Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 September	22 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 03:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koro Sensations[edit]

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

This article appears to have no independent sources and so no real evidence of notability. If independent sources are found within seven days, can be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no sourcing in English. I regret I am not more familiar with navigating Japanese press, and so that remains unexplored on my end. I would change my vote if sources found. Yvarta (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find notable references for subject. --Abdullah Alam (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Naccarato[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Directed one movie that claims to have won an award on the Apple Store. WP:MILL. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Outside of IMDb, no coverage to verify the page's content. Meatsgains (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage I could find focused on Mr. Naccarato. Per WP:NFO (notability for creatives), if his film was proven at some point to be notable and referenced, then the biography would be notable as well (guideline reads The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) Yvarta (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article just isn't up to par, fails WP:ENT. Note: I removed the CSD tag, and I stand by the article failing A7. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Hooria[edit]

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

Non-notable living person. The article was previously deprodded by Light2021. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a distringuished Qu'ran reader as a student does not make one notable. If she were writing exegesis on the Qu'ran that got attention, then that would be another story. However that is not what she is doing, and there is no reason to think that this makes her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Based on the sources we have here, she's a student who won a local contest at finished third at a national one. Also, the sources are campus newsletters and the like. Clearly fails on the scope of coverage and on any of the specific criteria for notability of people. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks a lot like a delete, but her facebook page seems to indicate that there was some sort of radio and TV coverage. That may warrant closer examination. Alsee (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my WP:PROD rationale: the sources only mention that the subject has won a student competition, which is not enough on its own to demonstrate notability, and I can find no further reliable sources with significant coverage as required by the general notability guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the assertion that this run of the mill recent university student is notable comes without any significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Motahedon Petroleum Refineries[edit]

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

I find no coverage indicating notability. Largoplazo (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources seem to confirm its existence but nothing else that shows it has notability. Amortias (T)(C) 05:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH I spent excessive time searching on this. I did find other sources, but they are all clearly based on a press release that they are going to build a refinery, with essentially no information on the company itself. To drive the point home, the company's website[1] has an About Us and a Latest news page. The About Us has a link about the CEO, and a link about the parent company, but no link and literally no info on itself. The Latest News page[2] has images of a bunch of newspapers running stories that the refinery will be built, but they are all press releases and literally none of them even mention "Al Motahedon". It appears that "Al Motahedon" has just come into existence, and there is basically nothing to say about it yet other than that they plan to build a refinery. The refinery itself appears far more Notable than the company, but WP:CRYSTALBALL it doesn't exist yet. It is likely that this company will become Notable, but WP:TOOSOON it's not there yet. Alsee (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; an unremarkable refinery that is part of a nn MAK Al Kaitoob Group. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a run of the mill refinery company, one of thousands around the world. How this passes our corporate or general guidelines is beyond me, in light of no significant and ongoing coverage in any reliable sources. A single article from last year doesn't cut it. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on Murdoch Mysteries[edit]

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

Delete. Unsourced (except for one listed person's own self-published tweet) list of every person who ever made a one-off guest appearance in a drama series. This is not, in and of itself, a notable basis for a standalone article -- every scripted series that has ever existed at all has had guest actors come in to play one-off or two-off characters, and Murdoch Mysteries is not unique. This was originally created at the title Guest stars on Murdoch Mysteries in 2011, then redirected to the main show's article as an unwarranted content fork, then recreated a month later at the new title Guest stars of Murdoch Mysteries and deleted at AFD -- but then when more recent consensus on the talk page agreed that the list in the main article was getting crufty and needed to be trimmed back down to only the few appearances notable enough to generate media coverage about the appearances, all of a sudden one editor is now determined to recreate a standalone list of everybody who ever made any guest appearance at all, regardless of whether their appearance is sourceable as noteworthy or not. (This same user, for the record, has also frequently stripped referencing from the show's main article on the grounds that only future events need references to support them, while anything that has already happened and receded into the past is now metaverified by its own occurrence and thus no longer needs to actually be referenced at all. Needless to say, that ain't how this works.)

But regardless of whether it's in the main article or spun off into a standalone list it's still unwarranted WP:TRIVIA either way, because making a guest appearance on Murdoch Mysteries still doesn't occupy some special sphere of notability any different from making a guest appearance on How to Get Away with Murder or Coronation Street or Rookie Blue or any of the thousands of other television series in history for which a similar list could be, but hasn't been, compiled. This is not something that all or even most television shows get to have — it's occasionally warranted for shows where guest appearances are virtually always notable in and of themselves, such as Saturday Night Live guest hosts, but most television shows which simply have working actors come on for one episode as the crime victim of the week don't warrant this kind of treatment. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and trim appropriately any of these which have RS coverage to the main article, which right now has a decent section on notable guest stars. I don't think completion is necessary of desirable. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's to merge? list of Murdoch Mysteries characters and list of Murdoch Mysteries episodes contains all the appropriate information and in the correct context. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The club played in the 2016 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup and clearly meets WP:FOOTYN for that reason. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boca Raton FC[edit]

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

Very new Soccer club. Unreferenced and with no evidence of notability. As an organisation fails WP:CORPDEPTH Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They are the current champions of the American Premier Soccer League. There is WP:SIGCOV of the team here, here, and here. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They pop up everywhere in google news (and not just scores of games) and, while they are not an MLS team, they are a part of an organized professional soccer league. Seems notable enough to me. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Played in the 2016 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup so meets the expected notability criteria of football clubs of having played in the national cup. Number 5 7 12:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in national cup. Not sure why we are here. Nfitz (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoar (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability TTN (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. —Mythdon 00:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Aoba47 (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism[edit]

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

Its a Redundant Article. Main Article is "State-sponsored_terrorism" Rugby9090 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - The nom exhibits no knowledge of AfD criteria. There are tons of citations to reliable sources in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Article expands on the content at State-sponsored terrorism, and I don't see any redundancy here. GAB^gab 23:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are similar articles about other countries and state-sponsored terrorism.VR _talk 04:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as WP:A7 Vanjagenije (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South East Separatists[edit]

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

Non-notable political party (and founders). No Google references, no news cites. agtx 20:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No indication of importance. School project, extended, Cotton2 (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - non-notable fictional organisation (no indication actual political party) - just made the website today and even that is just a wordpress.com sub site, just trying to use Wikipedia for self promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woah what? We are a legit party, check out our website! We're just new and trying to get established. By deleting this page you are restricting the democratic process! How are we ever supposed to be relevant without a wikipedia page? This is were the whole world gets their information from! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purdy101 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No you are not a 'legit party' as you are not registered: http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/Registrations?currentPage=1&rows=30&sort=RegulatedEntityName&order=asc&open=filter&et=pp&et=ppm&register=gb&regStatus=registered&optCols=EntityStatusName KylieTastic (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we aren't registered but who says you need to register to be a political force? Just because we aren't yet recognized by the UK government as a party doesn't mean that we don't exist. We have members who right now are creating the first draft of our manifesto. Continue this fruitless struggle and you will come to regret it anonymous internet user. When we come to power your puny keyboard will be crushed beneath the might of government censorship and the police state. Good luck with all your future endevours sir and remember when the South East Separatists come to power it is us who will be laughing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purdy101 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-registered party with zero Google Hits other than Wikipedia and Facebook. @Purdy101, Wikipedia is not a place to promote new things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what Reliable Sources have already written about old things. Wikipedia will happily have an article on South East Separatists after newspapers or other Reliable Sources start writing about it. Alsee (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyright violation BethNaught (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Openface Internet INC[edit]

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

Despite extravagant claims (since watered down a little), it has no references and fails WP:GNG. Searches do not show any sources out there other than its own advertisement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Openface is a Major ISP in Montreal CANADA .. It is the only major remaining ISP in Montreal that is privately owned. I just created the page. I added few resources. I would need more time to add more independent resources that talks about openface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousefaliyousefali (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Copyvio of http://www.openface.com/about-us/news. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Copyvio. Alsee (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esselen Nation vs Esalen Institute[edit]

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

The editor is using Wikipedia to grind an axe. The article is a soapbox for expressing an opinion and advocating a point of view about an issue specific to an individual Louise Ramirez and an organization OCEN. [She is currently the tribal chairwoman of the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation (OCEN).] The author cites personal correspondence with Louise Ramirez, possibly revealing a personal relationship and a conflict of interest. The article does not describe a legal action or a specific ongoing social-political action that is notable. It accuses a living individual (Tom Nason) of taking actions that the author disapproves of without offering any sources, appearing to incite controversy. Substantive portions of the article are not supported by references, and based on the character of the article and initial searches, it would be very difficult to add reputable sources.

If there is a germ of notability, it may be about the about Esalen Institute's use of native American ceremonies, but this is insubstantial to justify an article (and certainly not this article), and based on available sources may only merit a couple of sentences in Esalen Institute. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 19:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The long nomination statement pretty well sums it up. It's not an article, it's a soapbox. There's really only one ref supporting the topic here (Monterey County Weekly), the other refs are incidental. It might be reasonable to use the Monterey source to add some content to the Esalen Institute article, but I hesitate to suggest any sort of "merge" due to the major soapboxing/personal_correspondence_sourcing/other_issues. P.S. I looked at the Esalen Institute article. There is a big COI-OWNERSHIP issue there. Looking at the top editors-by-added-text,[3] the current top six editors have either stated they worked there, or have usernames exactly matching employees, or are IPs that have admitted working there, or are IPs that look a heck of a lot like COI (IMO). They make up two-thirds of the editing, measured by added text. Alsee (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soapbox per nom. references mostly dont mention this dispute. one does. deserves a mention in the articles on Esalen and Esselen, thats it for now. thats not to say its not an important issue, just not discussed enough to justify this article, or any article, at this time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:BOLLOCKS. While a court case such as this could become notable, currently this is an unmitigated mess. The lede alone needs a re-write, and much of it makes no sense whatsoever. I guess it's some sort of soap-box, but does that even matter in a case where the words make little sense? Bearian (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave DeCastris[edit]

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

This biography is not notable enough to merit an article on its own as it fails WP:ARTIST and WP:CREATIVE. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not locate reliable sources to verify notability. Per nom above, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable sources proving notability are lacking. Netherzone (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not found any 3rd party sources that could be used to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kurdish cinema. Sandstein 16:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Kurdistan[edit]

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

No such country as "Kurdistan". This is nothing more than an irridentist attempt to proclaim a certain form of e-nationalism, as done so often on Wikipedia by/for peoples and ethnicities that don't have a nation or state. Its like creating an article called Cinema of Friesland for the Frisian people; that would be pretty ridiculous as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Kurdish cinema, a pre-existing article covering the same ground. Cinema is part of culture rather than politics, and Kurdish culture certainly exists even if a country called Kurdistan doesn't. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's weird! I had completely forgotten about that article (Kurdish cinema). Yes, I'd obviously support a merge/redirect to that article as well. Thanks for your constructive response! - LouisAragon (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Keep: This is an important article that contribute to the Kurdistan portal and Kurdish Culture, with realize citation, quotes from book, and academic research in the Reference section. Since cinema is important part of any culture, it is useful to have this article on on Wiki, give more insight into the Kurdish culture, the history of Kurdish cinema, and the import films coming out of Kurdistan. I also approve to have Kurdish cinema article merged into this one, because Cinema of Kurdistan is more proper way to describe the Cinematic movement in four part of Kurdistan than just have arctic with tittle "Kurdish Cinema", true that Kurdistan does not exist officially as a country, but geographically it define the border of the Kurdish populated area in Middle East, and Kurdistan is a word that is used to describe these area. I find the comment of the user LouisAragons rather prejudice and facets saying "There is no such country as "Kurdistan"", there is Kurdistan and it divided between Iraq, Iran, Syria and Iran, just as there is Palestine, Catalonia, Basque, Kashmir all those country have their own Cinematic page. So this attempt by LouisAragon to delete this page is based on political bias against Kurdish people, a form of censorship that should not be allowed here on Wikipida, clearly there is Kurdistan and Wiki has a large article on Kurdistan, or user like LouisAragon also wan to delete the Kurdistan page also? I suggest a strong keep and help to improve it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadra.elif (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The user LouisAragon (talk) who wanted this article to be deleted is recommended to be investigated for Vandalism, for I have noticed many deletion into Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian articles and info by this user, LouisAragon (talk) and Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian related page, since he/she contribute anything to Kurdish, Assyrian nor Armenian pages, he/she should not delete important information on Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian related pages, nor should he/she use foul and abusive language, it seem there are many who have issue with him/her, because he/she deleted artciles and info which is Vandalism. One way he/she does this is by recommending to delete many pages that are important to Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian cultures, just today LouisAragon recommenced that Cinema of Kurdistan article be deleted because according to her/him; "There is no Kurdistan", but Wiki has a large article that there is Kurdistan, if Wiki allow such prejudice and censorship, then Wiki might as well delete every article that reefer to Kurdistan to fulfill LouisAragon wishes. I have also noticed he/she promote Turkish and Iranian nationalism in many articles without giving proper citation and reference based on his/her believes and commentary, and I have recommend some for deletion to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mara kara (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The article says that it covers "native Kurdish or Kurdish filmmakers abroad", so is self-evidently is not about only the cinema of Kurdistan but about Kurdish cinema everywhere in the world. If it was about only the cinema of Kurdistan then you would have to exclude the work of Kurdish filmmakers abroad. I have no idea whether LouisAragons has any prejudice about this, so assume not per WP:AGF, but I certainly have no interest in nationalist conflicts in the Middle East, but am looking at this issue from a neutral point of view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Kurdish cinema per 86.17.222.157 TonyBallioni (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*With reference to the user's comment (talk) which take a line from the article and manipulate the meaning of it, when it said: "native Kurdish or Kurdish filmmakers abroad", the article mention these are Kurdish Filmmakers who made films in Kurdistan, they are Kurdish, the two that are mentioned are Karzan Kardozi and Huner Salim, both are Kurdish who went to France and US as refugees, then came back to Kurdistan to make their films, their films are shot on location in Kurdistan, made by Kurdish directors and Kurdish staff and it is part of Cinema of Kurdistan. According to your logic: We should not mention the Spanish directors Luis Bunuel in Cinema of Mexico because he was born in Spain and a Spaniard but contribute much to Cinema of Mexican and his name is all over the page of Cinema of Mexico here in Wiki, but those directors that are mentioned in this article are Kurdish, born in Kurdistan, but because of war left and came back and made films in Kurdistan, so it is part of Kurdistan. As for the user, "LouisAragon", when he says "There is no Kurdistan", that is a prejudice and Fascist lines that are mostly used by Turkish and Persian nationalist, and I looked at his/her page, she/he is a contributor to many Nationalist Turkish and Iranian article and describe him/her self as half "Iranian", so his/her wanting to delete this post because "There is no Kurdistan" is based on his/her prejudice, you might not be aware of the "Nationalist conflict in Middle East", but as a Kurd, I'm aware of the prejudice Kurdish people face, their land divided between four countries, denied their basic right, and words like 'LouisAragon' use been repeating for the past 100 years since Kurdistan was divided; "There is no Kurdistan". If "LouisAragon" have a reason to removed and delete this article, he/she need to come with better reason, because Wiki already prove there is Kurdistan, and here is an article here about Kurdistan. There has been many removal of Kurdish related articles and deletion by the liked of "LouisAragon" and others, this is a clear sign of censorship and against the rules of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadra.elif (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This article should be Kept: And I have recommended that a user like LouisAragon ((talk) should be investigated for the real motive of wanting this article to be deleted, I have looked at this users page and many times deleted Kurdish related topics, with words like "There is no Kurdistan", it is clear there is nationalist motive behind wanting an informative article like this to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mara kara (talk • contribs) 23:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

It is indisputable that there is not a Kurdish nationstate. Whether there should be is a matter that is not something we can solve here. There already exists an article on Kurdish cinema, which looks to be the best place for this information to be presented until such a time that a Kurdish nationstate exists, at which time we can discuss the naming of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. And, somebody take these socks to the trash! _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge When wondering which title would be preferable, I thought that "Kurdish Cinema" made more sense than "Cinema of Kurdistan", as it's scope is simpler. While there is a region known as Kurdistan, I don't see evidence that it provides the sort of support or structures that connect movies made in political units. "Kurdish Cinema" on the other hand could include movies made in Kurdish areas as well as in the diaspora. As an aside there have been moves in general to shift artistic topics from "X of COUNTRY" to "DEMONYM X", such as in articles about Literature. It may be that Cinema articles could do with a similar mass move. CMD (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article should be deleted. Even though I do support Kurdish independence, since there's no officially recognized state covering the area that you have considered within these articles, it is technically wrong to claim it.

Idea: The mentioned articles should be merged together, entitled Kurdish artists in cinema or (less preferably) Kurdish cinema.
—Rye-96 (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Striking through sockpuppet edits, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KurdoKardir. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: You know, that makes my eyes go funny! Couldn't you just revert them- would look a lot cleaner _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, as there have been replies which would make no sense if I deleted them, I can't. I normally delete only if there's been no reply. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balls :p it's like looking into The Matrix... in B&W!!! _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adhar[edit]

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

Not a disambiguation term, and no inbound links. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added sufficient legitimate entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it serves no harm and serves as a surname/given name directory. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:APONOTE after the additions by Clarityfiend. Even the version before that should have been kept as it served a valid navigational purpose in directing readers to the two titles that adhar could be a spelling for. The lack of incoming links is irrelevant if this is a term that readers search for. Uanfala (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. billinghurst, are the improvements enough to convince you to withdraw your nomination or do you still have concerns? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oded Yinon[edit]

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

This is a clear WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E case. This individual is only known in connection to the Yinon Plan, and what little information is available about him personally is already covered in that article. Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E states If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. This individual is the sole author of a very significant plan which is a regionally and globally sigificant strategic plan to set out how Israel could destabilize the region through a process of balkanization to achieve its goal of securing its status as a regional superpower. In my view this is of sufficient significance to warrant a separate article. Martyn.Preller (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[Martyn.Preller][reply]

That provision of WP:BIO1E refers to the situation where the individual in question, because of of his/her significant role in the event, has himself/herself been the subject of significant coverage. A good example of that would be Abdelhamid Abaaoud, because of his role in the November 2015 Paris attacks. But that's not the case here. Almost nothing at all is known about Oded Yinon personally, and he himself has not been the subject of significant coverage (in fact of hardly any coverage). The article you created says as much: ``Little is known about him and his background". In this situation there is no point in having a separate WP article about him. Apart from him having authored the Yinon Plan, the absolute grand total of information about him personally that seems to be available is that he is (or perhaps was) an Israeli journalist and a former Foreign Ministry official. There appears to be literally nothing else. Everything of substance that is known about him is already adequately covered in the Yinon Plan article, and that's exactly the kind of a situation that WP:BIO1E is designed to deal with. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is little available about Yinon in English, there is much more in Hebrew. I have located sources which identify him as the son of the well-known diplomat, journalist and orientalist Dov Yinon, about whom he wrote two books. He has also published articles in newspapers, journals and books, and is a former Foreign Ministry official, later working in "another government department". Some of this could be added to the article, with links to reliable sources. RolandR (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not believe the event is notable enough to warrant its own article. The main Yinon Plan article is severely lacking in WP:RS. Without enough RS to support the main article there certainly isn't enough to prove him notable on his own. - Galatz ^Talk 17:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yinon Plan and include anything useful from this article in that one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it's worse than I thought at the beginning. There is no any evidence that Oded Yinon ever existed. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this individual even exists, let alone be notable. All the sources used in the article are completely unreliable, and the article's creator and main contributor is not allowed to edit any Israeli-Arab conflict article, per WP:ARBPIA3.. Epson Salts (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. And, despite Arthistorian1977's comment above, Yinon certainly does exist and is known and published in Israel. RolandR (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please. provide sources for this. I didn't find anything reliable maintaining his existence either in English or Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, this page for one of his books on the Steimatzky site; this letter by him in Haaretz; this article about him in Matzpen. These may not establish his notability, but they are certainly sufficient to confirm his existence. RolandR (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steimatzky is publishing house that will print anything they are paid for under any name. Second link is letter - anyone can sign by any name and the third one is not reliable source. I searched and didn't find any reliable records - reviews of his alleged book, articles about him in reliable sources. Nothing. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. The book is available at all Israeli bookshops, not just Steimatzky's: Booksefer, Sefer Lecol, Sifrut Zola and many more. It was reviewed in Haaretz, and is on the shelves of the Hebrew University library. Of course it is a genuine book. Haaretz is a reputable newspaper, and not in the business of publishing letters by non-existent people. And Matzpen is not going to waste its time polemicising against someone who doesn't exist. RolandR (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to continue being ridiculous. Is there any information available that connects Oded Yinon of this article to Oded Yinon, author of mentioned book. As Nsk92 mentioned below, there is almost any information available about him. And Harretz didn't publish review about his books, but just mentioned it in the list of the new books with exactly the same wording as on Steimatzki site, which I suppose is a PR message. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even taking his existence for granted, the situation is still a long way off from overcoming the WP:BIO1E bar. There are still only snippets of extra information about Oden Yinon personally in the links you provided, the main extra bit of information being that he is the son of Dov Yinon. To overcome the WP:BIO1E bar one would need to find significant specific coverage of Oded Yinon personally, apart from the Yinon Plan, by solid WP:RS, that would justify a separate biographical article about him. Right now we don't have even the basic biographical details such as when and where he was born, where he was raised and when to school, where he got his college degree and possible a graduate degree, something more precise about his job history, whether he is/was married and has children, where he works/lives/retired now, or etc. In fact, we don't even know if he is still alive. With this dearth of specific information about him WP:BIO1E still applies and a separate biographical article is not justified, even if one takes his existence for granted. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing points to the notability of the subject of this article. There's not a single reliable source used. Fails GNG spectacularly. Also 1E. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the general notability guideline. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as non-notable individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G8 (this was turned into a redirect) and WP:CSD#G5 (the article for Amli (rapper) was speedily deleted as well). (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amli Rapper[edit]

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

Non notable musician. FITINDIA (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, block evasion by Himat1 (talk · contribs), who created several versions of this article a few days ago. --McGeddon (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amli (Singer) Amli (Rapper) previously deleted FITINDIA (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise, Clinton County, Missouri[edit]

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

No sources to support its existence. Seems to have been confused with Paradise, Clay County, Missouri. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax created by a now-blocked serial hoax creator. ~~The one variation from this editor's pattern was to start with a place that already had a Wikipedia article.~~ • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

correction. The Wikipedia article for the real place was just created. So this was the typical start from a real place and build a hoax on top of it. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crafty. I've removed it from the Clinton County article, too. 17:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I've removed from Clinton County infobox Fitnr 19:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Clay County appears to be the correct one per USGS GNIS. I'd say it was just confusion except the repeated hoaxed of the original author. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete How did we miss this when we blocked him? Several editors, including myself reviewed his contributions. Well, that goes to show you how much garbage this guy made. Kill it with fire. Smartyllama (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:MADEUP. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Like Dual Freq, I too would have assumed good faith as an innocent error if not for the creator's pattern of serial hoaxing. But it's almost a moot point, as this clearly doesn't actually exist and would therefore still have to be deleted regardless of whether it was a hoax or a good faith mistake. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 04:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Travel Services[edit]

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

Created by known sock puppet - same rationale as last AfD - Little known independant company, only one (sorta) notable source being BBC News, not really enough to warrant notability. Nordic Nightfury 13:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands little evidence of notability - I'm not convinced by the prurient coverage of its collapse even if it was in nominal RSes - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD WP:G5 Creations by banned or blocked users.
- User:Ibsiadkgneoeb indef blocked June 2014.[4]
- Article created by user:Busgb, August 2014‎.[5]
- Bugsb indef blocked as sock of Ibsiadkgneoeb.[6].

Also, article previously deleted as non-notable. A non-Notable defunct company is not realistically going to increase in Notability more than a decade after ceasing to exist. Alsee (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cultural globalization#Homogenization. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human Monoculture[edit]

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

Totally fails WP:OPINION, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:MADEUP. A personal reflection on colonialism, largely opinion with lots of odd claims and passages of personal poetic reflection like:

Our current global monoculture, for eyes that perceive light as we do, is visible from what we call outer space. Perhaps our lights are not so bright.

And as Medeis and Smurrayinchester have noted, a lot of simply false claims about the Yellowstone supervolcano and other topics. I considered speedying this but as my initial PROD was contested by the article creator I thought I'd seek consensus. Blythwood (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Religious extremism has long dominated European and Middle East cultures. Today they are heavily engaged in military conflict defined as the 1,600-year long Crusades.". This is an essay and not even a good one. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Though the term is, occasionally, used, I was unable to find a) a definition that's consistently applied or b) is consistent with this essay. An attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any difference between the topic of this article and that of Cultural globalization? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an essay with no salvageable parts to make into an article. "Our current global monoculture, for eyes that perceive light as we do, is visible from what we call outer space. Perhaps our lights are not so bright." Matt Deres (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the reference desk that Blythwood already linked. Smurrayinchester 13:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, a novel concept constructed by synthesis from other sources rather than a concept which is already published about outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of novel research, it should be merely a regurgitation of existing knowledge. Good luck to the author on getting this concept published in real, peer-reviewed sources, but Wikipedia shouldn't cover it until other sources have first. --Jayron 32 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Viennese Waltz 15:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Per Jayron32 and Kleuske+Matt Deres. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Redirect per 86 Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Author has added links to this article to a number of other articles, mostly in the See also section. Rmhermen (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsalvageable personal essay. Pretty much every sentence is wrong or not even wrong. Joe Roe (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A verbatim search of the term shows a paper from 1980, a large number of the remaining results quote this paper, or are polemical items with words like "Manifesto..." in their title. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the searches for this title linked above that tend to find a high proportion of reliable sources (Google Books and Google Scholar) find plenty of results that are not as you describe. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monoculture also refers to a farming technique, which most of the scholar hits for "human monoculture" seem to be referring to. Smurrayinchester 07:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - this is my rationale for not offering a redirect. "Human monoculture" sounds like agriculture. Blythwood (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that the two concepts are not unrelated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't. See Anthropocene. --Jayron 32 14:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cultural globalization. The content here is obviously complete bollocks, but nobody here has addressed the Google Books and Google Scholar results linked in the nomination statement, which show that this is a frequently used name for cultural globalization. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or Redirect as suggested above (and below). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural globalizaion, per ...157 above. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural globalization, per 86.17.222.157's findings. Both a GBooks search and a GScholar search show this is a concept often associated with cultural globalizaion and is a plausible search term. --Mark viking (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' if this is to be made into a redirect (which I do not oppose on principle) the target article should mention the term and have at least some reliable material on it. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is now briefly mentioned in Cultural globalization#Homogenization, with refs verifying. --Mark viking (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - please, blow this up and start over. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Silly - "we know for certain that our next Event will occur with the eruption of super volcano Yellowstone. Its last two eruptions terminated 90% of all life to a depth of 500 meters under the ocean surface of our planet". - redirect to Cultural globalization (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. Peridon (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean2dehands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article likely qualifies as A7 CSD. No credible indication of importance. Seven millionth most popular website seems pedestrian. Cotton2 (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like Cotton2 I tagged it as a speedy delete. Is it worth having this AfD debate or let it go as a speedy? My speedy tag is still patent. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection against a speedy deletion. Seems uncontroversial. Kleuske (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kesoram Industries Ltd.[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The two refs confirm that the company exists and that it issued a press release about a potential merger. Nothing else. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It exists. No significant coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources. ronaz ^Talk! 12:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actually, on balance keep - a quick GNews search found [7] as well as pages and pages of what appears to be actual coverage of their business dealings. The present article is terrible and needs rebuilding from the ground up, but I think they may indeed be not only notable, but noted - David Gerard (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company was founded in 1919, and it makes a good number of quality sources inaccessible on web. There are PR and ROUTINE coverage, but that is not all. There are sources like this one and hits on Google Books. Anup [Talk] 05:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesoram Rayon. I would recommend a merge here, if the main article is kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and redirected that subsidiary article -- subsidiary in both senses of the word -- to this main one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company is notable and the article provides adequate coverage (though can be improved). In addition, additional sources would help to solidify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtonslaw40 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam (2016 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM with no significant coverage in secondary sources - the secondary references given are about actors and only make passing references (if any) to a film of this title. McGeddon (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable film. Only the films' music seems to be covered widely. ronaz ^Talk! 12:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete criterion G5: the page was created by and all substantive contributions have been from a sockpuppet account and several likely related IPs. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nouman khan sherani. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Cox (footballer)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFOOTY, the soccer-specific notability guideline, because he neither played for nor managed a club in a fully professional league. There's no evidence of enough independent significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Struway2 (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article concentrates on his non-league managerial career. However this obituary [8] states that he played for Birmingham City early in his career, which if true could change things. Problem is, we're talking about the late 1940s here so online references are non-existent other than obituaries. Neiltonks (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec with comment below) He doesn't appear on List of Birmingham City F.C. players or either of its sublists. He isn't listed on Neil Brown's site or on Barry Hugman's website which lists all post-WW2 EFL/PL players. All this would point to his never having played first team football for the Blues. @Struway2: will probably be able to shed some more light..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to Tony Matthews' Complete Record books, no Harold Cox played first-team football for Birmingham. This page shows all Jimmy Scoular's Newcastle appearances. He played 9 times against Birmingham, all of which were League matches, and I checked the lineups for those matches individually in the Matthews books to see if he had appeared but had for some reason been omitted from the overall lists; he hadn't. I can only assume that, assuming he was remembering the encounter correctly, it must have been a reserve game. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY. @Neiltonks: If he had played for Birmingham's first team, he would be listed here or on this website – however, he isn't, so the match mentioned in the obituary was probably be a reserve team game (and it wasn't a cup game as Birmingham didn't play Newcastle in a cup until 1973–74). Number 5 7 12:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If additional sources can be located in Russian or Kyrgyz that would indicate notability, the article can of course be restored. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raimkul Attakurov[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable even if you are ambassador to Russia. he gets zero gnews coverage for his name in English. I tried searching his name in Russian and all I could find is a few small one line mentions. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassador of any country to Russia is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here we go again. Maybe you can actually look for sources which you never do in ambassador AfDs . There is no inherent notability of being ambassador to Russia. Several have been deleted including where you have previously !voted.

LibStar (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And others have been kept, as you know very well! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no inherent notability of being an ambassador to Russia as you know very well. And each ambassador AfD you make zero attempt to find sources that would establish WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's systemic bias against figures like Attakurov, who is ambassador from a former Soviet Republic to Russia, should give us pause before deleting such figures. We should solicit editors with Russian language skills to find information, which I believe definitely exists based on the importance of his position.--TM 17:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you have failed to explain how this person meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:DIPLOMAT. Dan arndt (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence in coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not meant to right wrongs, we do not create articles to force change in sources, we create articles that are based in coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOT and WP:DIPLOMAT.| Democratics ^Talk| How may I help you? 10:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that WP:DIPLOMAT is only an essay and not a widely accepted one at that. It is certainly not in any way approaching a policy or guideline. And how does the article fail WP:NOT? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 5 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 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel[edit]

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

As stated in the previous AfD, identical information is found in The Nexus (professional wrestling), The Corre, Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel. When the other AfD was closed over three years ago due to no consensus, there was an agreement that this information was redundant and that we needed to change something. We never did. I think we have better agreement on when tag teams warrant a separate article than we did then and can reassess this case. I believe this article is unnecessary as Slater and Gabriel never teamed outside of the larger factions. LM2000 (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would suggest that the "better agreement" is more a reflection of attrition--speaking for myself, I tend to avoid these discussions because of the sheer number some members of WP:PW put forward en masse as well as the endless arguments, as delete voters tend to get confrontational and want endless arguments instead of allowing closing administrators to weigh the arguments on their own. Easily enough reliable third-party sources to warrant a Wikipedia article. While I am fully aware that an argument about content forking will be invoked, the guideline says that it is okay for spin-off articles to be created to provide more detailed information about specific aspects of a topic. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like in the deletion discussion for Air Boom, this team does not meet WP:GNG. All of the sources in the article are from a primary source (WWE.com) or WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 04:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These two are 3 time wwe tag team champions, there is no reason to delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:F478:BDEB:F930:5BE6 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Their three championship reigns are detailed in four other articles.LM2000 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they don't need it, all the information could be included in the nexus and corre pages as a separate section. Browndog91 18:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Corre and The Nexus article can explain their partnership just as well since that's the only time they were an actual tema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:8897:1054:f8e8:79c4 (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No distinct notability as a team. The individual memebers, and the factions they were part of, yes, but these two specifically as a team, no. oknazevad (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I would buy this as notable if it were about the tag team of Dick Slater and Peter Gabriel (and I'd pay money to see that!). The keep voters make the same arguments that have been made in other AFDs, often the same people making the same argument, namely that the mere existence of citations pointing to reliable sources = evidence of notability. In other words, as far as they're concerned, the agenda of their cherry-picked sources automatically becomes our agenda and it matters little or none if that agenda extends to providing comprehensive coverage of what's notable about the topic of professional wrestling. There are simply far too many examples of what's wrong with that approach, so I won't dwell on such. However, one which stood out is the fact that we have Category:American Wrestling Association teams and stables which is reasonably well-populated, but no article on The High Flyers. Greg Gagne and Jim Brunzell teamed together and appeared on the top or middle of the card for close to a decade and a half, including many years in which the AWA regularly appeared in 15–20,000-seat arenas. I suppose none of that matters when compared with every little present-day fleeting trending topic mentioned by present-day fanboy news sites. Likewise, no article on The Crush Gals, who were absolutely freaking huge at the height of their popularity, while we do have an article on The Jumping Bomb Angels, who were nowhere near as big a deal but made a small handful of appearances on WWF television. Like I said, I could go on forever about that but would rather not. To sum it up, this approach begs the question: which part of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" requires further debate/discussion or deserves to be disregarded? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of films based on Marvel Comics. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Super Hero Adventures: Frost Fight![edit]

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

I could only turn up insignificant coverage in news media (IGN, which is not a major media outlet; WP:N This page in a nutshell: "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time") about this direct to video film. Information found from IGN could fit in table at List of films based on Marvel Comics (currently under discussion at Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics#Frost Fight). Spshu (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It is a good movie which had different Marvel characters in it. If we can at least get more sources and an expanded plot, we can get this page to be at the same state as the Marvel Anime films. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Rtkat3 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of films based on Marvel Comics, but with no objection to restoration when more sourcing becomes available. Right now there's just not enough to justify an article at this point in time. I found one review by CSM and two articles where it's trivially mentioned, but that's not enough to justify an article at this point in time. It's possible that it could get another review or two later this year, but we can't guarantee that per WP:CRYSTAL - it could be just as likely that Marvel will release something else to capitalize on the holiday season and this will be left in the dust. (Offhand though, I hope it becomes a cult classic because seriously - Loki vs Santa? XD) I think that redirecting this with history would be a good compromise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regardless of how big or small it is, it should still be kept. Curious George: A Very Monkey Christmas is arguably the bigger special, yet has significantly less detail than Frost Fright. It has very basic information, but it has the essentials that makes it worth keeping. It just needs more work. Like maybe a production section, as this has Captain Marvel, yet at that point in Assemble, she hadn't even joined the Avengers. It also doesn't involve Man of Action. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which is not a valid argument in this case. Frost Fight has to stand on WP:notability on its own. With out major reliable sources, which two editors indicate are there, it doesn't meet notability. With I have found, all of the info reasonably fit at List of films based on Marvel Comics. Spshu (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you want to add a description of what it's about, too, which just doesn't fit there. And the fact that I brought A Very Monkey Christmas up is because that is a page about a Christmas special that has even less than Frost Fight. Just because you don't see Frost Fight as page of notability, doesn't make it true. And you're the only one who's opposed this page. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, Tokyogirl79 supports the position that the film isn't notable now. I gave reason for it not being notable; you have not. Spshu (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you got me. I didn't see that, but to be honest, I'm just seeing a bunch of babbling just because it doesn't have a lot reviews. The fact that it's acknowledged is enough. This isn't just some random 22 minute episode. It's an hour special. Don't make a fuss about something there doesn't need to be a fuss about. Instead of arguing about its faults, you could help build the page like I've kept on saying, then it wouldn't look so insufficient. -- Tokyogirl79 just wants it deleted because Marvel will probably do another that leave this forgotten. We don't delete pages just because something newer comes along. There's no logic in that. Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk · contribs) has a point there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't have a point. Just the fact that it exists and is an hour special does not make it notable. The so called "babbling" is the fact that there isn't enough information to build the page to be sufficient. Just say that this information exists when others are telling you they looked and could not find enough is not a point, nor logical. Spshu (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of films based on Marvel Comics as the coverage it does get in reliable sources is limited and does not substantiate enough content to warrant its own separate article. Useful content can probably be merged as Spshu has suggested. —Mythdon 14:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Redirect to List of films based on Marvel Comics instead, as per WP:NOT| Democratics ^Talk| How may I help you? 10:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of films based on Marvel Comics. The subject is notable enough to be mentioned, but I couldn't find enough sources to say it's notable enough for it's own article. I wouldn't oppose merging the cast information to the list, although a new column would need to be added. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 nL Draft[edit]

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

This article has been in mainspace since 2012. I have looked into this, and as far as I can see, this is an "in-game" event in the WWE 2K series of Pro Wrestling video games. That's not an area I am familiar with, so I would ask for other editor's opinions. It may possibly merit a redirect; it may possibly be a CSD:A11 candidate. Or maybe something else. Shirt58 (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at all. Barely deserves a sentence about it in the game's article, let alone its own article. The list that makes up the majority of the article would violate WP:GAMECRUFT even in its parent article. I can't imagine this being a likely search term either. I imagine the only reason this article has existed this long is because of its extremely low visibility. It only receives about 1-5 views per day, quite possibly the lowest amount I've ever spot-checked like this... Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is clearly just some guys recording something they themselves did on a video game. One million percent non-notable, and certainly shouldn't be included in the article on the game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Clearly made up. Nikki♥311 23:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G2 and WP:G11. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Embarrassing that this hoax has stayed here as long as it has.LM2000 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Something from smackdown v raw 2006 I honestly don't know what the point of the article is. Browndog91 16:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete - Totally non-notable, and much of the info is fan-made. Only notability is the game itself and the draft picks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.188.136.234 (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of GMM episodes[edit]

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

The show is not well known enough for the individual episodes to be covered even in a list --and the language used is straight from the series promotion, including "we" DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT :-). No reason to have a list of episodes on an unremarkable show which does not have its own article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While Good Mythical Morning does not have its own article, the show is covered extensively at Rhett and Link § Good Mythical Morning. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- in any case, this is a WP:DIRECTORY of non notable episodes and is not useful in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Styr[edit]

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

An unremarkable Waffen-SS man; significant RS coverage cannot be found. What comes up is from extremely WP:QS source Richard Landwehr.

Similar to AfD:Christian Bachmann, the article was created in early 2009 using non WP:RS sources, such as Axishistory.com and frontjkemper.info: 2009 version. It was one of about 500 articles created around that timeframe by editor Jim Sweeney (now retired). The only reliable citations that can be found is Veit Scherzer's Knight's Cross Holders book to confirm the receipt of the award, but this is insufficient to overcome WP:BIO1E and lack of reliable sources.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). There's currently no consensus whether a single award of the Knight's Cross meets WP:SOLDIER #1, given that many were not awarded for valour and that too many were awarded overall (over 7,000).

Available sources on KC winners were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer), with an insightful contribution from editor Assayer, who provided historiographic perspective on the sources (Thomas & Wegmann; Krätschmer; others) that were mentioned in related discussions. Per available information, such sources, even if available on the subject (which is not certain), are non-RS for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With due respect to Assayer, that's one opinion. There are biographical entries on all these people in at least one of these multi-volume series by various authors in German, and yes, a series exists for Waffen-SS recipients. That, added to the other mentions in directories of KC recipients is, in my view, sufficient for GNG. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: this is the same argument as offered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Beck, without producing the source or making sure that the content indeed exists. (The article was ultimately deleted). In any case, even if the source were produced, that would have been a single entry related to WP:BIO1E and would not have been sufficient, as other sources (Fellgiebel, Scherzer) are trivial one line mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From 12 June 2003 to 4 January 2004, the Militärhistorisches Museum Flugplatz Berlin-Gatow, a branch of the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, and under the administration of MGFA, featured a special exhibition titled Das Eiserne Kreuz – Zur Geschichte einer Auszeichnung [The Iron Cross – The History of an Award]. At the museum, I bought a book by Thomas & Wegmann on this topic. In the lead, Thomas & Wegmann thanked the German Federal Archives, Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) and the MGFA for their support and contribution in making this book possible. The works of Thomas & Wegmann may not be sufficient to qualify a KC recipient for the notability criteria of Wikipedia (your call to make), but I would disagree to say that they are unreliable sources and I would also disagree they were not endorsed (at least in 2003 they were). Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I see that the Thomas & Wegman books were sold in the museum, and that the authors thanked the Archives in the preface of the book. The latter is a routine "thank you" that one would normally see for granting access; the former does not imply an endorsements. We'd need something stronger to support that these books were endorsed by the MFGA. Some reviews were provided in AfD of Heinrich Debus and they are very far from an endorsement. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my concern is not the r eliability of the sources so much as whether mere inclusion in them meets the threshold for notability at Wikipedia. Nothing in this article stands out from the other un of the mill KC recipient articles. If there are additional sources, I'd be happy to look at them and change my opinion, but I don't think the ones presented meet the notability guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Without clear evidence that he was remarkable. I am prepared to accept that Thomas & Wegmann may be a RS, but that does not make every recipient notable. In contrast the British Victoria Cross was rarely awarded, so that all recipients are likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as with Bachmann. I do not hold the Stackpole military history series in high esteem, but even in the respective volumes by Samuel Mitcham there is no information on Styr. Minus the standard sentence concerning the nature of the KC, which by the way only tells half of the story by passing over, among others, aspects of propaganda, prestige and favoritism, we just learn the most basic biographical data. Articles like this come close to a directory of KC recipients, something which Wikipidia is not.--Assayer (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith (musician)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NM. Sources are opinion pieces, blog posts. Ramaswar57 (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep : Enough sources to prove notability found. Zekejones11 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC) at last~~[reply]
— Zekejones11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking through !vote by banned sock. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Zekejones11, "enough" sources isn't the issue, it's whether those sources are of sufficient quality. There are a lot of links to blogs which don't meet Wikipedia verifiability criteria: the ESPN link is merely a redirect as to where to buy Wordsmith's track online. I'm not sure about the 1st Amendment and Review Fix sites, at the moment they look as though they might pass RS. Richard3120 (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by a banned promotional sockpuppeteer, !voted on above by a ~~suspected~~ confirmed sock SPA account, several references have been titles misleadingly so as to convey the impression that Wordsmith is featured in the headline when he is not. Article is mostly referenced with blogs that are not reliable sources. I count one bona fide RS, this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed any blog type sources and only have reputable newspaper sources though they are the online versions of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekejones11 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've combined the sources that are repeated throughout so we can see how many separate sources have been used: the question now is how many apart from the Baltimore Sun are RS... The DC Spotlight, The Baltimore Times and The City Paper all look like free local papers to me. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sailson Jose das Gracas[edit]

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

I still confirm my PROD here in that he is largely and only best knwon for this one case that not only simply got the largest coverage at that time, there's nothing to suggest any applicable notability aside from those events itself. I specifically examined and noted everything with my PROD and it still applies. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Claims to be a serial killer responsible for 42 deaths (which may well be true). Reported worldwide. Sounds pretty notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't that there has not been any apparent available information after the case, and it's all solely about the events themselves. SwisterTwister talk 14:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable nor ever will be. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any ongoing coverage or ~~references after 2014~~. Just a brief 15 minutes of fame. Not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no indications of on-going coverage or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yup, I can just imagine an article on a serial killer who murdered 42 people being deleted if he'd been operating in Britain or the United States. WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm not sure these crimes have been proven; pls see for example: Self-proclaimed serial killer arrested in Brazil, with language such as "purported", "claimed", ""We are now trying to trying to determine if he is the serial killer he says his or if he is making it all up." etc. Has there been any follow up? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been fully proven, but the implication from the reporting is that the police believe he's responsible for at least some of them. Even if he hasn't killed 42, he's probably still a serial killer and my previous comment stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could find Portuguese language sources that are ongoing, I think it would be enough to establish notability. The English language coverage doesn't, but I get the systemic bias argument. I'm not sure where the best place to look for the additional sources would be, but if they could be found, I'd definitely be open to striking my delete !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google news returns results in multiple language, and there's not been continuing coverage either in English or Portuguese. So WP:NOTNEWS applies, as this was a one-time spike of media interest due to suspect's (unproven) claims. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searched through the Google News again and found this as the latest Portuguese language piece [9] The very rough Google translate version of it doesn't seem to suggest anything other than the fact that the trial is going to a jury, but I thought I would share here since it was published a year after the latest coverage we'd previously identified (I've also struck my comment about 2014 being the latest above). Regardless, I'm still in favor of deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand to read the article that I can say it never actuslly says anything but that exact "going to a jury", and the fact that was a year ago, there's still nothing substantial because of that, especially because the available coverage is outweighing that by only being largest when the event actuslly happened itself. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I agree. I was just noting I found a later source than I mentioned above in case anyone else could find anymore. I'm still in favour of deletion unless additional ongoing coverage can be found. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. per good sources. most users here that !votes delete gives no reasons for it besides IDONTLIKEIT. which is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - I never commented the words or anything like that at all, any such presumptions are not relevant, and the Delete votes themselves acknowledge my stated concerns. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E case, the usual blaze of routine coverage that come from grisly events like this, and then nothing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 6 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. Sandstein 16:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outgrow.me[edit]

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

My extensively informed PROD was removed, and examining the newly added sources are finding the exact same thing: every single article contains puffery words such as "the company's success and successful" along with specific information about the company, its services, images of what they offer and other company activities. One of the things I'll note is that The Atlantic goes as far to only ever contain puffery words, there was no actual journalism happening let alone objective information. The Economist is particularly blatant with being covered in the businessman's words ("I’ve always been fascinated with technology, gadgetry, and innovation. For years now, I’ve been reading Technology news with my breakfast and watching every single TED video I can squeeze into my day. When Kickstarter entered the scene, it was everything I loved wrapped in one glorious website. After backing a variety of projects over the last year, I saw a need for a website that took over where Kickstarter and other crowdfunding platforms....Enter Outgrow.me", ""Outgrow.me has every chance of living to the name" (note this last quote is actually the end of the article, not an actual journalist's words, since it was clearly an exact company quote), there was no actual journalism there. This same article goes to then ask what the man's background and activities, are, that's glorified PR and advertising alone. No one actually reading that would say "it's substantial and sSimply because there is a major news source is not automatically suggesting it must be news, this is exactly why churnalism continues and this fits it. My specifics were noted as it is when I said that not only is this article ever focusing with only puffery, but that it was clearly and explicitly touched by PR agents. Note how not only has TheHuffingtonPost become a mass place for PR, the article in fact simply consists of an interview, where the person is only talking about the one thing: the company. As noted with my PROD, there is nothing here that goes to both independent notability and substance and non-PR source; so there's imaginably nothing to gain from actually showcasing supposed "news" if it's only PR and PR alone. The uses of all these listed articles wee clearly and essentially used to only advertise the business and services, this is shown by the fact the images contain flashy images, no genuine news would ever contain this if it actually intended to give genuine news. For additional specifications, I'll note the Czech article is also only using flashy contents and if's not even larger than a few limited paragraphs, that I'd also not actual journalism, instead it was an attempt to simply toss some information (granted information supplied by the company itself) to make it seem like news. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:WEBCRIT. Below are some sources based upon cursory source searches. It appears that additional sources are also available online. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"After the crowd leaves". The Economist. March 30, 2013. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
Garber, Megan (September 4, 2012). "The Afterlife of a Kickstarter Project". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
Carey, Bridget (January 14, 2013). "Outgrow.me: Easily track success of crowdfunded projects". CNET. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
"Outgrow.Me: Where Kickstarter Projects Go When They Mature". The Huffington Post. September 5, 2012. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
Čížek, Jakub (May 3, 2016). "Outgrow.me: Kupte si hotové výtvory z Kickstarteru – Živě.cz". Živě.cz (in Czech). Retrieved September 21, 2016.

Keep because I reviewed the refs on the article, the refs noted above, and did my own search to confirm that additional indy RS sources exists. The significant coverage meets WP:WEBCRIT. I would also like to thank the nominator for using the Streisand effect to bring our attention to so many interesting notable companies. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These personal comments aside, I will actually talk about the article since that's what we're here about, not to talk about what the nominator has supposedly caused or not; I explicitly examined the sources above and what they consisted of, the ones above are essentially the same thing, so it's not actually a lot of convincing from that, if the best that can be offered....are the same exact ones. Simply stating that my comments are whatever they may be, is not the same thing as actually acknowledging I have commented the concerns of the sources. "indy RS sources" cannot be fit to what these sources in fact are, because the sources themselves, again, state PR and PR-based information, we cannot count that as simply being acceptable because of the website it comes from and how major that website is. Seeing the Atlantic again, "Some of the products you can purchase now include [followed by named companies]...On the one hand, Outgrow.me is both simple and inevitable: It's a catalog fit for the Kickstarter era. It sells, like any standard catalog does, knickknacks of varying value and utility -- some junky, some fantastic, some junky and fantastic at the same time. What's interesting about it, though, is that Outgrow.me is as much about selling a production process as it is about selling products. Its hook, and its commercial logic, leverage the way its wares came into being -- through crowdfunding, and through the particular brand of community-focused commercialism that Kickstarter and Indiegogo represent. Outgrow.me, in that sense, acknowledges what every user of Kickstarter already knows: that when you fund, or buy, a Sonastand for your phone, or an Airslab for your laptop, or a Freaker koozie for your beer ... you're not just buying a thing. You're buying into a thing". that is essentially a sales pitch there by comparably listing other companies, the tone of it speaks from what a PR agent would say, not an uninvolved journalist. The supposed CNET review says: " Outgrow.me features a visual directory of successful crowdfunded darlings, which you can browse according to availability -- such as projects available now or those still in preorder status. Any projects currently seeking money won't even show up on the site, meaning Outgrow acts as an easy way to wade through all of the noise and buy some potentially cutting-edge products ready for prime time", that's all things only a list of clients and investors want to know about, not uninvolved and neutral people. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:SIGCOV in The Economist, The Atlantic, and Inc. There are three highly credible and authoritative periodicals. Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comment above is not taking into consideration or even noticing how I specifically analyzed the sources listed above. The Inc. itself is clearly a PR attempt since it focuses with the company's plans and what they are, which include their funding and finance activists. None of that is substantial or significant and should not be mistaken as such simply because they come from a known new source, there is no compromise of accepting PR even if it has the sheerness of being veiled as "news". These are stated facts as shown by analyzing the sources above. This Inc article itself lately focuses with the people involved, the investing and everything else there is to advertise that information. Once we start accepting articles with advertisements, that is when Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but instead a PR website. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding onto the references given above and in the article, here are a few more: Belfast Telegraph (HighBeam), Yahoo News, ACM DL Digital Library (possibly paid), TheNextWeb, and finally, CNet. There are many more on the News tab in an "outgrow.me" search. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and analysis - Not only is the comment above actually acknowledged one of the listed sources may be paid PR (they even go as far to then say "the sources included above", but this comment never actually acknowledges any single concern listed, despite I listed them multiple times), but I'll note the Yahoo! News is actually a company-supplied information "article" as it is, with the information clearly coming from the website itself, "Kickstarter and Indiegogo are great crowd-funding sites for entrepreneurs, but they’re also very trendy now. For every awesome product on each site there are dozens of, well, not-so-awesome products. Outgrow.me makes it easy to view the best products these two sites have to offer using a great design that is easy to navigate....As an added bonus, Outgrow.me addresses one of the biggest problems among crowd-funded products. Since a lot of great (and well-funded) products don’t ship on time, the site has an option to only view items that are “orderable” today." (going from named mentions of other companies to services and then about shipping and buying, that's not new, that's PR). That is a sales pitch and a pitch alone; that was not even close to actual journalistic efforts. I am unable to see the Belfast Telegraph article, but for something that (1) was not even mentioned in the first paragraphs, suggests it was not that major a story for this particular company, and also (2) the fact it seems to focus with websites overall, suggesting it will, again, likely be focused with technology and websites, not this particular company. TheNextWeb hardly actually mentions the company a few times (5 simple mentions, not longer than a few included mentions in sentences), let alone it actually being in-depth coverage. The last one, CNET, although listed with a named journalist, started with "The new Web site Outgrow.me features a visual directory of successful crowdfunded darlings, which you can browse according to availability -- such as projects available now or those still in preorder status. Any projects currently seeking money won't even show up on the site, meaning Outgrow acts as an easy way to wade through all of the noise and buy some potentially cutting-edge products ready for prime time" and then finishes with "Outgrow.me sells....". It's concerning that none of the Keep vote have even considered this yet they listed this as being "significant and substantial coverage", but it only took me a few seconds to minutes to quickly find everything there was to actually say about those articles (I'll note the comments never even came close to actually mentioning or acknowledging my extensive PROD), therefore these Keep votes are still outweighed by my extensive analysis above, no other comments have attempted to satisfy the actual concerns, and again, simply stating that this or that major news source happened to mention the company, is not actually amounting to substantial and significant news, especially if they are simply shoehorned mentions or PR. If these comments are not soon acknowledging the concerns especially the new analysis above, a relist may benefit as so a fuller consensus and attention can be obtained. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Delete. The style of the article is advertising since the only other sentene is sayng one of other 50 best webistes in 2013. In the references, Laughing Squid is a blog, Noah Nelson is an interview and non notable journalist and Alexa Internet is a site ranking site. Alexa internet alone isn't notable. It is just a scale, comparable to a 0-100 in an academic setting. The further reading does not do much justice. Never mind the one in the Czech Language, the articles are more of promotional tone such as the piece by the Economist. It says "THOUSANDS of products have been made using seed money obtained via crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo. Yet once the money is raised, and products created and shipped to initial backers, designers have a new problem: how to sell their wares to new customers. Sam Fellig has an answer in Outgrow.me.". really??? It reads someone had paid someone to put this piece on post so someone can read it. It really reads as something that would needs some Pr coverage in order to drive in coverage. Anyways, delete. Pyrusca (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To state the obvious, like with today's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeopleStrong, there was consensus like here, that the sources and merely asserting they exist, are not the convincing claims needed alone to actually suggest this is notable and acceptable; what I have stated above with my analysis have not been counterchallenged, therefore they are presumed to be taken seriously, and therefore the Keep votes have not considered or acknowledged the concerns listed. I have explicitly listed the PR concerns, and like the Delete vote above that cared to actually also specify and concur with the analysis, no matter what the Keep comments suggest, they themselves have not actually gone to deep analysis (again, like the PeopleStrong AfD, which in fact had). SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The sources I provided above are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Sources that provide positive coverage about topics are not automatically "pr" as some sort of default. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there are no indications of notability or significance; the entire article is literally this:

Outgrow.me is an online marketplace for products that have been successfully funded on crowdfunding platforms. The company is based in New York.^[1] It was selected as one of the 50 best websites 2013 by Time Magazine.^[2]

References

^ EDW Lynch (August 31, 2012). "outgrow.me, A Marketplace For Successfully Funded Kickstarter & Indiegogo Projects". Laughing Squid. Retrieved June 6, 2013.
^ Doug Aamoth (May 1, 2013). "50 Best Websites 2013". Time Magazine. Retrieved June 6, 2013.

Even for such a short article, it manages to be entirely WP:PROMO; the only purpose for the article to exist on such a non-notable entity is to serve as a promotional platform. The sources offered above confirm that the company exists, but not much else. I don't believe it's in the best interest of the project to accept advertorial articles on insignificant subjects, as volunteer editors' time would be wasted trying to maintain neutrality of this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead cat[edit]

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

This dab page is 100% partial matches. The only real dead cat is apparently a sound-absorbing cover for a microphone~~, which isn't even on this list~~. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I don't feel enormously strongly about the matter, I think this page is helpful. The dead cat microphone cover is on the list and the word "windscreen" has been added to the title rather by way of disambiguation. Similarly "dead cat bounce" and "dead cat stock" are two descriptive titles where "dead cat" is the operative adjectival phrase which can also be used as a noun in itself. The expression "dead cat rebound" is also used.[10] There is also a dead cat strategy for which there could be an article.[11][12] but the word "strategy" isn't crucial here – it could be "tactic" or "ploy". Personally, I wouldn't have included Schrodinger's cat but I wouldn't go and remove it either. Thincat (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've just added another entry – a series of best-sellers. Boris's dead cat strategy has potential too. Andrew D. (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That entry is precisely what dab pages are supposed to exclude: see WP:PTM. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense in this context and, as WP:PTM is just a guideline, we are quite free to have exceptions if they don't seem appropriate. The history of this page is that it started as a redirect to cat, then the redirect was shifted around to other pages. In such a case of reasonable multiple choices, the page we have seems a good aid for the reader who is looking for one of these topics but can't recall the exact title. Deletion would clearly make matters worse. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a disambiguation page, and only has to meet the standards of disambiguation pages of disambiguating different meanings, which it does. —Lowellian (reply) 18:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, User:Andrew Davidson makes a good point above about how a disambiguation page is better than a shifting redirect given that there are multiple reasonable choices. —Lowellian (reply) 19:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a useful navigation tool, which is what a dab page is. WP:PTM is not a hard and fast rule, as attested to by the thousands of useful dab pages that don't strictly follow it. It's certainly not a reason to outright delete the page. — Gorthian (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have guidelines at all then? The fact that thousands of dab pages need cleanup is beside the point. E.g. Schrodinger's cat is never called Schrodinger's dead cat. (At best, it would be a maybe dead, maybe alive cat.) The band isn't shortened to the Dead Cats AFAIK (unlike the Stones), nor is the book. Adjectives don't count either (show me where stock analysts talk about dead cats), which leaves just a microphone cover. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't violate the guideline. The guideline states "where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference", and dead cat can indeed refer to the various subjects. I've heard Schrödinger's cat referred to as the dead cat thought experiment plenty of times. Regarding "show me where stock analysts talk about dead cats", here are some examples: [13], [14], [15], [16]. —Lowellian (reply) 20:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A dab page at Xxy isn't there to provide a rigorous reference list of things known precisely as Xxy (for that kind of info belongs in articles and on wikidata), its purpose is to be an aid to navigation (and to make that navigation easier is what guidelines like WP:PTM exist for). If an entry could be what a user might reasonably be looking for, then it has a place on the dab page. Uanfala (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uanfala: No. Please get yourself familiar with WP:MOSDAB. If you disagree with what it says, please try to introduce the change you want into the guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Staszek Lem, is there a specific bit of MOS:DAB that goes against what I said? As for what can and can't go on a dab page, there is one section that maybe you would like to get yourself familiar with – MOS:DABSEEALSO. Uanfala (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uanfala "See also" is OK with me here. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Web Automation Markup Language[edit]

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

This article does not appear to be about a notable topic. I have searched for sources, and all I can find is the GitHub page of the project itself (which is also the only reference used in the article). Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 05:51, 21 September 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 September 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This language seems to be a fork of the already borderline relevant Automation Markup Language and is apparently yet another XML derivation of which many exists. It is very recent, the first contributions to github started this January. There is 0 reception of this markup-language to be found, Google has 20 results, all of them repositories. Currently it sits at version 0.2. Has been created by a single purpose account. It therefore fails WP:GNG and specifically relatable SNG like WP:WEB and/or WP:WP:NSOFTWARE. Dead Mary (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No coverage found in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patti Dunn[edit]

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

The sources here are almost all local coverage fluff articles from the Atlanta newspaper. I think to argue that Dunn is important we would either need coverage that is fully about just Dunn and not in light of beauty pageant competition, or coverage of a significant nature that comes from outside of metro-Atlanta. I could find neither. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? There is no reason the coverage cannot be local for a biography, as long as the sources are reliable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: I agree with Megalibrarygirl because Atlanta Journal is considered a reliable source. According to the lead there is no notability "...competed in the Miss USA pageant and has held a number of other pageantry titles.", but apparently the subject (in the body) won Miss Georgia USA 2000 and placed 4th in the Miss USA 2000. I disagree that just winning Miss Georgia USA and taking part in a TV reality episode gives notability for an article. Otr500 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Atlanta coverage is a major metro area, that's adequate to meet "significant". There is some debate over whether just winning a state pageant confers notability, but she's gone a bit farther than that, she's at least a B-list tabloid semi-celebrity. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable pageant contestant. Sources are weak with The Atlanta Journal covering the subject because it was her hometown as I understand. Nothing more than "local person gets award". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Would we say the same if a Miss New York was covered in the New York Times? Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the same situation: "local person gets award". If would be different if NYT covered, say, Miss Oregon. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find that unpersuasive. Atlanta is a major metro area, the major papers don't waste time on Little League. Montanabw^(talk) 08:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Risk Management Academy[edit]

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

Sources are SPS, passing mentions, or an obvious paid/placed piece like this. Fails GNG and is basically an advertisement for the academy. This appears to be third time this article was created since mid-August, based on notices on the creator's talk page here. WP is not a directory Delete and salt. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an avertorial. Salt too as it's unlikely to become notable in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is far from satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. I would suggest salting the title as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jassim Haji[edit]

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

Delete Fails Notability Test, person is certainly known, but does not pass the notability test outlined in wikipedia, news articles are either related to the employer, also the article reeks of self-promotion. His talks and interviews are done as an executive of the company, so it might be a good idea to the content of this page as part of the company. Seektrue (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a previous discussion on this page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Jassim Haji. clpo13_(talk) 16:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. Wikipeida is not LinkedIn for hosting of subjects' resumes. The article does not present any indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Gallagher's debut studio album[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about an album that's not due to be released until next year, and which at this point remains sourceable almost entirely to Twitter and YouTube rather than to reliable source coverage. The time for a Wikipedia article about a forthcoming album is when we know the title, the exact release date and the complete track listing. No prejudice against recreation when those details are all confirmed, but we have a rule that if you have to give the article a placeholder title, because the subject's actual title isn't even known yet, then it's not time for an article yet. Bearcat (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:HAMMER. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^talk 03:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Janki Mandir[edit]

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

Non-notable temple article to promote a family. Most contents are unsourced. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of many Ram Jankis' of India. Anup [Talk] 08:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Written in wrong format, has no sources. Lacks WP:NOT despite the external Twitter and Facebook links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democratics (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Age : Throne Of Purvakhand[edit]

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

I came across this as an WP:A11 nomination, however since it's a book it doesn't qualify under any of the current criteria. (However there is an attempt to add this as a criteria here, albeit only for books self-published via specific publishers, where the author has no article and there is no assertion of notability.)

There's nothing out there to show that this self-published book is ultimately notable enough for an article. The author doesn't have an article, nor does he seem notable enough to warrant one. This looks to be your typical non-notable self-published book. I wish the author well, but this just doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been created by the author himself with 0 references. The novel is not notable. It has been recently released in August. It is self published and there is 0 reception about it, not even by non-RS sources. Google gives a few dozens links to wiki mirrors and amazon where he sells it in the kindle shop. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK in all points and should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable sources which would evidence notability under GNG or NBOOK. --joe decker ^talk 03:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MetrixLab[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The only references listed in the article are directory sites and press releases, which fail WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 13:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shoy, I have since been back over the article and have removed any press releases, for example articles from PR News Wire. I am not too sure what is meant by directories? Theodone (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a Bloomberg.com profile, for instance, listed as a source is not impressive. All the ResearchLive sources are press releases also. I would suggest reading WP:RS for descriptions of what reliable sources look like so. shoy (reactions) 13:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The listed awards look routine in the sector (top 50s for growth, innovation, etc.) and most of the references are passing coverage of routine announcements involving the firm. One possible exception is the bylined GreenBook Blog piece which discussed the implications of the announcement of this firm's takeover by another (which has no article here, or a redirect would be an option) and concludes that together they are a contender with "the potential to go toe-to-toe not only with the Big 4 full service firms" in their sector. Although speculative, this could go some way towards WP:CORPDEPTH but not I think far enough. AllyD (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllyD, I have now updated my references so that they provide more value from sites which would not be considered Press Release sites. Please also see that I have removed absolutely any content which could be considered promotional in tone, if you find another example please let me know. I have also included an additional Key Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodone (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite to Macromill or Macromill Group. The Japanese company is a sizable and notable organization in the research market. It operates through some 9 brands for which we do not need individual articles. gidonb (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Macromill Article. Perfect Gidonb, I am going to prepare an article for the macromill group. i will update this deletion talk page once it is up.Theodone (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great then better call it Macromill Group. Short names generally have the preference but here Macromill is only one of the brands. If and when the group concentrates all or most activity under the Macromill nomer in the future, then Macromill would be the preferred name. gidonb (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Article in Addition to a Potential Macromill Group Article . I would like to make an argument to keep the MetrixLab article in addition to a potential Macromill Group article in the future. My main reasons for this argument are notability. MetrixLab are a multi-national brand operating in 28 offices worldwide. As noted in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), a company or organisation is considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. This is a guideline which MetrixLab fully conform to, having cited references from independent sources such as Green Book Blog, Endeit, Emerce, Computable, and Destination CRM, if there are specific issues with my individual references then please let me know.

Furthermore, it had been suggested I prepare a Macromill Group article which this MetrixLab article could then be merged with. Having started to prepare a Macromill Group Article, it has become more and more clear how much of an important role MetrixLab play within the Macromill Group of Companies. For example, many of the brands within the Macromill Group were either acquired by or merged with Metrixlab either prior to becoming a Macromill group company or in order to become a Macromill Group Company. The role MetrixLab play within the larger Macromill brand is vital.

The final point I would like to make is that I have now updated quite a few of my references to make sure they are as independent and as reliable as possible, staying away from any press release or directory sites, as well as using references from the company’s website as little as possible. I believe I only include the one reference to the MetrixLab.com site now which lists all of their office locations. Please let me know if you find any references which would be deemed unsuitable. Theodone (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Article in Addition to a Macromill Group Article Company is significant enough to merit it's own article from what I can see from google searches of news. I don't read/write Dutch so it is hard to evaluate quality of the sources currently supporting the article. User:Theodone I suggest you add more sources from reputable international/national media in English (from a quick google search I can see there are many references about the company that could be used). As this article is on English Wikipedia, and editors commenting likely don't read/write Dutch, that will help to establish notability and hence it's rightful place on wikipedia. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly "corporate spam". With content such as this (right in the lead):

"... agency focussed (sic) on helping businesses with product innovation, brand engagement and customer value. Working with large organisations and charities, MetrixLab maximise digital, mobile, social and big data to deliver insights at scale"

....this article is not in compliance with WP:NOT. The language is poetic: "deliver insights at scale"; "customer value"; "all over the world" (and that's just from the lead). The rest of the article is not much better, with external links in body & list of non-notable awards (hallmark of WP:PROMO articles). The subject shows no indications of notability or significance, with sources being very unconvincing. The article exists solely to promote the business, rather than provide encyclopedic content.

Accepting such advertorial articles on insignificant subjects is not in the best interest of the project. Furthermore, volunteer editors' time would be wasted on trying to maintain neutrality of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advertising. The intro reads like a product brochure. The body is filled with puffery. Notability is unconvincing. WP:TNT - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Updated References & Removing “Poetic Language") -- Please see that I have now updated my references so that they are all in English. I most definitely agree that the company is significant enough to merit its own article, I think a Macromill Group Article would also be of benefit. This article provides encyclopaedic coverage of the company, consolidating multiple online resources in to one article.

I have gone back over the wording within the lead paragraph and have removed anything which I would consider “Poetic”, however, I am not entirely sure what is meant by this so let me know if I have missed anything. With Regards to the awards section – although the listed awards may not be of significance in a general sense, they are of significance within the industry. I have reduced the amount of awards so I only feature the most significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodone (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The second sentence is "Providing businesses with analytics solutions and marketing research services, MetrixLab maximise digital, mobile, social and big data in order to deliver actionable insight." If you think this is acceptable and non-promotional, this suggests you literally don't understand what is and isn't promotional language or an encyclopedic writing style - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi David, It was more the term “Poetic” which had me stumped. Please see that I have now updated this sentence. Thanks.Theodone (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For goodness sake. There is not one good source available. Every single source is unreliable or of questionable independence. I do not see secondary coverage of the awards either. At no point does this satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Lemongirl942, are you able to explain further why every single source is unreliable? Of course, I want to use the most valuable/reliable references possible so it would be good to hear what makes the current references so unreliable. Where possible I will try to find additional/replacement references. Theodone (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed article about the company in major newspapers would help. I don't see that here though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:46, 7 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. Sandstein 16:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Ward (magician)[edit]

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

non-notable, clearly appears to be a minor magician Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Although a weak one based on a dearth of notable printed sources cited in the article. But his part in the Young Magicians Showcase got coverage in Entertainment Weekly and on Access Hollywood, and that counts for a lot for an entertainer. A deep google search shows he has performed on multiple notable shows/venues/media appearances, not in trivial ways but in spotlighted feature or guest slots. So although I'm usually a stickler for more press from notable sources to remove any doubt of notability, I think the rest of it adds up enough to squeak by as a qualified subject for a wikipedia article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable magician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" makes no policy-based argument. Sandstein 16:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bahadır Karasu[edit]

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

Turkish film director, the man behind the featurettes Un Pueblo Donde Dios No Existe and Ultimum (both up for AFD); judging from .tr searches he may be making his living as a stage actor in smaller roles, but in any case he fails both WP:CREATIVE as well as WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. — Sam Sailor 16:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 16:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 16:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep young ambitious filmmaker. No harm to see him on wiki.Qohen2014 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 comments questioning the basis of the one "keep" have not been addressed. Sandstein 16:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6 Day Riot[edit]

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

Largely unreferenced and non-notable band. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 14:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that this subject was discussed in The Times, I'd have to say do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxhistorian (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxhistorian, has it really been discussed by the times? If you mean the source in the article, it's behind a pay wall, but google cache shows that it's "Everything Explained" part of Times Online and not actual coverage by a journalist. In fact, that whole article is a clone of this wiki article, even including itself as a source. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage seems to be of their former frontwoman, and notability is not inherited. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like issues have been resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bompiani[edit]

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

Even if its notable it is ain't a proper article, I would suggest moving to Draft space if not delete Varun FEB2003 10:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it;s a famous publisher, but it needs sources; if there is a problem finding them, it can be merged into the article for the parent company. We do not remove articles just because they are incomplete; nor dowe needto move them to draft space, and in factwe can work on them better in main space where more people will see them. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a famous publisher (although it may still make sense at some point to merge it into another article.) It appears to be an imprint of Arnoldo Mondadori Editore that according to this brief blurb was expected to be sold this month (with Amazon one of the possible buyers). See Reuters. See also this and this. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Pls see below; Original comment: ...to Valentino Bompiani. The target article is in a sorry state itself, but the subject itself is notable; pls see: Google book results, especially Censorship and Literature in Fascist Italy. Unless someone volunteers to improve the Bompiani article under discussion, I'd say redirect for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping DGG & Safehaven86 to see what you guys think about the redirect idea, to Valentino Bompiani. Pls see my comments above. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one practical way of handling it. It would be even better to find sources for a separate article, and i think given a knowledge of appropriate Italian sources it could be done. Looking at Safehaven's references (including one by Umberto Eco, no less) , the firm was originally part of RCS , not Mondadori though perhaps Mondadori bought i tin 2015 and is now trying to sell it in 2016 --(and it is not listed on Monodadori's list of imprints on its website. I think this is enough for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think you're correct that Mondadori bought it last year and sold it this year. Because of this, I think it's best that it has its own article, since if we decided to do a redirect we'd have to decide where to redirect it to, and that would be a bit confusing given how it has bounced around as an imprint of different publishers over the years. I don't think it makes sense to redirect to Valentino Bompiani because I think it's unlikely that people looking for information on an active publisher are going to find what they want on a biographical page. As it stands, I'd say lets improve the Bompiani page. I'll see if I can give it a start. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being a notable publisher and hopefully article improvements in the near future, per above discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: great improvements and citations from ‎Safehaven86 -- thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was really fun to do research on this publisher. Quite an interesting history. I'm going to check the news for who ends up buying it--looks like it should be sold by the end of the year based on the anti-trust ruling. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a legitimate article, though there are ATTACK elements in it relating to the former Prime Minister of Italy. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Panasonic Corporation products[edit]

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

advertising, outdated and potentially far to big to be of any use The Banner talk 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT -- dated and not useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A perfect candidate for delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This information goes on the company website or Wikia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York Fishing Records[edit]

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

Fancruft, fails WP:GNG, possible copyvio of http://www.landbigfish.com/staterecords/records.cfm?state=Illinois The Banner talk 12:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft, or if absolutely necessary, move to Fishing in New York. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 13 September 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, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While "fancruft" is not a good deletion reason, lack of notability and NOTSTATS are. Despite the low input, I am going to close this as unqualified delete given the copyright concerns - an alphabetic list of fish by size is unlikely to carry a copyright due to lack of originality, but other similarities such as in text may, and the treshold is really low. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Fishing Records[edit]

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

Fancruft, fails WP:GNG. Possible copyvio of http://www.landbigfish.com/staterecords/records.cfm?state=Illinois The Banner talk 12:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 14 September 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, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a copyright violation. Everything in the article is copied from the website. If not considered a violation, WP:NOTSTATS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PNT Singing Idol[edit]

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

advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I received a message that an article is being considered for deletion, but didn't see any rationale given for deletion. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RWIR (talk • contribs)

You can find the rationale a few lines up, but it is advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 01:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would respectfully disagree, it is not advertising, but rather the beginning words are a statement of fact - in a culture that prizes musicality and singing, this was the largest western Canadian singing contest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RWIR (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that discuss PNT Idol or persons associated with PNT Idol: http://news.abs-cbn.com/global-filipino/05/26/10/singing-contests-showcase-pinoy-talents-canada http://www.gmanetwork.com/international/articles/2011-10-20/5/PNT-Singing-Idol-2011-Season-IV-Unveils-Grand-Winners http://www.mrtimes.com/news/317840311.html?mobile=true https://alexpvidal.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/pnt-singing-idol-season-5-blasts-off-in-march/ http://www.mapleridgenews.com/entertainment/128704568.html?mobile=true http://www.pep.ph/celeb/media/3729/iza-calzado-to-make-an-appearance-at-the-pnt-singing-idol-2011-in-vancouver-canada http://www.insidevancouver.ca/2011/09/14/prizes-discounts-more-at-summer-night-markets-finale-weekend/ http://pinoynewsonline.info/gma-pinoy-tv-pnt-singing-idol-concert-at-richmond-night-market-august-13-2011/

As far as I can determine, all are independent of the Philippine Asian News Today, or Reyfort Media, the sponsors at different times of this singing contest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RWIR (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Reale[edit]

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

Not notable either as a poet or a librarian. No major reviews orprizes forthe poetry, two trivial books as a librarian DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found the following reviews, of her poetry: jmww journal - "This is Not a Situation in Which You Should Remain Calm, After spending more time with the collection, I appreciate Reale's reasoning: the denseness speaks to the main character's stunted, resigned perspective. The poems look heavy because they are heavy."[17], Prick of the Spindle - "Natural Habitat by Michelle Reale (Scott Review), As an object, Natural Habitat is irresistible. .. Reale gives us emotional images, free of pretense and excuse."[18], and "Natural Habitat by Michelle Reale (McKnight Review), In Natural Habitat, Michelle Reale confronts the issue of “true home .. Reale’s stories are constructed with a directness that cuts to the emotional quick and reveals the often-guarded intricacies of domestic behavior and feeling."[19];

and of her book Becoming an Embedded Librarian: Making Connections in the Classroom (which with this many reviews, meets WP:NBOOK): College & Research Libraries - "However, if you are looking to clear the fog around this interesting and important concept in library services, Michelle Reale’s book is a coherent and well-organized discussion of the various aspects of embedded librarianship reinforced with details of her personal experiences as well as lists of practical strategies. .. This volume will make a handy addition to any instruction librarian’s bookshelf"[20], American Libraries Direct - "Aiding Student Research, Reale reports her stumbles, failures, and successes, and confirms that building relationships with students through the classroom yields better researchers than “one-shot” instruction."[21], AUC Robert W. Woodruff Library Staff Publications reviews it[22], Endnotes: The Journal of the New Members Round Table (an ALA journal) - "Reale draws upon her experiences to challenge librarians to reinvent their practice and shed the auxiliary relationship to faculty. .. Whether you are new to the practice and concepts or possess experience as an embedded librarian, Becoming an Embedded Librarian offers value to all librarians with a passion for moving themselves out of the library."[23], Library Journal - "The author makes a strong case that successful embedding can further demonstrate the value of the library profession to faculty and students. VERDICT A concise and lucid treatment of the topic. Highly recommended for instruction librarians working at academic libraries and teaching faculty who have librarians embedded in their courses.", and School Library Connection - "This is a professional level book geared to the librarian embedded in a research classroom. .. I see aspects of this as an activity being very successful in a high school setting as well as at the college level."[24], Reflective Teaching - "It would be easy to become intimidated while reading Michelle Reale’s book. It isn’t just her wealth of practical knowledge and hard won experience that may intimidate the reader, it is the daunting nature of embedded librarianship (EL) itself. .. There was one small negative. It is not evident from the cover that the book discusses only in-class embedding. .. But considering the value of the rest of the work these are minor concerns."[25], Canadian Library Association Digest - " Here, Reale shares her own university classroom experiences to offer a step-by-step primer for those contemplating the practice. .. Readers will feel confident applying the lessons learned from Reale's first-hand account to their own experiences both in and out of the classroom"[26], so this looks like a keep but would like some other editors to weigh in on the useability or other wise of the above reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pushcart prize nominations and the rather extensive list of reviews are adequate to meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per available reviews. Notability is borderline, but I believe the threshold has been met. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice sourcing by Coolabahapple. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, weak keep, one librarian is good enough for me, although i would appreciate DGG, as another librarian, commenting on the library publications' reviews that i provided above. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never or almost never in my life seen an unfavorable book review from them. I've written many book reviews for library journals. The convention is to say something nice, or if the review has to have negative elements, make sure there are are quotable portions also that sound enthusiastic. Of the 4 review sources mention, only the LJ review could even attempt to be taken seriously. An article here accumulating quoted excerpts fro a wider range of sources good and bas is a trick used to promote a book, and whenever I see it in WP, I thing "overkill" to disguise the fact that not one of it is important. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks DGG, i have turned my above keep into a weak keep due to concerns with the reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has published a number of print books, of which the "embedded librarian" book shows close to 400 holdings (WorldCat), but all her poetry books show only either a single or 2 holdings. Reviews are blogs, for example from the Times of Sicily source: "Times of Sicily, a blog committed to providing coverage of Sicilian news and topics spanning..." According to convention, these aspects fall short of demonstrating notability in the humanities. I will also remind panelists here that we have never counted being nominated for an award toward notability, so Pushcart is irrelevant. Taken with the fact that almost the whole article is OR and was SPA-created (suggesting fanpage or autobio), there is unlikely to be any other acceptable sourcing that would conclusively indicate notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Agricola44,"we have never counted being nominated for an award toward notability" - WP:ANYBIO - "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is one of those situations that requires reasonable interpretation. When I say "we have never counted", what I mean is that, in practicality, this simply doesn't come up, at least not in my long-standing experience at AfD. Why? First, for awards for which nomination is itself an actual symbol of achievement, even if one doesn't win (think of the Oscar, for example, in that the nomination lists are widely covered/documented prior to the award announcement), that person is always notable on lots of other accounts, so this is never even given as a reason. Indeed, such cases rarely, if ever come up here at AfD. Conversely, this case is the flip-side of the coin. With the Pushcart Prize, publishers are allowed to submit (nominate) groups of their own authors. The obvious incentive for presses to maximize their own chances means there is no notability associated with being nominated, irrespective of whether one considers Pushcarts to be both well-known and significant. Nominees are not covered, nor are the lists even public knowledge, AFAIK (so that would seem to be obvious OR in the article). So, yes, the reasonable interpretation is Pushcart nomination is irrelevant here. I agree with DGG that most of those reviews are likewise irrelevant. I think your "weak keep" is pretty charitable, given the at-best-shaky-sources on this one. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen daniela[edit]

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

Until and unless some sort of independent coverage emerges - and no, that doesn't include carmendaniela.de, or the websites of the venues where the subject has performed - this should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a recreation of the PRODed Carmen Daniela, by the SPA creator of that article. I suspect autobiography - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone finds something substantive in Romanian: not a word of text about her in any of the five albums listed on AllMusic [27], there's some concert listings... an interview here but the site looks to be a blog. Basically fails WP:MUSICBIO at the moment. Might need salting if this is deleted and the article is recreated yet again. Richard3120 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The National (band). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron and Bryce Dessner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aaron and Bryce Dessner (2nd nomination)

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

I am repeating the original nominator Aaron and Bryce have individual Wikipedia pages. It makes most sense to direct all traffic to those pages. This joint page is confusing and the information is repetitive of the information on their individual pages. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band they are in, not notable enough outside the band to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band per Johnpacklambert. We definitely don't need standalone WP:BLPs of them as individuals, a separate article about them as a duo and an article about the band that they're notable for being in. It is a remotely plausible search term in its own right, as they have done a couple of compilation album tracks under this name rather than as the band per se, but it doesn't need a standalone article of its own as a separate topic from the other three related articles that already exist. Question, though: if this is a "2nd nomination", then where's the first? Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ahly Sports Hall[edit]

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

Full of huge pics - barely any content - delete Varun FEB2003 12:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No references provided. Clearly fails WP:GNG. The style is also so clumsy with all the images and no adherence of WP:MOS. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this may be reason for deletion if not refs can be found, but it meets no speedy deletion criterion. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i want to introduce an objection for deleting my article i added some references to my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehab refaat fawzy (talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is apparently a venue of Al Ahly SC, the Egyptian sport club that sponsors a very notable professional football team in the Egyptian Premier League,, the highest level league in Egypt--though that team plays in a much larger stadium. Even as a secondary venue,, it's likely to be notable; if not, it can be merged into the article on the club. Merges should always be at least considered as alternatives to deletion. A proper nomination in a case like this would include at least a reason why a merge might not be the appropriate solution. DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 19 September 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, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable stadium from a notable team. Pwolit iets (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable stadium from major team. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GUI-Tester[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMO with no assertion of notability - article about a method written by its creator and sourced entirely to his own articles. MSJapan (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - part of Ergolight spam, also filed for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it basically came in as a group on COIN, but some were prodded and removed, others were not, so there probably won't be a bundled nom. MSJapan (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, Ergolight just got AFDed too - David Gerard (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WISEnut[edit]

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

press release. for non notable company. Every reference seems to be a notice about an individual contract, and not matter how many there are, it isnt significant coverage . Nothing more should really be expected for a firm this size in a very competitive industry. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete ignoring the blatantly promotional writing style, there's a flurry of mentions in RSes, but looking at them I'm not convinced either. If kept, this will be considerably shorter - David Gerard (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT. No prejudice if anyone wants to recreated based on RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WebJ framework[edit]

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

Empty unreferenced propaganda about an upcoming product. damiens.rf 12:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not table. Interesting Google result of "WebJ" is WEBJ the radio station! W Nowicki (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no independent refs. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tufail Khan Rigoo[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I just took a perusal of the references used on the page. Of the 7 there, only 3 actually mentioned Rigoo, and of those three only 1 (this one) mentioned him in any more depth than saying that he played the role of Ishme Dagan, and that source is mostly just mentioning that he has worked with other actors. I could not turn up anything more in my brief search for sources either. Sjrct (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing a single substantial coverage of subject in any of the reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 20:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bachmann[edit]

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

An unremarkable SS major; significant RS coverage cannot be found. What I was able to locate is from WP:QS sources such as Marc Rikmenspoel (a Waffen-SS "guru", as discussed in Waffen-SS in popular culture), and an Italian author who runs an "official site of cultural association Ritterkreuz".

The article was created in 2008 using non WP:RS sources, such as geocities, Ritterkreuz.de, and frontjkemper.info: 2008 version, one of about 500 articles created around that time by editor Jim Sweeney (now retired). The only reliable citations are in the Awards section, but this is insufficient to overcome WP:BIO1E and lack of reliable sources.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). There's currently no consensus whether a single award of the Knight's Cross meets WP:SOLDIER #1, given that many were not awarded for valour and that too many were awarded overall (over 7,000).

Available sources on KC winners were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer), with an insightful contribution from editor Assayer, who provided historiographic perspective on the sources (Thomas & Wegmann; Krätschmer; others) that were mentioned in related discussions. Per available information, such sources are non-RS for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With due respect to Assayer, that's one opinion. There are biographical entries on all these people in at least one of these multi-volume series by various authors in German, and yes, a series exists for Waffen-SS recipients. That, added to the other mentions in directories of KC recipients is, in my view, sufficient for GNG. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: this is the same argument as offered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Beck, without producing the source or making sure that the content indeed exists. (The article was ultimately deleted). In any case, even if the source were produced, that would have been a single entry related to WP:BIO1E and would not have been sufficient, as other sources (Fellgiebel, Scherzer) are trivial one line mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From 12 June 2003 to 4 January 2004, the Militärhistorisches Museum Flugplatz Berlin-Gatow, a branch of the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, and under the administration of MGFA, featured a special exhibition titled Das Eiserne Kreuz – Zur Geschichte einer Auszeichnung [The Iron Cross – The History of an Award]. At the museum, I bought a book by Thomas & Wegmann on this topic. In the lead, Thomas & Wegmann thanked the German Federal Archives, Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) and the MGFA for their support and contribution in making this book possible. The works of Thomas & Wegmann may not be sufficient to qualify a KC recipient for the notability criteria of Wikipedia (your call to make), but I would disagree to say that they are unreliable sources and I would also disagree they were not endorsed (at least in 2003 they were). Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I see that the Thomas & Wegman books were sold in the museum, and that the authors thanked the Archives in the preface of the book. The latter is a routine "thank you" that one would normally see for granting access; the former does not imply an endorsements. We'd need something stronger to support that these books were endorsed by the MFGA. Some reviews were provided in AfD of Heinrich Debus and they are very far from an endorsement. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of anything beyond very specialized coverage in massive augmentation biographical collections on German soldiers. Nothing showing significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This award was too common for every recipient to get an article. There is no detail of why his service was exceptional. I accept that we have a RS, but that still leaves him NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Directory" hits it quite well. Thomas & Wegmann collect the names and military biographies of KC recipients by using archival records directly related to the award process, but they did not conduct further research, e.g. look for other sources to verify the accounts. Their multiple volumes might suffice as a directory, but it does not mean that their account of the events which lead to an award is historically accurate. They merely reproduce the claims made within the context of the recommendation and, above all, the reasons officially given for the award. Besides, as historian Bernd Wegner, whose book on the Waffen-SS is still considered to be the standard work, warned in 2000, it is not feasible to portray the Waffen-SS as an ordinary military unit made up of "normal" soldiers. Simply looking at the battles of the Waffen-SS without recognizing the history of the SS and of National Socialism as such would be ahistorical.

Concerning notability Bachmann is a good case in point. It is according to German sources that he "forced back the Soviet Union forces trying to take Budapest, several kilometers." That's all we know. The circumstances of his efforts are unclear and so far I haven't seen any sources providing further details or acknowledgement. He isn't mentioned in Charles Sydnor's Soldiers of Destruction (1977; 1990), a history of the Totenkopf Division, neither in Krisztián Ungváry's Battle for Budapest (engl. 2003), nor in the apologetic Budapest: The Stalingrad of the Waffen-SS (2001) by revisionist Richard Landwehr. That doen't speak for notability.--Assayer (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly no support for deletion here. There are competing merge suggestions and concerns that any of these would lead to the merge target being overwhelmed by this topic; perhaps the merger discussion should be held separately from the AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurial feminism[edit]

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

Content fork of information better served either in the Entrepreneurship article (where it already has a section) or in the Feminism article, where 'Entrepreneurial feminism' is not mentioned once. Readers are unlikely to find this information here, and it does not seem to warrant a standalone article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like all articles related to Feminine capital, feminine entrepreneurship, feminist business, and Barbara Jayne Orser are being targetted by Insertcleverphrasehere. This is very unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjsp (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, these articles were all recently brought to my attention, by yourself on the AfD for Barbara Jayne Orser. While Barbara Jayne Orser's book might be notable, if only because of a single book review and a couple of news articles that mention it that I found (Which I added to the talk page), the others do not seem to warrant standalone articles. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles were reviewed and approved by others, before your kind proposal and now nominations for deletion. Others considered these articles to be valid and reviewed them. You're the only one targeting all related articles for deletion. The topic is new and avant-gardiste, as is much in feminism. This is the next big thing in feminist business and female empowerment. The "feminism" article will be updated, we are drafting content currently to add to the article and to link to the other standalone articles from within and to "feminism." We do appreciate your suggestion that we add to "feminism".

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjsp (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Next big thing" might be true, or it might not be. In any case it is far WP:TOO SOON to be a standalone article as of the moment. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:TOO SOON. The topic is being taught at the University of Ottawa, one of Canada's top 15 universities and worldwide top 200. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjsp (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ See below; Original comment: I'm seeing sufficient discussions of the term in Google books for this to meet GNG, as perhaps a term to describe the phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself. A redirect would be difficult as it's not clear whether this should go to Feminism or Entrepreneurship. In any case, the article should probably be kept and expanded. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social sciences-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Entrepreneurship#Feminist entrepreneur. There's a little bit of additional information in this article, but that can easily go in the main article. The topic is noteworthy, but it seems like it fits very well as a subtopic in the place we already have for it. Fieari (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Entrepreneurship#Feminist entrepreneur is a good solution. The article can be reinstated if somebody would want to work on the topic in more detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think a subject thats being taught at institutions should get deleted. Pwolit iets (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any such criteria in any of the guidelines on notability. Correct me if I am wrong. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While a merge isn't crazy, it seems like to do this subject justice in either of the proposed merge targets would make for undue weight there. Both entrepreneurship and feminism are massive topics that don't make for great merge targets when there's sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. a whole book about it published by Stanford University Press, plays a major role in From Barbie to Mortal Kombat (link is to chapter 1 as republished by NY Times), which was a pretty significant book in media studies -- and, as an aside, I'm surprised we don't have an article on it yet. It's part of this book chapter, also in relation to video games. article in Journal of Business Ethics. some extended coverage in this book. Those are just from the first couple pages of ghits, and I haven't even done a gscholar search yet. The coverage seems sufficiently similar to feminine capital that a merge of the two probably makes sense. My sense is that this is the more flexible term, with that one overlapping too much with the book of the same name. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Delgado[edit]

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

Frankly this is entirely PROD material and should be deleted as such, but in case it's simply boldly removed with no explanations at all, here we are; my own searchhes are not finding better (in fact they nearly found nothing at all from a few trivial mentions from 10 years ago) and, not only are the current sources consisting of trivial interviews and "videos", some of the ones that even come from known news sources are not actually substantial; the NYTimes simply talks about what there is to know about him, the "Alternet" (questionable source in itself) is a clear interview. He's certainly not notable as an author as he only has a trivial library holding count. Essentially, the article bears to simply being an overpuffed article about what there is to know about his career. I'll also note the sheer fact this has existed for nearly 11 years now and it has hardly ever changed, presumably of course by the facts there's essentially no actual improvements to be made. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG just from the sources already in the article. To clarify, I do not hold the interviews as "trivial". They are focused, and they are not only from one source, but from multiple reliable sources. This is definitely sufficient notability. Fieari (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is still not convincing to overwhelmingly and confidently keep this article as a both independently notable and substantial article; I have listed my concerns above including the fact there's essentially nothing else apart from those events itself; having an interview is trivial because it shows there's nothing of actual journalism note there, and it's essentially simply the subject speaking himself. Being "from multiple news sources" is not convincing to actually both keep and improve this, which it would seriously need, and since my notes above mention all of this including the fact the article is puffingly mentioning all there is to know about his career, there states the unconvincing for this "sufficient notability". SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but your arguments just sound (to me) like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GNG only requires coverage from multiple reliable sources in a context that is about the subject. The fact that you aren't a fan of that coverage is irrelevant. As I read it, this article clearly and objectively passes the requirement. Fieari (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated that I hated or had any actual feelings about the coverage at all (there's no need to twice mention how I supposedly felt about it or not), I merely stated the facts about what it was and how it concerns the article itself; I still confirm my concerns as they are clear, exact and specific. To note the GNG claims again, it's not "significant coverage" if it all simply boils to simply state the specifics and overall information about his career. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep: here's a book source that appears to present WP:SIGCOV on the subject: Mission Rejected: U. S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq. The book is written by Peter Laufer so appears to be RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would still only be one source that is essentially stating the history, sure it may be an acceptable source, but we would still need significant and substantial amounts of this coversge, since I analyzed and noted the concerns about the others above. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he meets WP:AUTHOR, specifically point #3, for his book The Sutras of Abu Ghraib. See review in SF Gate, CSPAN book interview, and Yes Magazein. See also WP:SIGCOV in New York Times. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, my full analysis above is not being taken into account, the CSPAN interview is exactly that, an interview; the YesMagazine is essentially only a split paragraph about him, that's not substantial coverage, I then analyzed the NYTimes source above as it is, so simply listing it again is not saying anything different if I listed it myself. At best, this simply keeps the 1 review. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BASIC. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources: The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Mission Rejected: U. S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq, Chapter 11. Chelsea Green Publishing. The subject's notability is not contingent upon whether or not the article has been copy edited, changed, or improved. See also WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I have reviewed the sources on the article, reviewed the sources noted here, and did my own search to confirm enough significant coverage exists. It does, passes WP:AUTHOR. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Once again my analysis and examinations noted above are being completely ignored in that I have examined all of the sources listed, the LAtimes linked above now is simply again talking about his story; simply being mentioned and noted in a major news source is not inherited notability. He is not applicably for WP:AUTHOR because there are no library holdings or substantial publications as an author (all that has ever been offered here is 1 review), simply being mentioned part of articles about the war and military is not inherited notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:AUTHOR has no mention of notability being associated with library holdings. The subject's book, The Sutras of Abu Ghraib, has been reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle (Article link), and coverage about the subject meets WP:BASIC. Regarding library holdings, for starters, the book is catalogued by the National Library of Australia (Link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - This AfD has noticeably become overpersonal in that the nomination is being criticized yet I have laid the concerns clearly. The claims of "You don't like the article and No efforts" are blatant in that they have no actual involvement in this AfD are therefore unnecessary. The consensus that library holdings help for notability is that, although not shown in the current listed notabilities, Wikipedia AfDs can make their own thoughts and consensus, including when it comes to advertisements, none of the comments here have come close to mentioning or acknowledging that. Simply stating WP:BASIC or a mere review is hardly the numerical substance we actually need, and if that suggests that's simply the best there is; it shows the type of improvements there would be, if all that would thinly change this article were merely a review. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @STSpeaking for myself, and likely for the others, I believe we understand that you would like to reject these sources. I even agree that consensus CAN reject these sources. Where we disagree is that we DON'T reject these sources. I, and the others who have voted keep, all seem to agree that we ACCEPT these sources. This appears to be the consensus that is building. I understand your arguments, I simply disagree with them. It appears that the others do as well. Please note that when I cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I wasn't referring to you not liking the article so much as not liking the sources. You clearly don't like the sources. But simply not liking the sources is not, in my opinion, a reason to reject sources as establishing notability. It appears the other keep !voters agree with me, and disagree with you. Fieari (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I also said is that, unfortunately like several AfDs at this time, this one is getting overpersonal with overpersonal comments, that is not relevant to this AfD, no form of "agreement" with these forms of comments would be "consensus" or acceptable. With this said, I never said I explicitly "did not like these sources", I'm stating why they are not acceptable for this AfD and article. If this is closed as Keep, it shows the exact type of ignoring of genuine concerns and comments, and the allowing of having such overpersonal comments as have happened here. What would be appropriate is that this is relisted to allow uninvolved people, and hopefully, not overpersonal comments. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ignoring genuine concerns and comments. I am not ignoring them! I am disagreeing with them! You reject these sources. I find your reasons for rejecting these sources invalid per Wikipedia policy AND community consensus. Yes, consensus can change, but I don't believe that it has here. Fieari (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:SOLDIER. Sources seem acceptable to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. on the basis of promotionalism. Read the text. Adjectives of praise sprinkled throughout, and the career being made to appear as important as possible. Borderline notability is possible, but it doesn't actually matter. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We hear this reasoning a lot from you. And of course it is invalid. Why are you so against WP:SOFIXIT? You obviously had the time to review the article and sources. Promotional wording is very easy to fix. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frontaccounting[edit]

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

I frankly would've PROded but it may simply be driveby removed; my own searches are not finding anything better at all than simple guides showing what the software is and how to use it; in fact, that's what the current sources are themselves; none of them actually form any significant and convincing substance, two of the even closest sources to not being as blatant (I use that with certain leniency, because the sources are still in fact blatantly PR) are the InfoWorld and TechRepublic, but I'll note they are essentially still only guides themselves. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable source. Meatsgains (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The bossie award is one indicator of notability ([28]) and the top google news search result is a bylined reliable source ([29]). There seem to be some foreign language sources as well, but I can't read them. Per WP:NEXIST, I'll !vote keep on this one. Fieari (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing this shows that the first link I actually mentioned and analyzed above, and then the second one, is in fact a one paragraph simply stating what there is to know about it, that same information was also simply compiled as a list altogether, there was no focused coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands I am entirely unconvinced by what little RS coverage there is. If kept, this will be cut to a couple of sentences - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; this is a product brochure instead of an encyclopedia article, and Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST for a company's promotional materials. The source offered above PC Quest: 10 accounting tools is a trivial mention among 9 other subjects. Sources I see out there are PR or PR-like. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuria Auditor[edit]

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

No third-party references since creation in 2005, no claim of notability as a product. PROD was removed a few weeks ago asking for time to provide more refs; hasn't happened. The company page was PRODed a month ago. A new article can replace it if it can be sourced, but until then I suspect this doesn't belong here. David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, with only 1 independent ref, the 2009 SCMagazine article. A search turned up forum posts and sites with download links, but no additional significant WP:RS coverage; one ref is not sufficient to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; no RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly any reliable third party sources to demonstrate notability. We are not supposed to keep articles which have no third party sources as it compromises WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like WP:BIO is met here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrin Saka Meem[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 08:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 08:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NACTOR and WP:NMEDIA not notable. Have no popular work and significant role in acting carrier. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 08:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Meem became a champion of Notun Kuri in a season in the 1980s. Notun Kuri is a national child talent reality program on Bangladesh Television, run by the Government of Bangladesh since 1976. This clearly passes WP:ANYBIO. Besides, she was a popular child artiste (link). She is currently a television news presenter and anchor. But I admit she does not have much success as a grown up actress. Altaf (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

support to delete per nomination. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : per Altaf.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Altaf. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like there is not enough evidence that this fellow is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Heeres[edit]

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

PROD removed by an IP with absolutely no explanations at all yet I was specific with the PROD here in stating that he's not satisfying the football notability at all; the article's tone overall is concerning as it is, so it says the emphasis of the concerns the fact it was removed yet no improvements. Examining the history several times again shows all of these users seem to otherwise be from that locality and, granted, interest invested with the subject since the IP is coming from that said locality. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quarterbacks at Division I FBS level almost always get sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Heeres was a quarterback at a level three tiers below that, Division I FBS --> Division I FCS --> Division II --> NCAA Division III. He does not satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH, and I am not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources of the type that would pass the GNG bar. If such coverage is found and presented here, I am willing to reconsider my vote. Cbl62 (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High school and college ballplayer. ~~All American in college but that is not sufficient for notability.~~ Drafted by MLB (highschool) and NFL but never played pro. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Apparently now some sort of motivational speaker, but the supposedly "notable quotes" and "inspiring words" in the article are less than convincing. The listed sources are useless for showing notability (the Falcon's 1985 roster ref is probably the best WP:RS in the article, but it is there to show that he was not on the roster. Fails WP:GNG. This article appears to exist to bolster the addition of Greg Heeres to various notable resident/alumni lists. Meters (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he truly were an All-American quarterback, he would pass WP:NCOLLATH, but I find no sources to back up that claim. Cbl62 (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the claim that he was drafted by MLB while he was still in highschool a bit dubious too. Thanks for the correction. I should have realized that.Meters (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify. The baseball draft is certainly possible, but it's only cited to the subject's personal webpage, and with all of the rounds in the MLB draft it really does not mean much if he was drafted.

Comment This says he was an All-American. I doubt the college made it up. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot of research on All-Americans, and you'd be surprised how often colleges publish erroneous information about All-Americans (sometimes including second- or third-team, and even "honorable mention" recipients. That's IMO a good reason why we have a policy of regarding info published by a college player's alma mater as not being independent for GNG purposes. In any event, I searched newspapers.com and find nothing showing him as an All-American. The best I could find was an All-MIAA honor in 1983. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is not included in 1984 College Football All-America Team which seems to list the all American teams as chosen by the five selectors recognized as official by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. We would need a solid source showing that one of those five selectors chose him.

This article is getting harder and harder to take seriously. Now the source that showed that he didn't make the roster of the Falcons has been replaced by a claim [30] that he is in the team's Hall of Infamy, cited to the team's Hall of Fame page that does not mention Heeres or any such Hall of Infamy. The same edit also makes unsourced claims that he is Jewish (it could be true, but we don't include such unsourced statements of Religion) and had Swastikas carved into his car at Hope College. The source for that claim is actually a report of a 2015 incident (three decades after Heeres was at Hope College) at a different college (Calvin) in a different town and involved finger writing in snow rather than carving. Of course, Heeres is not mentioned. Meters (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1984 College Football All-America Team only lists Division I All-Americans, Heeres is in Division II. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heeres actually played for a Division III program. Even if he were a Division III All-American (and I find nothing backing that up in contemporaneous newspapers), there is no presumption of notability under WP:NCOLLATH for such lower-tier selections. Cbl62 (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete playing at even the highest level of college foootball is rarely enough to make one notable on its own. Playing for Hope College, virtually never, and there is nothing to suggest Heeres is an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although no reason needs to be given to remove a WP:PROD, we have ample reasons here to delete the article. I agree with those noted above and add that the last section "later in life" seems to violate WP:ADV.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Bodom (2016 film)[edit]

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

I cannot find anything to show that this film is ultimately notable enough for an article. ~~It says that it was supposed to have been released to YouTube back in March, but I have to assume that this is a typo and is meant to refer to March 2017~~, so it's something that hasn't released yet.

I wish the director well, but this film just isn't notable at this point in time. It's difficult for films to pass WP:NFILM and WP:NFF, let alone when it's an indie film by a young filmmaker, but there doesn't seem to have been any coverage for this in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I forgot that the US styles their dates differently, so the film will release in December of this year. The overall issue of notability is still a factor, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - films self-released on YouTube don't satisfy WP:MOVIE unless they've been independently profiled by reliable sources. This article is WP:TOOSOON at best. Blythwood (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMOVIE. Self-promotional. NO reliable source. A strong suspicion that the creator of this article also created the IMDB page, which shows exactly why IMDB is not considered a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even in the best case scenario this is too soon, but the lack of any notability is the clincher. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON at best! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gargauth[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this point all the sources are from game manuals and texts, so it seems to be only notable from an in universe perspective.Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per J Milburn and WP:ATD-M, which the above delete !voter does not address. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities per J Milburn and Jclemens. —Mythdon 05:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk)

Pyscho Killer[edit]

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

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

Nothing to indicate notability. Created by new WP:SPA. Possibly made up, no sources indicating that it exists. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of evidence for it's existence is pretty damning, and I had been wondering why it had been so rapidly targeted for deletion. My instinct says delete, but I'd like to hear if the article creator @HowToDriveACar: has anything to say for themself, as they no longer seem to actually be a SPA. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect "Pyscho Killer" to Psycho Killer. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ as a copyright violation of this site. (So tagged.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On a positive note -- a simple search for <"Psycho Killer" video game> on Google shows sufficient results to verify that the game existed.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep. Copyright violation has been managed, and the game has received some coverage. It's 20 years out of publication, so finding online sources might be difficult, but archived print sources may prove useful. Note, if kept, the duplicate article at Psycho Killer (game) should be deleted to make way for a proper page move of this article to the proper spelling and disambiguation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61, this !vote is based on presumption of sources rather than the existence of sources... czar 17:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Only extant review is in Amiga Joker, which is at least two major publication reviews short of significant coverage. Please ping me if you find other publications. Also this discussion should have been—at the very least—a textbook redirect to the existing page. In reality, what was salvaged from the copyvio? Should have been nuked, especially since it isn't sitting at a useful redirect title (a typo). czar 17:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsai Ming-Kai[edit]

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

Non-notable person. References cannot all be verified in English. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Obviously notable person. Award-winning richest CEO of a very major corporation. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable based on the Forbes reference in the article. Simply needs to be expanded, if anything. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep HBR and Forbes make it meet GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid english sources aside, even a cursory google search of "蔡明介" turns up a plethora of results, albeit in chinese. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't speak Chinese. Per WP:NONENG.... "Citations to non-English sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page" and per WP:ONUS... "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how it this related to article deletion? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable with sources. Language doesn't matter since the person comes from China (so yes of course, why would there be some number of English sources in the first place). As long as the sources are accurate, keep.| Democratics ^Talk| How may I help you? 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person is from China? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he is from China. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Libin[edit]

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

After cleaning up the page, I realize how little this person has to have Wikipedia page:

No mention in major media outlets
The kettlebell boxing is not a famous martial art
The page looked like a resume before I cleaned it up

She's a sports instructor who lives in New York City, she doesn't meet WP:N criteria. --Qwacker (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nothing more than a promo piece (clean-up aside). Non-notable as per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage in reliable sources, so WP:GNG is not met. There's also no evidence of her being a notable martial artist per WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] EDW Lynch (August 31, 2012). "outgrow.me, A Marketplace For Successfully Funded Kickstarter & Indiegogo Projects". Laughing Squid. Retrieved June 6, 2013.

[2] Doug Aamoth (May 1, 2013). "50 Best Websites 2013". Time Magazine. Retrieved June 6, 2013.

[1]

[2]