable about this accident, it is just a news item. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard referenced WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, not "continual coverage".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That a national publication, USA Today, considered the October 2016 report of a November 2015 crash worth covering demonstrates the event is notable. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  An accident this big is not statistics, especially IMO from the view of people in Akron, Ohio.  Coverage as recent as 18 October 2016 can be found by looking at Google news for [2015 Akron Hawker 800 crash].  Topic is currently prominent at Akron Fulton International Airport, and is also currently covered at Hawker 800.  The nomination has not reviewed the alternatives to deletion, which as per WP:BEFORE I believe would have rendered this discussion moot...note that the related advice on "How to contribute" for AfD participants states,
Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not Akronpedia so in a worldwide context is not notable or reported. As it would not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article it should (as a fatal accident) be in the airport article but they are far to many accidents similar for it to be mentioned in the aircraft article (although if an Accidents and incidents involving the Hawker 800 were created current practice would list it). MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is the English Wikipedia, not "worldwide context" pedia.  Only for WP:CORPORATION do we evaluate whether sources are local or regional.  As per the previous AfD, diff, "...this crash was reported nationally and internationally on many news networks (i.e.: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc.) and social media. It wasn't just a local news matter."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several factors that make this unlike a small private two-seat airplane crash into a mountainside.  A building on the ground was demolished.  There was a fire that was a factor in the deaths of the occupants.  This was public transport.  Nine are dead, most of them executives.  It was the largest crash in the history of the city and the county.  There are concerns about the safety attitude, training, hiring practices, and record keeping of the charter.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd think that a link to other coverage should suffice for the aircraft article.  I'm not aware of any current indication that the aircraft was a primary factor in the crash.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearian (talk · contribs), would you clarify which part of the article is "blatant plagiarism"? I searched several sentences from the articles on Google and did not find them copied from anywhere. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info area for a previous AfD and redirects and articles related to that AfD
AfDs for this article:
  • Comment  Here are two articles currently with coverage of the crash:
  • Comment  Here is a better version of the current article: [34].  Unscintillating (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or cover in some appropriate list. WP:NOTNEWS applies, this is essentially a local traffic accident, and it does not become more significant just because a small aircraft was involved rather than, say, a school bus.  Sandstein  08:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a crash that kills nine people is notable Blythwood (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I reviewed the links, and it is not a word for word case of plagiarism, although paragraph two, sentence one, is a close re-wording of a headline. No objection remains to a keep. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an accident only of interest to the local community; no significant long-term or societal impact. Wikipedia is not a catalog of minor accidents. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Americas[edit]

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

I never nominate articles for deletion based on quality, but I'm going to make an exception in this case. This is probably the worst Wikipedia article I've ever read. It doesn't include a single useful statement about women in the Americas, and instead is just a list of all the countries in North and South America with lead sections copied verbatim from the corresponding "Women in X" articles, all of which seem to start with the inane sentence "Women in X are women who were born in, who live in, or are from X." Thanks for that insight! This article either needs to be broken up into more manageable chunks where useful comparisons and coherent themes can be elicidated (like Women in the Caribbean and Women in Central America), stubbified (so that it can be replaced with some tables and charts and useful prose), or deleted entirely. As it stands, the article is incoherent and unreadable. As there was no actually writing or research involved in making it, I don't think we would lose much by deleting it. Kaldari (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article does serve a purpose though, that is pointing at other similar articles. However, I have to agree that it is badly written. The problem here is that it is just not practical to write an article about "Women in the Americas" - it is too broad a topic. Instead, articles like Women in Venezuela are much more feasible. I'm just wondering, how about we create a template for Women in the Americas? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak agree should be deleted, unless giving the article purpose is feasible.Fred (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. What's wrong with a list article that summarizes Women in each country and links to more specific articles for each? and BTW why was the creator of this article not notified? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • Comment: if the major plus point of this article is to group together articles about women in each country in the Americas, wouldn't it be better as a category, or as a template as suggested by Lemongirl1942, rather than an article? Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: Unfortunately categories are often deleted for reasons that defy logic. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC) please ping me[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing the usefulness of an article that merely serves as a cut-and-paste pastiche of other articles' introductions. If this could actually be rewritten from scratch as a standalone article about the topic named in the title, I might be willing to reconsider this — but in this form there's really very little point or purpose to it. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Agreed that the article is written terribly, however this does not justify deletion. There are 23 countries in North America (Caribbean and Central America included) and 12 countries in South America compared to a whopping 51 in Europe. So discussing length is pretty pointless too unless we should seperate it by continent (North and South), and please not regional (North, Central, Caribbean). Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would be in favor of merging Women in the Caribbean into this article, like how Central America redirects here. We have a "women by continent" category to serve the purpose of filling it. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light keep. Comparing women by country is a good thing. The criterion for comparison is currently uninteresting.2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC) This user has been blocked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep and Disambiguatize (err -- turn into a disambiguation page) or Draftify - I agree that as it stands as an article it's just redundant. It could be turned into a disambiguation page, though, and I can imagine ways it could be developed into a viable article, cumbersome as it may be, so sending over to drafts may be productive. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to hear from more interested parties, who might wish to rescue or userfy this article. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Atrocious copypasta, devoid of any substance; needs blowing up and possibly recreation from scratch as a list or disambiguation. The "keep"s don't address the article's problems.  Sandstein  22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now neutral after the rewrite. This topic still has a faintly WP:SYNTHetic feel to it - do women in the USA and e.g. in Bolivia have so much in common that reliable sources treat them as one topic? - but at least the content looks and feels like proper articl now rather than a copy-pasted assemblage of stubs.  Sandstein  07:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the Women in the Americas article should be written up more like Women in Antarctica (which I started). The Antarctic article was a little easier to work on because the history of the continent doesn't go too far back in time and there aren't countries in Antarctica per-se, but I think we can approach the Americas article in a similar way. I added a couple of external inks to the article that link to the Society for the History of Women in the Americas who are a scholarly group studying the topic. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please see the excellent work that SusunW added about pre-history of women in the Americas. I've gone and tried to salvage any cited material and will copyedit further later. In addition, I changed the copypasta and Women in X are Women who... section into a list organized by region that I think will be more useful to readers. Hopefully this will pass WP:HEY for some. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SusunW and Megalibrarygirl: Thanks for working to improve it. I think that it would help to make clearer what the future of this page will be -- the particular subject it covers that isn't either an assemblage of subjects we already cover or a disambiguation page. For example, what unites women in pre-colonial indigenous South American cultures with women in indigenous North American cultures today with women who moved to Kansas from Europe last week and women in Central America in the 1900s? Are there sources for the subject that span across the Americas and across time? It's not required that all the sources take that form, of course, but that's what would clarify the subject, I think. All of these subjects are worth covering, to be sure, but it looks like most of the content I see there now is a compilation rather than a single subject ("women in Mexico..." then "women in Brazil..." then "women in the United States..." -- when we have separate articles for those already. What about being in "the Americas" unites them, unless we're only talking about long ago?). Part of this confusion may be my own ignorance, but this comes back to why it seemed like draftifying or turning into a disambiguation page seemed sensible. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites I do not mean to be flippant, but the future of the page is irrelevant to a discussion of whether it is a notable topic and the content is based upon RS. The women in all of the Americas share a common history, which I am working to develop in the article (and would welcome help from anyone who is willing to try to save it, rather than delete it). The comparison and contrast of how that conquest effected women is interesting both for its similarities and differences. Because all citizens shared a colonized past, laws existed throughout the region which limited citizenship of women, whether European, indigenous, or from bondage. Laws were similar in countries which had the same colonial power, i.e. Canada, the US and the former British colonies of the Caribbean have similar legal challenges, as do women living in Suriname, Guyana and the Netherlands Antilles, etc. Likewise, all of the countries in the region have indigenous populations, which have all experienced colonization/conquest. Multiple organizations and women's conferences in the 19th and 20th centuries have utilized a regional platform and the strength of developments in other nations within the Americas to address inequalities in their own societies. There are slews of academic studies on the subject, thus, clearly, it is a relevant topic with sufficient data. While extremely broad, I believe with effort the article can give a broad synopsis of the similar and contrasting experiences shared by women in the Americas and break out to individual countries to provide more in-depth discussion of specific areas. SusunW (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites I agree with SusunW who has explained the issue far better than I could. It is broad, but geographical areas do have shared historical narratives based on the geography and the people who inhabit the areas. These are unique to each continent. For example, The Americas has a shared history of slavery that is different from other continents. Different continents faced different issues with colonization, too. I've found several scholarly articles on the topic of Women in the Americas as a broad subject. I am also helping to clean up Women in Oceania and other "Women in..." articles. They are notable topics, but the articles are really terrible. I'm glad the nom brought this to our attention. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the future of the page is irrelevant to a discussion of whether it is a notable topic - I brought up the future of the page not to say "tell us how you'll improve it so we don't have to delete it" exactly (which would generally be irrelevant to AfD), but rather as a way to talk about what an ideal vision of the page would look like (in order to convince those who see -- or saw, prior to the improvements -- a page without a clearly unified subject, and a page that's more than a grouping or directory of component parts that we already cover). From my perspective, while it seemed like it could be a notable subject, it was unclear what that would look like. Hence suggesting turning into a disambiguation as a potential outcome. Your responses here, and continuing to look at the added content, help to clarify the subject, though, and I've updated my weak keep/disambiguatize/draftify to just keep.
Pinging those who !voted delete prior to the additions: @Sandstein, Kaldari, Sportsfan 1234, and Bearcat:. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Appropriate overview article and now much improved as well. Montanabw(talk) 15:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now: Megalibrarygirl and SusunW, you have done wonderful work on this article in the space of a week and it has improved beyond measure, I applaud both of you. Grouping the headings by topic area rather than by country makes a lot more sense. The article now is so different now to when it was nominated for AfD that we're not really voting on the same article, and I hope the editors who previously voted delete will review their vote based on the current version. Richard3120 (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Richard3120. There is a long way to go, but we are getting there. SusunW (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Richard3120. I think it's a good example of what we all can do when we find articles on Wiki that need work. When you let members of interested WikiProjects know about it, they're likely to get cracking on it. ;) SusunW is really good at digging up the history on these kinds of topics. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also not forget to thank User:AnakngAraw who tagged the tallpage of the article with many Wikiprojects that resulted in all these projects being notified of this nomination through their Article alerts. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 not to have an article. No consensus about where to possibly redirect or merge it to, though, and only one opinion in favor of retaining the history, so it's deletion for now. Any appropriate redirect can be created editorially.  Sandstein  10:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landfill (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Notadvertising Emotive and biased with its purple prose, such as "He's generally a friendly, cheerful, hardworking, reliable fellow- what is the problem, he wonders? " and "Flintlock is a young man who was always eager for action." Such diction is more suited for a fictional story or an advertisement, not an encyclopedia striving for neutrality. The bulk of the information is partial to the toys in question while offering virtually nothing educational or culturally significant beyond the toy's manufacture or functionality. This is product placement, not encyclopedic knowledge.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Autobots. The vast majority of this article is just a massive amount of in-universe fancruft. The sources are largely unreliable, being mostly primary sources or fansites, and those that are not are merely trivial mentions that give information on the toys. Any needed information on this article can be selectively merged to the List of Autobots, but as most of this information is unsourced, I don't really see the need for that. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are MUCH BETTER places to merge this article to than List of Autobots, which is simply a massive list of names. This was a character in a cartoon series, and there is a page with a list of the characters from that series, at the very least. Please stop directing Transformers to the basic LIST pages when there are other pages which are more appropriate. Mathewignash (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete written in a bizarre, unencyclopedic tone (actual example sentence: "He's a veritable rolling garbage dump!") and not a notable topic anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Targetmaster, since that's what most of the content is about. Anyone searching for the RID version will be knowledgeable enough about the subject to locate their desired content. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_October_31&oldid=1142620710"