Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 September	27 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music Link Corporation[edit]

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

poor article. very little info. only a primary source and a directory listing. fails WP:GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah I would agree Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless someone quickly comes up with sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:PROMO article, cited exclusively to primary sources. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlberg (Surname)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources link to wikimedia commons and to google translate (but doesn't actually translate the surname) Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Dahlberg, which is a DAB page in both English and Swedish Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, along with a possible purge of any information that isn't reliable. This is a valid surname index, and is useful for listing notable people who have the surname 'Dahlberg'. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've got a zillion surname lists. Why single this one out? Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would be nice if it had more citations but plenty of unsourced surname list exist outside of a dab page. Monday (surname), Peck (surname), Stevens (surname), and Walpole (surname) BigGuy88 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Mix[edit]

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

Delete. No sign of notability. Repeated removal of {{Db-promo}} by page creator gets boring after a while. Narky Blert (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No evidence of notability in the article (which is borderline gibberish). I just reinstated the AfD tag, which someone had removed. Neiltonks (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the one who added the speedy delete tag, I see no evidence of notability. Speedy deletion if possible. VViking_TalkEdits 13:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 30 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. ...pending lack of opposition from the nominator or other editors to the keep comments. Active editors are encouraged to immediately remove the copyvio material. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deering Banjo Company[edit]

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

WP:copyvio in this unreferenced (except for a single primary source...) put together by small band of SPA/COI editors. Nothing seems to confer notability, fails WP:GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - finding some significant writeups about the company:

A Visit To Deering Banjo Company by Jake Kelly in American Songwriter
Local instrument company fights banjo backlash with cheeky ad by Walter Mencken in the San Diego Reader
Guitars, Banjos, and the American Dream by Siobhan Braun in the San Diego Reader
The Banjo-ification of Pop: Why the Instrument Is Everywhere by Lily Rothman in Time (magazine)

and more minor mentions, etc. The company was also inducted into the American Banjo Museum hall of fame[1]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk)

Keep per sources provided. –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 14:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic sports[edit]

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

The bulk of this article is in violation of policies. Much of it is unsourced, and most of the rest is sourced to a single Salafi website and primary sources. The text also confuses the topic of religious views about sports with the topic of sports in the Muslim world. There's not a single cited RS about "Islamic sports". I've merged the sourced content in Islamic_sports#Women.27s_sport into Women's sports and I think the rest should be deleted per WP:TNT. I'm not sure if there are enough RSs on the subject such as this one [2], but the article based on such sources would need to be created from scratch. Eperoton (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, this needs a move to Sports in Islam, because "Islamic sports" implies that there are sports founded/created by Islam. I would not oppose a WP:TNT delete, considering that the article was created by Striver, a user infamous for publishing tons of Islam-related original research and synthesis in Wikipedia's olden days. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether or not it's started over again doesn't factor in to my vote. The article was created by a long-gone editor who, while a major and important contributor ten years ago, was also a notorious stealth POV pusher via creation of non-notable articles. Additionally, this appears to be a violation of WP:SYNTH in more ways than one, basically gathering sources about sports that happen to occur in countries with many Muslim people in them. This article, in and of itself, is about a non-topic (unless we consider praying five times a day to be a sport; I'm assuming that nobody does). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definite case of pushing POV and article non-encyclopedic. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing Studies University of Edinburgh[edit]

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

No indication this university department is separately notable. See WP:OUTCOMES, —teb728 t c 22:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As the first program of its kind (university-level nurse education) in the UK, with citations to verify, I think the department passes muster for WP:N. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - allegations of notability, if proven, would lead to a "keep". More and better sources are needed. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above - Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several reasons that this department appears to be notable. They appear to have been at the forefront of establishing some nursing education programmes and a research centre in the UK in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. I have added some sources. Drchriswilliams (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete A Train^talk 14:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Villarreal[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Article appears to have been created and maintained promotionally; after the bad sources and uncited promotional text were cut a few weeks ago, there's not much evidence of passing WP:GNG here. Google shows very little, GNews has 0 hits for "Cindy Villareal", Google newspaper search shows passing mentions, Google Books shows her own books on cheerleading but not a lot third-party. David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've honestly PRODed, none of this comes close at all for actual independent notability and substance; all it contains are information parts about her career, from the sports to the publishing. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have except it's been PRODed once - David Gerard (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable cheerleader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article states that she is a former Miss Texas, which would at least provide a path to notability (I would think that there is a reasonable chance that a Miss Large State would get some coverage somewhere, and a decent number of the recent Miss Texases have articles). But she does not appear on that list, so even that avenue seems closed. Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apart from the fact this article lacks notability and references are weak, there is clear evidence of COI - if you look back in the history of the edits, there is one user who keeps removing the negatives from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B3A9:1300:E9FE:87D0:C87:BE55 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the history is heavily promotional, though the present cut-down version doesn't suffer it as much - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 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 redirect. May as well redirect it to Macross 7; unlikely to need a disambiguation and might be a search term for fans of the series. A Train^talk 14:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protodeviln[edit]

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

Fictional race belonging to Macross 7. No evidence of independent notability. Tagged as such for two years, only minor edits since then. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. No analysis by secondary reliable sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the fictional work in which this race appears, per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 21 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) 21:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The topic does not establish notability, so no article is currently necessary. TTN (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article, as Oakshade points out, is almost a one-to-one duplicate of Khyber train safari. There appear to be no sources that would support a redirect of the page in question to Khyber train safari. A Train^talk 14:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khyber Steam Safari[edit]

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

The proposed train fails WP:GNG and the article is an example of WP:CRYSTAL. I have only found one relevant source but even that only discusses using the engines that once was part of the Khyber Steam Safari (also called the Khyber train safari). From the source we can see that there appears to be no track to Landi Kotal, and that the proposal is a "proposal is to take a business venture ... into consideration" which to me make it sounds like it's in the very early planning stages. Add to that that there are no sources in the article that supports that there is any proposed tourist train. What sources there are refer to the Khyber train safari that stopped running ten years ago. Sjö (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Khyber train safari. This was an operating train so obviously CRYSTAL doesn't apply. However this new venture is only a proposal. The propose re-use content can be in the target article. --Oakshade (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, fails GNG, CORP. No reliable sources cover this topic, and especially since there is no solid evidence that this going to happen it appears to be WP:OR. Fails WP:V - no reliable sources to indicate notability. I do not agree with merge, due to lack of sourcing and WP:OR. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 23 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) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everything listed here has been about one thing and that's about the plans, and it seems these plans have been considered for some time, but there's nothing actually established yet, therefore Delete as there's no article if nothing is confirmed. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I basically agree with all the entry's above.— JJBers Public (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJBers Public (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clear on this. A bit unconventional, but DJ Amit which was added later to the nomination is the source of the copy-paste move to this title (by the same user), so deleting that also per the discussion here. —SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Amith[edit]

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

Unremarkable DJ. Most of the articles only mention him in passing Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only decent source I was able to find is this. Anup [Talk] 04:11, 22 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) 21:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who? (And I say that after a search. I found no semblance of notability.)

Delete both per WP:PROMO; strictly vanity pages and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability. Promo/vanity piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources, lack of notable success, lack of notoriety, fails every guideline to constitute notability. Clear-cut deletion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:44, 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. Not creating redirects because the current titles are unlikely search terms. However, if somebody wants to create redirects for shorter names, go ahead. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Brook Road bridge over the Connecticut River[edit]

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

Does not comply WP:Notability, just a pointless article about a small bridge crossing. Also there is no sites documenting it anywhere, making the articles unable to have references

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all are nearly the same:

JJBers (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As their creator, I'll just say that the Rt3 bridge is notable as the northern-most crossing of the longest river in New England. Do what you will. - Denimadept (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, I've decided that the Route 3 bridge can not be put in the same argument as these, so I've removed it.--JJBers (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Scott Brook Road Bridge to List of crossings of the Connecticut River in line with WP:GEOFEAT as not enough sources to warrant a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ditto with the other two. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly all three are not notable. No objection to redirects as above, as long as the articles are also moved to more concise titles (WP:title) MB 22:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close, I think it's been decided that this is just a redirect. I'll wait for another 12 hours (12:00, 10-1-16, UTC), but if nothing happens, I close this, move the page, and redirect it.— JJBers (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't even bother with a redirect. The structure has no notability whatsoever. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another load of NN bridges. Not worth a redirect either as nobody will ever search for or link to these titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quantros[edit]

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

Actually kept in 2011 because of the sheer unbelievable acceptance of local PR and republishing of it; my own searches are noticeably finding nothing at all than mentions, everything listed here is then also only PR and trivial coverage, none of it is actual significant and substantial news, and I imagine it would not either, since it was apparently started by someone connected to the company (either an employee or PR agent, SPA of course). None of this suggests anything of actual improvements, and because Wikipedia has substantially changed about PR since 2011, we have better choices now to say no to such advertisements. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant ad, blatantly promotional "references" - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly "corporate blurb" & WP:NOT applies, as this page exists to promote the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vernard Eugene Bivin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMILITARY and WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies. Having something named after you does not make for notability. John from Idegon (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having something named after you is evidence of notability. Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can this assertion be backed up by Wikipedia policy/guidelines or proven precedent? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states, with the word evidence bolded,

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

Unscintillating (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the ship was "sponsored" by Bevin's mother, so it was not independently named in his honor. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She was also probably involved in naming the son. That would be arguing that anyone who was named by their parents cannot have an article on Wikipedia, because the naming was not done independently. No, the argument is a straw man, because no one is claiming that the mom is an "independent" source. Unscintillating (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sponsor does not name the ship, see Ceremonial ship launching. "In recent history, all U.S. Navy sponsors have been female. In addition to the ceremonial breaking of a champagne bottle on the bow, the sponsor remains in contact with the ship's crew and is involved in special events such as homecomings.". Kges1901 (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We honor Bivin's service, but there's just not enough to be considered notable, and I'm kind of shocked this article has gone unchallenged since 2007. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no argument to delete the redirect, and there is no content policy argument to delete the edit history, there is no argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point. There's very little if anything to hang the notability hat on. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The basic remedy for failure of notability is to merge to a suitable target. Is there a WP:IAR reason to delete this topic as a redirect? Perhaps, but it is weak, and no one here is making that argument. Why do we have six delete !votes without an argument for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because they are correct and you are not? You don't have to agree with an argument for it to be an arguement. Just a wild guess. John from Idegon (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination shows no analysis of the policy WP:ATD as per WP:BEFORE C1 and WP:BEFORE C4. Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. No indications of notability or significance and no RS provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is your basis for claiming that there are no RS provided? WP:INSIGNIFICANCE says that this topic is significant. Why do you say that it is not? Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only source I was able to find: link, from 1946 and apparently a brief directory-like listing. For an encyclopedia biography, one would expect better sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, including Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, multiple reliable sources exist, and they may be sufficiently robust to satisfy WP:GNG, but even if they don't the topic is significant as it is covered at the USS Bivin. Unscintillating (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky -related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article; per WP:MEMORIAL and no RS cites for this specific man or event. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you claiming that the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is not RS? Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stevietheman. How is this person notable? He's noble, but not notable. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apart from his career information, there's nothing at all close to convincing his independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR Given the policy WP:ATD, there is no policy-based purpose to a deletion discussion, at least not without citing WP:IAR. Secondly, WP:BEFORE D1 states, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." Easily found at the top of WP:BEFORE D1 searches are sources such as militarytimes.com and the Filson Club History Quarterly of 1946, sources that have not been analyzed in the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your obviously not familiar with the criteria for a speedy keep. Further, instead of adopting a position of authority arguement, how about taking some of these multiple sources you keep braying about and IMPROVE THE ARTICLE? John from Idegon (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can contact the ARS yourself if you are trying to get someone to improve the article because you nominated it for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks to Kges1901 for his improvements to the article. However, I still don't see a biography here. Everything we have relates to the last hours of his life. The man's undoubtedly a hero, but being a hero doesn't equate with notability. It's been a long held convention here that heroism has to rise to the extremely high level of winning a country's top military honor. The Navy named every ship in the DE class after heroes. To say that having a ship named after you equates with notability effectively changes the notability guideline for military people. That's not what we are here for. That conversation could be held, but it hasn't been. Under the guidelines we have now, GNG is not met due to 1E. Other than IAR, we have no basis to keep this. John from Idegon (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recipient of a single second-level award. Fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 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. The only keep argument is unfortunately not giving any indication as to why the topic might be notable - even if an article is cleaned up, we need the topic to be notable to keep the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Bauhaus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, The only independent coverage I found is a scathing Mirror article. Kleuske (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, though if there's any more like that Mirror article it might be a keep after a substantial rewrite ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Delete and I suppose we'll go to a G4 now that we're here, because this is largely advertising, "he is a charismatic person", "he is passionate", etc. Please keep this at a company website or social media, not here. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete Contents improved, unwanted references removed, a reference from daily mail also added. Please review the article and do let me know if we can make more improvement.Jasline Joy (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly a vanity page; no indications of notability. This WP:PROMO article is not adding value to the encyclopedia at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 30 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) 15:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avangate[edit]

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

Speedy Deleted in 2007 with enough consensus that this would've actually been G4 applicable if the contents were symmetrical, but they are imaginably not, so here we are at AfD # 2 for hopefully a permanent lock for future uses. The sources listed here are largely PR and other fluff unconvincing sources, the best sources there are, Forbes, TechCrunch and BBC, but the Forbes has "Avangate to the rescue" which is then followed by largely interviewed information from the businesspeople themselves, the next one, TechCrunch (actually only consists of a few paragraphs) contains noticeable information about funding and what the company's financial plans are; none of that is guaranteed to be immune from the company's own supplied information, therefore it's not convincing; the next one, BBC, only mentions them a mere 2 times; imaginably a shoehorned "inclusion" of news to simply make the illusion of there being an international source! I also suggest Salting because an explosive 5 times, including that 2007 AfD one. Next, my own searches found nothing at all, which is not surprising, considering the company itself would've likely put it here for the imagery of having news! As if the PR concerns are not enough, looking at the history will show there's a noticeable user consistently touching this article, and quite noticeably at that, going farther shows two other SPA accounts, likely involved also. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom The REFBOMBing looks substantial and informative until you actually look at the claimed sources, at which point you will see the accuracy of SwisterTwister's assessment. And that's before the blatantly promotional tone and editing pattern - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising / investor prospectus / product brochure. Nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrim Song[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. Possibly also breaches WP:NPOV. TheKaphox T 20:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is no obvious problem with verifiability here; see [3] and [4], for example. Nor is there anything in this article that violates the neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rotten Tomatoes lists 5 critic reviews from sources including The New York Times and Village Voice. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:58, 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 merge to List of Ravenloft characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frantisek Markov[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Ravenloft characters. BOZ (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Frost[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player created by a user with a rather suspicious id. 18abruce (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is legit, but player is not notable. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This short article from the Colombian embassy in Sweden is the only thing about directly about him that I could find. Everything else is just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 21:36, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Realtime Techsolutions[edit]

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

Nothing is here or anywhere to be here! Not notable, no external sources. Light2021 (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, have tagged accordingly - my only qualm is that it's from late 2015, so we'll see if anyone agrees with me - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 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 procedural close. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tscroot/sandbox/Foreflight. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tscroot/sandbox/Foreflight[edit]

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

References are highly questionable. Notability itself is questionable. Article is written like company product catalog. It might do something different but to be here need to be something more. Uniqueness alone cant be part of notability. Not enough coverage. Light2021 (talk) 18:32, 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. Very interesting discussion that seems to have uncovered an ambiguity in WP:NHOCKEY that bears analysis. Ultimately I think the arguments that the subject doesn't meet the GNG overrule the questions about meeting the bar of NHOCKEY. No prejudice against re-creation of the article if better sources can be found. A Train^talk 09:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Daniel Echeverri[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player 18abruce (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played on the Colombian national team and thus satisfies WP:NHOCKEY regardless of the magnitude of the tournament. Smartyllama (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is incorrect, national team in WP:NHOCKEY refers to the top level tournament. And since Colombia has never entered, or been allowed to enter even at the lowest level, it is irrelevent anyway.18abruce (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It just says "played on a senior national team" and then gives examples of which tournaments are acceptable, such as the Olympics and World Championships, but those aren't the only acceptable ones. As long as he's played for a senior national team in some tournament, he qualifies. Smartyllama (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no you are incorrect. The quote you are relying on only lists top level tournaments so such as does not apply to exhibitions for nations that are trying to develop a national team. In the past it has not even applied to Division I nations.18abruce (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://archive.naplesnews.com/community/banner/aiming-higher-daniel-echeverri-wins-ice-hockey-gold-for-colombia-36ab43a5-a003-0697-e053-0100007f2ce-385393201.html Found this. There's probably more coverage of Echeverri in Colombian media. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And if coverage satisfying the GNG that isn't the sort of routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from counting towards notability can be found, I'm all for it, but we can't support an article with insufficient references on spec. 18abruce is also absolutely right that it has always been the case that presumptive notability to playing for a national team comes only with playing for a senior national team competing in the medal pool of the Olympics and World Champions, whatever the nomenclature (Division 1/Medal round/"A" pool) attached in any given year. Ravenswing 19:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of interpretations of NHOCKEY, he does not appear to meet GNG even after looking through Colombian coverage of the Pan American tournament. He gets a couple of mentions about leading the score sheets for Colombia but most of their on-line coverage is just blurbs about their team winning the tournament. Nothing about Echeverri himself that I can find. Yosemiter (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found this piece, which I think is a start towards meeting GNG (assuming this isn't a blog portion of the paper; I don't think it is), but not enough by itself. In the article the subject states that "Ice hockey isn't very big in Colombia," which isn't much of an endorsement for its national team conferring automatic notability. Rlendog (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog: That article was mentioned above by Hockeyben and it would be a start, but on its own it is just WP:ROUTINE (it is from the local city paper where he goes to school). My deletion comment was based off a continuation of that article and Hockeyben's comment that there is "probably more coverage of Echeverri in Colombian media." However, I found none that apply directly to Echeverri himself. Yosemiter (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he did meet NHOCKEY (which I don't think he necessarily does as past discussions have limited the scope of national team to the championship level of the world championships and olympics). He fails GNG as I can find no coverage of him and the link above is purely routine of the local paper about local boy making good variety. -DJSasso (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, - WP:SPORTCRIT - "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).", it doesn't say that the only major international amateur that counts is the Olympics, WP:NHOCKEY - "6.Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship); or" it doesn't say "played on a senior national team in the Olympic Games and/or the World Championships", if that was the intention when this sng was made (as implied by some of the editors above) then surely it would implicitly say that. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The individual sections override the general sections of NSPORTS. That is actually the reason of splitting out the sports we do and deprecating the old WP:ATHLETE which did specifically say just the Olympics and world championships, because not all sports fit the same cookie cutter. As someone who was involved in the creation of the NHOCKEY guidelines (and has continued to be as they have evolved) , yes we have specifically meant they top level of the World Championships and the Olympics. In other words the levels at which every single athlete who competed at them is 99.99% likely to meet WP:GNG. The reason it doesn't explicitly says only World Championships and Olympics are because there are sometimes other events which rise to that level but are rare events such as Canada Cup and World Cup of Hockey. In the case of the World Championships, players who play below the Championship level very rarely meet the GNG. We should probably link to that section to make it clear, I thought we already did. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key there is what you take such as to mean; if I describe an animal's characteristics and say "such as a lion or a tiger (the most prominently known large breeds of cats)" and then someone tries to say that "okay a duck is included then, because it is also an animal" what would your reaction be? It should be telling that it says 'World Championship' in the singular because (at least on Wikipedia) that is indicative of only the top level. Things like the World Cup, Canada Cup no one would question, but things like the Thayer Tutt Trophy would be questionable (at best as an example of a lesser amateur championship) and should prompt a discussion to see if there are in the discussion of such as.18abruce (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to Djsasso and 18abruce for their explanations. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:09, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Walpole[edit]

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

Delete. Although this is technically a second nomination, the first nomination was actually closed speedy within four hours — so I can't credibly speedy this as a recreation of previously AFDed content. However, there still isn't a strong or well-sourced claim of encyclopedic notability here — his notability as a company founder is still stacked onto his company's own primary source webpage about itself, his notability as a podcaster is entirely unsourced, and his notability as the writer of an open letter to the Prime Minister of Australia about same-sex marriage is stacked onto his own Twitter and a single newspaper article in his hometown newspaper, which fails to demonstrate the claim that he's become nationally known for it. None of this entitles him to a Wikipedia article just because he exists, and the sourcing is nowhere near satisfying WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless someone turns up something convincing - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is not a PR platform nor is it Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- very marginal claim to notability and it's WP:BIO1E. Otherwise, strictly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 2 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cvetkovic[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This player has not received any significant coverage (failing WP:GNG) and has not played in a fully-professional league (failing WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 17:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the player hasn't played in a fully pro match Spiderone 17:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely NOT to delete - Alex Cvetkovic is a FIFA internationally transferred player who just this season played a number of 1st team matches for last year's Champions of Luxembourg (5 I believe since the season started) in their highest (premier) league for the club who featured in this year's UEFA Europa League qualifying (beat Aberdeen 1:0 but lost on aggregate) and last year's UEFA Champions League qualifying

Alex Cvetkovic scored two goals in last week's Luxembourg Cup (The FA Cup equivalent) and has even featured prominently in a match against French League 1 FC Metz recently - the main newspaper there even published only his photo when reporting on nationwide Cup results - see http://www.wort.lu/de/sport/coupe-de-luxembourg-topteams-lassen-sich-nicht-ueberraschen-57deda95ac730ff4e7f66992#

profooty33 27th September 2016 at 16.42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.13.218 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely nothing comes up in a Google News search. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TO DELETE - http://www.lequotidien.lu/football/cvetkovic-fola-expulse-pour-ses-chaussures/ ... REGULARLY PLAYS IN LUXEMBOURG PREMIER LEAGUE

google will give you all the articles if you search Alex Cvetkovic Fola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago Alex Cvetkovic made an assist in the Luxembourg Premier League derby - quote from his manager Jeff Strasser (fmr Borussia Monchengladbach, Keiserslauteren, Metz etc etc)

"L’homme du match: Jeff Strasser Devant un onze en manque d’idées notamment offensives, le coaching de l’ancien joueur de Kaiserslautern s’est révélé payant puisque Cvetkovic a offert la première égalisation à Rodrigues avant qu’un autre nouveau venu, Tom Laterza, n’assure définitivement un point au Fola." .... you can read the whole article in the most respected and most circulated Luxembourg daily - http://www.wort.lu/fr/sport/ce-dimanche-a-esch-alzette-le-fola-arrache-le-nul-dans-un-derby-fou-57e82054ac730ff4e7f66f0b

Absolutely NOT TO DELETE - as Alex Cvetkovic has major interest already apparently from Sporting Lisbon and numerous other clubs on back of his EIGHT first team appearances this season alone/already on this top level i Luxembourg

profooty33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is now finished as four entrants' arguments such as; 1. 'not enough coverage' - proven not right as google will give you over ten pages (dozens and dozens in total) of articles, photos and captions incl. videos of Alex Cvetkovic or 2. 'google has nothing on him' - proven wrong because if you google is name 'Alex Cvetkovic' plus his club 'Fola' you will on 'Alex Cvetkovic Fola' receive over a hundred entries and articles linked to his name and likeness Furthermore no. 3 - 'has not featured in the first team game' - is wrong as this season alone Alex Cvetkovic featured EIGHT times for the first eleven of his Luxembourg top Premier League club Finally. no. 4 - 'has not played in a top league' - not correct as Alex Cvetkovic plays exclusively for the first team oinly of CS Fola Esch in the Luxembourg National Division which is the highest premier league in the country (in addition to club playing UEFA Europa League this year and UEFA Champions League last year

The article about Alex Cvetkovic is therefore valid and 100% compliant with wikipedia standards and if you have something else to ad to it ie edit to make it even better please do so

Thank you

Yours,

profooty33

.... I will go now and set up a page of another smashing young player who currently plays abroad (and who played with Alex Cvetkovic in Arsenal FC for several months - the detail which is not even included in Cvetkovic's wikipedia, like I did not include Cvetkovic played for Manchester City u18 (9th February 2013) two years above his age at the time Man City tried to sign him etc etc or for Stoke City FC reserves (30th July 2013) when u16 against Warrington Town FC 1st team etc) as I do like to research and give chance to fantastic young sportsmen who are still teenagers lets don't forget and work very hard to achieve something in life ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the deletion section from Alex Cvetkovic as we as contributors have more important things to do and improve through research than have an issue about a football player who seemingly deserves to have a page , thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:NSPORT which requires him to have played in a fully pro league, which the Luxembourg league is not. No in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. If Profooty33 thinks the player has received such coverage it would be helpful if he could point to some examples, rather than essentially saying "just Google him". Of the refs currently in the article, most are match reports which mention him in passing or even don't mention him at all. Only one is centred on him and that is just a transfer announcement, which is routine coverage and not enough to satisfy WP:GNG..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all the data is on soccerway (which is used by other contributors here too) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cvetkovic played in the following matches; 25/09/16 vs Jeunesse d'Esch 11/09/16 vs UNA Strassen 21/08/16 vs Vitoria Rosport 15/08/16 vs Mondorf-les-Bains etc including the cup last week where he score two goals http://www.wort.lu/de/sport/coupe-de-luxembourg-topteams-lassen-sich-nicht-ueberraschen-57deda95ac730ff4e7f66992# ... for other issues UEFA and FIFA aproved charter about the league see Luxembourg football league system ... for his league see Luxembourg National Division

~~Keep~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSPORT requires a player to have played in a fully-professional league. The Luxembourg league is only part-time, as confirmed by sources such as this one (which coincidentally refers to this player's club). Thus as long as his only first-team football is in Luxembourg (which it is, as far as I can see) he does not meet the requirement -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cvetkovic is/was a FIFA registered transferred player and Luxembourg football league system is equal to any other UEFA and FIFA regulated leagues - why their clubs compete in highest professional Champions \league and Europa League competitions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that a number of my edits and additional data proving my claim have gone unsaved ... very dissapointed to see how much hostility is there towards a young professional footballer who plays in the highest level somewhere for a very good professional reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in possession of a FIFA document logged officially on their database in July 2016 stating exactly what I have been saying all along about Alex Cvetkovic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That paricular FIFA document is also kept in Alex Cvetkovic' lawyers office at Harbottle&Lewis in London as well as together with his exclusive agent representative agreement with Nick Blair there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above addresses the fact that he fails the two main Wikipedia policies which have been outlined above: matches played in a recognised full-time professional league, or in-depth coverage in reliable independent third-party sources. Unless he can be proved to pass either of those requirements, ramblings about unspecified FIFA documents being lodged with a lawyer and details of who his agent is really aren't going to make any difference, I'm afraid.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, further editing of Alex Cvetkovic will soon prove the additional reliable independent source but what concerns me is the nature of dismissal which cannot be considered as constructive - but makes me (and a number of other contributors who are yet to come forward to support my claims) very uneasy about the whole situation ... needless to say that I fully know why and where this comes from but will not entertain my knowledge about some particular reasons why the small and relatively insignificant page of some young talented player has to receive such hostile treatment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is ample of evidence that suggest Alex Cvetkovic deserves the page - for instance he is eligible to play internationally for 6 countries incl. his England (for variety of reasons) but because he's still a teenager he has played for none as he wants to be capped eventually for a good reason

profooty33

~~Keep~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.13.218 (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the above !vote, as the IP is clearly the same person as Profooty33

~~Keep~~

http://www.transfermarkt.de/alexander-cvetkovic/profil/spieler/446116 profooty33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why number of us who are in favour of article about Alec Cvetkovic to be kept are not coming forward independently either from our accounts or otherwise as clearly there is a definitive drive by some of you that no matter what argument is put forward you will demand that the article is removed .... most likely you will succeed but that is not the reason for us who are in favour of wikipedia being truly used by people not to then proceed further ...!

Alex Cvetovic is one of the brightest young teenage future stars in making alongside a few others he played with for years and whose pages are about to be made alongside his and if the research of us positive contributors is not awarded by either keeping our work or making it even better - than we will resort to publishing our research and findings elsewhere in more dominant mainstream media as no one can say for example that if there would be a young amazing up and coming scientist discovering this that and the other at the age of 19 - that some of you will refuse his page on wikipedia 'just because he or she has not yet featured in any major conference or gathering with other known greats and so what if he or she has discovered this that or the other if it cannot be found by click of the finger or a keyboard in a minute'

Wikipedia is something I always looked up as fresh, innovative and above all - public .... by all means let's remove any racist, fake and forged data - but let's don't forget we are one community and the community which also would like to be quoted ourselves on something we have discovered before anyone else did and not just act as some second rated 'copy/paste unit' who will compile something that does not even require compiling as it was published was before we even knew about it.

Why we/I/myself in particular would like to see our work stay - to be kept - as it contains only the proven facts and is not reliant on the opinion as to whether is this that or the other

The page about Alex Cvetkovic contains fact only - true and proven facts - fantastic facts in fact! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that somebody removed Cvetkovic's goals and appearances for Wigan - reason stated 'as goals and caps for reserves don't count' - ?! There is an official (currently called U23 league) in which professional players play ..... although Reserves, Cvetkovic was on a professional contract only whilst at Wigan so it would count towards his senior career and caps as well as goals were clearly marked as Wigan Athletic reserves/ac meaning reserves and academy for which Cvetkovic in total combined played 33 times and scored combined 8 goals .... however, I will not interfere with that as it is an interpretation - and everyone has the right to express himself so too the editor in question.

Having said that - absolutely alarming is the fact that several objections as to apparently 'not fitting wikipedia rules and regulations' were bluntly overlooked in the very procedure of this debate - and that is - that on Monday morning I have found my built page about Alex Cvetkovic blanked and all the contents deleted - prior to following same rules and regulations of wikipedia of how only an alert could be raised about the article with clear time frame for it to be remedied (if so required after the debate).

By arbitrarily deleting an article (for which I had no backup copy) - and debating only the hybrid attempt by myself to be rebuilt subsequently which now is being discussed - the very essence of wikipedia was ignored as my research and the subsequent article should have never been deleted prior to discussion.

There are now only bare facts left in an article about Alex Cvetkovic which should be kept as a matter of ethics at least ..... as those facts left (as well as those provided here) are sufficient enough evidence to warrant keeping the page grow as that young player will only provide more evidence through the media which is worth considering. profooty33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:678:405:9100:D1E8:57B5:2C30:393B (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC) — 2A02:678:405:9100:D1E8:57B5:2C30:393B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - this article is authentic and the player deserves to have a page written about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.31.111 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC) — 95.144.31.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please state which policy this player meets Spiderone 17:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as it does not fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG but is an article in expansion and the existing details there warrant inclusion - why it was the initial action of deleting all the previous research prior to this debate and without any warning and leaving Alex Cvetkovic page blank on early Monday morning failing and still fails every single wikipedia rule, statute and ethics. We cannot discriminate against other country's athletes just on basis of them 'not being incorporated as in our sporting organisations charters' ie we cannot just dismiss other country's footballers just because their FA has a unique way of organising leagues (if so) as the very essence of pure facts namely concerning Alex Cvetkovic - who played all the youth leagues in Holland initially between age of 5 and 9 against all the 'Feyenoords and Ajaxes' week in week out before being spotted by Tony Carr MBE at the age of 9 and brought back to England to sign for West Ham, later on the player signed to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. after that Manchester United F.C. after that was one of the few youngest ever professionals in England signing a pro with Wigan only to be seen now as after already being FIFA registered and transferred player abroad playing regular 1st team football for a club that in their last UEFA Europa League match beat Aberdeen F.C. in July of this year and twice prior to that in recent yers fetured in the UEFA Champions League - having Cvetkovic transferred from abroad as they see it to as one of their best players although still a teenager - helps them progress even further on international scene - we cannot negate the fact that this is about a great young athlete - nor we can ignore that some of the objections come from the angle 'luxembourg is not worthy of considering seriously' which is contrary to wikipedia's teaching as every top level success of anything in any however small or big entity deserves respect and mention.

We cannot randomly discriminate but incorporate ... ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add further comments, but please stop attempting to cast multiple "keep" !votes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I log in that vote comes only as an intro before my comment although the debate is not reliant on casting votes but the substance - but I do appreciate there is no need to have that word before any further comments. profooty33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having not played in a fully professional league or received much in the way of coverage, WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG both failed to be met. Bakilas (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns when it comes to printed editions but this is an expanding article, novelty etc and we cannot delete an article which is valid and rewarding simply because the athlete fully plays for the 1st team in a top league that is not as per our liking!? - ; why don't we then delete every player who is playing in Luxembourg National Division - from wikipedia - 'The National Division (Luxembourgish: Nationaldivisioun, French: Division Nationale, German: Nationaldivision) is the highest football league in Luxembourg. Until 2011, it was known as the BGL Ligue, after the Luxembourg Football Federation managed to seal a sponsorship deal with Fortis. Before 2006, it contained twelve teams, but it expanded to fourteen for the 2006–07 season, and it has maintained this number since.' .... why don't we then also delete all amateur boxers for example or any Olympian or anyone from wikipedia who does not feature in a 'fully professional league' that pays as much as for example English Premier League does ....?! Alex Cvetkovic has a great CV and is a top young ENGLISH player playing abroad like many other athletes from either Luxembourg, Iceland, other small countries with their own specific umbrella sporting organisations etc - Cvetkovic plays regularly for the first team of the top club which for the last four years also regularly feature in both UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League - is that not 'fully professional'? Please consider that this is not about some young player but it is above all - about us, contributors, trying to expand on something that is not only new but also good ... there are thousands of suspect entries on wikipedia - Alex Cvetkovic might have not done in his teenage years some extraordinary things but is up and coming top young footballer ..... just a small page on wikipedia that is expanding .... ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the subject-specific guideline WP:FOOTY because Mr Cvetkovic hasn't played first-team football for a club from a fully professional league or in a senior international match. No evidence of his receiving enough independent non-routine coverage to pass the general notability guideline. No prejudice against recreation if and when either of these criteria are met. While I understand the frustrations felt by an editor whose hard work is likely to disappear because their subject isn't notable enough – I'm guessing we've all been there – I'm afraid extended rants about it won't get them anywhere. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several thousand footballers on very glossy wikipedia pages right now and have been there for years (such as, I dont know, for example Dan Thompson (footballer) and thousands similar) who never ever not just did not play in any top league but never even came close to sign for West Ham United, Tottenham Hotspur, Manchester United, Wigan Athletic and finally UEFA Europa League last year's Luxembourg top division Champions like Alex Cvetkovic By virtue of the fact that Cvetkovic's pages was immediately erased on Monday and various small technicality details including mention of a 'rant' - which was never a rant but only a relatively polite argument so no further details and naming reasons why Cvetkovic left one of his previous clubs (which is evidented and filed with the authorities) are publicly displayed (which will not happen for as long as his derserved page is let to grow) - I can only conclude that his achievement cannot and must not be included on wikipedia ... reason being the very proof of how determined initial reaction to his article was - immediate deletion and only after bare facts were rebuilt on his page - so called debate commenced ... Of course I am not happy - and somewhat sad (as I was preparing a series of pages with similar teenagers) that in case of deletion of Alex Cvetkovic article I/we/the team who has in depth knowledge of the full circumstances surrounding Alex Cvetkovic career will be forced to take this further as it is obvious that whatever 'project football' some of the objectors represent is is evident that thousands of non league players who never ever held a badge of a league club on their shirt are happily allowed on wikipedia - but Alex Cvetkovic is not.

I am also happy that upon deletion (if so) we could then freely go to mainstream media and elaborate this further alongside all necessary steps as we cannot have one set of rules for one single entrant and no rules for thousands of others on wikipedia whom no one ever objected inclusion. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your walls of text are really not helpful. Can I suggest that you refrain from further comment unless you are providing sources that would indicate GNG. Alex Cvetovic, fails the subject-specific guideline and there is no indication of any form of significant coverage on the player. The references in the article are nothing more than match reports on clubs he has played for. I see no evidence that there is a singled substantial article in existence dedicated to the player. Fenix down (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "thousands of non league players who never ever held a badge of a league club on their shirt" on Wikipedia, that is 100% untrue. Making blatantly false statements like that won't help your case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will provide sources - please remove the 'deletion warning' from Alex Cvetkovic page as it is damaging to his team's current communications with two major European clubs interested in him, thank you (and I have no reason to write any more 'walls' as everything is explained from our point of view - why it is ethical and professional to keep the article about Alex Cvetkovic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD template will remain in place, as is Wikipedia procedure. Frankly, it's not our problem what impact it may (allegedly) have on his contract negotiations. And the above comment seems to confirm what I suspect a lot of people deduced a long time ago, namely that you are the player's agent or in some other way connected to him and are using this article to promote him, which is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on promoting subjects.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fair what you're saying about me now; you have a problem with a top young player, you have a problem with me who created an article - yes I do know Cvetkovic's agent and he is a great guy, a lawyer too, and I was preparing a series on wikipedia about English teenage players abroad inspired by a twitter account called something similar 'english players abroad' and there on one of the tweets in the summer I saw 'Alex Cvetkovic signs to Fola champions Luxembourg ...' something like that - https://twitter.com/englishabroad1/status/761154234444345344

To be honest, once you've deleted the article arbitrarily on Monday I did feel all this is pointelss Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profooty33 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing that Tweet, however the fact that somebody Tweeted about him doesn't in any way address the fundamental problems with the article, which have been pointed out to you many times, namely that to be eligible for an article on Wikipedia, a player must have either:

Played in a league recognised as fully professional - he has not played in any such league
Been the primary subject of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources (newspapers or major media outlets or similar - "in-depth" coverage means that the subject is the main focus of the piece i.e. match reports in which he is mentioned in passing are not sufficient) - there is no evidence that this is the case

If there are sources available which meet the second point, please provide them and there's every chance the article could yet be kept, but none seem to have come forward so far -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 20:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't received significant coverage nor played in a fully pro league match. Therefore, the article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly player mwets the criteria, he regularly plays first team football in the premier league of luxembourg and the fact that luxemboug premier league is not included in Project Football is not the players fault and he regularly receives a lot of coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:678:405:9100:4C30:CD03:24CA:9F76 (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — 2A02:678:405:9100:4C30:CD03:24CA:9F76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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... Pending lack of opposition to the keep assertions by the nominator or other editors. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffry Life[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and no references at all except a link to subject's own web page. (Using AFD rather than speedy delete or PROD as the article has been around for several years.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Subject is pretty widely covered. While the page isn't currently sourced, there should be enough out there for verification. Meatsgains (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - "No evidence of notability"? Google him and there are lots of references. He's seems to be kind of a go-to guy regarding aging and testosterone therapy. He has a blog at the Huffington Post. MD & PhD... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9C00:C1A2:58CC:967:1BB6:AA80 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I've seen his ads, and he is a best-selling author, but the current stub is truly terrible. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

Delete. Quasi-advertorial article about an organization which may have a valid WP:ORG pass, but isn't sourcing that properly -- the referencing here is entirely to the organization's own primary source content about itself, with even the one "independent" source actually being a mere (deadlinked) reprint of one of the organization's own press releases about its own business awards program. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get an organization into Wikipedia -- I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be made a lot better than this, but it takes reliable source coverage about the topic in media, not the topic's own self-published content about itself, to get it into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, with no prejuedice against recreation. Currently it fails WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major LGBT non-profit with many chapters around the US. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a notability freebie that entitles a topic to an exemption from having to be reliably sourced as passing WP:ORG and WP:AUD and WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Major organization for the LGBTQ community, with state and international ramifications. Even rang NYSE Closing Bell once. What we need here are in-line references; we don't need a discouraging AfD.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ringing the closing bell at the NYSE once is not, in and of itself, a notability claim. And an article does not get exempted from having to cite proper referencing just because better referencing might someday become possible — particularly when it's already been flagged for three full years as lacking proper referencing. Sure, proper referencing would change the equation here, but simply asserting the topic as "major" is not enough to get an article that's based entirely on primary sources kept, with an infinite deadline for the eventual addition of theoretical sources — reliable sources have to already be present in the article for it to become keepable in the first place. An article always lives or dies on its referencing, and never gets exempted from having to be referenced properly just because an unreferenced notability claim has been asserted. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you look for references to add instead? I find that AfDs have a horrific chilling effect on editing.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did look for references, and didn't find any that were substantial and reliable, as opposed to more primary sourcing and/or glancing namechecks of its existence in news articles that aren't about it. That doesn't mean that other people with deeper database access to older US media coverage won't possibly be able to salvage it with some hunting — but it does mean that I've done as much WP:BEFORE as I can with the resources available to me. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we could've discussed this at WikiProject LGBT Studies though. I will look on Newspapers.com, but not today.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not so sure about the seperate notability of individual chapters or even of the Canadian organization that are also currently up for deletion, but the national U.S. organization seems clearly notable to me. Just today it's in many newspapers including the Washington Post [5] for its first-time ever presidential endorsement, and GNews shows other coverage of its assorted activities and controversies in major papers. [6][7][8][9] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-

Keep: I would like to see some more inline sources and references in general, but what's there now shows that it is notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:18 on September 27, 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The author is a blatant sock of User:Kingshowman and the article is deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Favonian (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump and Neo-Nazism[edit]

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

WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Basically a political essay. Kleuske (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this fine piece of prose and I saw the tags you added to my baby. I trawled the internet with a fine-toothed comb and discovered over 800 reputable sources linking these phenomena. It would be a crime against knowledge to destroy this. History is watching us. Why destroy 800 beautiful references from a reference work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Knowledge Lover (talk • contribs) 16:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A crime agains knowledge", no less. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is WP:NOT intended for righting great wrongs, it is WP:NOT a soapbox. Besides we have very strict policies on biographies of living persons. After perusing a random selection of sources mentioned, I can't help finding WP:SYNTH applicable. Unless you find a source that directly links Donald Trump to Neo-nazis, this "article" is unacceptable. Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I would have tagged with CSD or perhaps PROD if that failed. As it is now this is not encyclopedic at all. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:01, 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 07:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Legislations Encyclopedia[edit]

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

no references, no newspaper or any website talking about it, how it is "The largest printed encyclopedia" (by Guinness World Records) and nobody talks about it? Ibrahim.ID »» 04:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 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 16:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a reference to Guinness Book of World Records that's supposed to support that claim but it's not even that impressive even if it is legit. The article claims "It contains every piece of legislation from all the Arab countries.", if you do the same for English it will be way bigger. It has no article on the Arabic Wikipedia and the other language versions also only have Guinness as a reference.

The earliest and only search result for "Arabic Legislations Encyclopedia" that predates the creation of the article (27 August 2007‎) is [10] which leads to this mess [11]. There's a bunch country flags you can click through. Does it list all their laws? I don't want to find that out.

The next earliest search result, from 15 December 2007, is [12], a newsletter(?) from Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Looks like a translation of its English article if you look at #2 on page 15.

I think I found its Arabic name in a different language's page history.[13] @Ibrahim.ID:, any better search results for the Arabic characters in that link? BigGuy88 (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the arabic name is (موسوعة التشريعات العربية) and it just 3 results only in google search in Arabic, two refs copied from Wikipedia and the third say "Guinness Book of World Records 1999- issue 2002 p.156" also , The arabic article has deleted due to WP:AFD (link), the encyclopedia itself doesn't exist, no website - PDF - book store --Ibrahim.ID »» 07:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to exist; possibly a hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NPASR (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Ikumi[edit]

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

Manga artist who authored on Licca-chan and illustrated on Tokyo Mew Mew. Although Koi Cupid was recently PROD'ed, is her article still worth keeping around? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – As her one-shot Only One Wish may meet WP:BK #1 (see WP:ANIME/REQUEST#O) thereby just meeting WP:CREATIVE #3. – Allen4names (contributions) 04:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At this time I am seeing more notability than nothing at all. If the article isn't sourced more then it can always be re-nominated by someone who sees it as an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayden Keenan Olson[edit]

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

While there are plenty of reliable news sources reporting his death and the results of the inquest, there doesn't appear to be any lasting coverage or evidence of a wider impact as required by WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENT. I wouldn't object to some of the information being merged into Philip Morant School and College. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 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 15:54, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maor Appelbaum[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED - his client list does not make him notable, and he's never won an award that would make him notable. This is a not uncommon issue for production staff. MSJapan (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 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 15:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's hardly any coverage in reliable sources. The ones I see do not seem to be RS for notability purposes. I am unable to verify the claims in the article particularly the list of clients. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:30, 2 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (Breaking Pangaea album)[edit]

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

Bare tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 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 15:52, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BaseMind[edit]

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

The subject of the article is a recently released software program that fails to to meet the relevant notability guideline; I cannot find the requisite significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The program does not yet even have any ratings in the Mac App Store where it is being sold. Biogeographist (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, WP:TOOSOON. As a new article I tagged it in the hope WP:RSes would be forthcoming, but it appears not. Doing a basic WP:BEFORE, most web hits are for a Minecraft skin and I get zero GNews hits. But perhaps the company has good WP:RS-standard coverage in the clippings file, and I look forward to it being added - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 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 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is seriously way WP:TOOSOON. There are no independent sources available. The creation by SPA with edits like this points out that the intent is to promote the software. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3). Housekeeping closure (non-admin closure). Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 19:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZUKE TROY[edit]

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

No indication of existence let alone notability. Recreated after being deleted at Prod earlier today. Google not finding any hits. Totally unsourced. noq (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means, as I actually spotted this one earlier when it first started within minutes and planned to PROD, entirely fabricated because searches clearly found nothing and that's quite surprising, for there to not even be something, if it's so apparently new. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidently a hoax. Searches found nothing. Adam9007 (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: To save time, I've speedy-tagged this as a hoax. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 15:44, 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 SNOW Keep considering the noticeable suggestions of Keep, and therefore no comments of Deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bellow[edit]

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

Nominated at request of anonymous editor after declining a prod with the rationale: "As discussed in the Talk section, this article was clearly created by the subject of the article (cf. the posted CV}, or someone very close to her. As also discussed in the Talk section, this person is not notable, at least not for mathematics. (such notability is indicated by an achievement such as a major prize, a talk at the ICM, etc.; this person does not even have an article published in a top journal." See also talk page for further discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Humboldt Prize and Noether Lecture should be enough to show notability per WP:PROF#C2. Note that her most noteworthy publication (Topics in the theory of lifting, with nearly 500 cites on Google scholar, an enormous number for pure mathematics) is under a different name than the one she uses now and under that same name she does have publications in PNAS, TAMS, etc., contradicting the nomination statement. In any case the nomination is bizarrely justified: it names specific honors that she doesn't have and journals she doesn't publish in rather than looking at what she has done. Anyone, even the most blatantly notable, could be criticized in the same way, because there's always going to be some specific honor that they haven't achieved. Additionally, I find the sudden appearance (on the article talk page) of three different IP-address editors with very few other contributions other than to try to delete one other female mathematician's article (Eugenia Cheng) quite suspicious. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. I agree that the article needs some work, but most full professors at a place like Northwestern are going to pass WP:PROF. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear pass of WP:PROF as David explained. At best, the anon. IP is confusing deletion for clean up. Joe Roe (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:PROF on several grounds. In addition to passing WP:PROF#C2 as explained by DE above, also certainly satisfies WP:PROF#C1 based on the citability data and the journal editorships. Note that all three journals where she was an editor are high level journals. Nsk92 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for clear reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
""Remove"" - I am the person who proposed deletion. Eppstein mis-characterizes my criticism. I did not indicate the someone must have *every* indication of notableness that I mentioned, but they

should have at least one. Bellow has none. As for journals, PNAS hasn't been a top journal in math for at least 50 years, and TAMS is a lower-tier journal - as is well-known and easy to check via impact factors (although I personally don't love these). Bellow has a lot of citations for a textbook, but then a very small number for all the rest of her papers. Eppstein's implication that I somehow have a bias against female mathematicians is insulting and wrong (especially since I am married to one!). I simply think these kinds of very weak, self-promotional Wikipedia entries are harmful. It seems like I am in the minority here. I accept that. But I would love to hear an explanation of how people think Bellow's detailed CV got entered into this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.176.43 (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WoS h-index of 10 plus the material discussed above is pretty persuasive. @Anon: you're arguing on the journals themselves, which might be relevant if they were junk publications, but these are all mainstream. I agree that there are tons of "boosterism" articles on WP (in fact this is one of the biggest problems WP has, moving forward), but this article is not one of them. Agricola44 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep: per David Eppstein and others. Academic and major award winner. Article does need work, though. Montanabw^(talk) 07:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that the page looks less like a CV. (The CV copy-pasting does not necessarily done by someone close to her.) − Pintoch (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tone down: Undue weight. These topics are hardly the mainstream of the probability theory, and these results are of interest for a rather narrow circle of experts. Section "Mathematical work" is too detailed for a general encyclopedia. Such details could fit a professional encyclopedia, such as EoM. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, but needs a rewrite in places.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has rough parts, but the subject is clearly notable, per David Eppstein's excellent summary. Ozob (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article could use clean up, not deletion per WP:ATD. Notability requirements clearly met. Hmlarson (talk) 16:20, 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. Sources and awards discussed here do not appear to create notability for the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houndstooth (record label)[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, no assertion of notability. Releases albums linked to a particular London club, gets "top awards" from random websites, and has nothing else significant. The page is currently also being used as a promotional vehicle by listing their entire catalog of releases. MSJapan (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was initially skeptical, but started checking the sources referenced and was surprised to find that most have Wikipedia articles (Resident Advisor, Dazed, Tiny Mix Tapes, XLR8R), so it appears they're something more than 'random websites'. In particular, Resident Advisor appears to be a reliable source and their feature on Houndstooth is certainly significant coverage. A quick google also turned up a substantial article in Fact (UK magazine) and a 9-nine paragraph on npr.org. So it seems to me that the subject meets WP:GNG as having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I agree that the 'Discography' section should be deleted per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, however. Qwfp (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recheck your assertions. :) The NPR article is four paragraphs, and only mentions the label because they released the song the article is about. The awards are problematic because they're not established music awards - who's "Juno Plus"? Who's "Dummy magazine"? Coming third in a poll isn't winning. Tiny Mix Tapes is a webzine - do we know it's notable, or is it notable because it has a Wikipedia article? Resident Advisor may be RS, but "Label of the Month" means there were 11 others that year. Music-related items are notable because they win industry awards, not niche things like somebody's Top Ten List or a reader's poll. MSJapan (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asserting that it's notable if it meets WP:GNG. I said nothing about awards, only significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists solely to promote the business. The awards are unconvincing; some are fan based and others are trivial. The subject shows no signs of significance or notability and sources are marginal. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not satisfy WP:NCORP. Articles about releases which mention the record label in brief are not useful per WP:INHERITORG. The awards do not have any secondary citations and are not convincing enough. The FactMag is essentially an interview with the founder which doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. Add to that the fact that the page is being used for promotion and I will go with a delete here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Atlantic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First deleted in 2006 at AfD; not only are the current sources simply local guides, interviews, trivial news, their own websites, local event listings, my own searches are essentially finding the same at both News and browsers, for example this and this; searches, as they continued, simply found worse so I will not list those; but the bottom line and basis is that none of this amounts to actual substance including for convincing independence at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete if they were this noteworthy there should be stuff to meet WP:NMUSIC, but this WP:REFBOMB isn't it - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NBAND or GNG. Strictly a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 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 07:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fusil automático Bogotá[edit]

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

Completely non-notable and largely fabricated article that fails WP:GNG and WP:OR – I'm not even sure this doesn't qualify as a speedy delete under G3 or A11, but the original PROD was contested so it has to go to AfD. The article creator was indefinitely blocked for multiple sock accounts, mostly making inaccurate, dubious or made-up claims regarding guns [14]. The facts, as stated in the two Spanish-language references, are that on July 8, 2013 there was an weapons amnesty in the district of Usme in Bogotá. Among the weapons handed in to the police was a homemade rifle – there were also homemade grenades and homemade pistols among the other weapons. And that's all the references tell you. The name of the gun/article (it translates as "automatic rifle Bogota" for those who don't speak Spanish) appears to be made up by the article's creator, as is the "catalog number" which appears to have been created from the initials of "Fusil automático Bogotá" and the 5.56 caliber... although as the caliber is not mentioned anywhere in any of the references, this also appears to be a fabrication. The description of the gun in the article is also original research, as there is no description of it in the Spanish-language references – it seems to come from the English blog used as the third reference and the editor's own analysis of the pictures of the gun in the news articles. In short, an effort has been made to present the gun as some kind of unique historical artefact worthy of a Wikipedia article, when in fact it's just something that was knocked up in someone's back yard. Richard3120 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge' to some broader scope article (as previously discussed on the article talk: page). I can't argue against the technicalities of the AfD here. But I do think there's a notable topic and scope for home-made firearms within this conflict. Such firearms have been a significant aspect of many similar guerilla conflicts and the particular constraints of a conflict have influenced them in a notable way - compare the crude 'stick and nail' zip guns of the Mau Mau and the 80% receivers in the current US. The situation in Bogotá is similar to the US - ammunition and barrels are freely available, but the desire is for automatic firepower. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Dingley: you say "within this conflict" – which conflict are you talking about? If you mean the war against the FARC guerrillas, this has absolutely nothing to do with them. The sources don't mention any relationship with the guerrillas, and living in Bogota and knowing the city, I would be absolutely amazed if this had any connection with the FARC whatsoever, because they don't operate (at least overtly) in the major cities. Also, they are one of the richest guerrilla organizations in the world and can buy the finest weapons known to man – they certainly wouldn't be bothering with anything homemade. I would bet everything I own that this was a weapon created by a member of a small-time gang (Usme is a poor and fairly dangerous part of Bogotá) in order to fight with another gang or to use against the police, just like any other poor barrio in any other South American country, reagrdless of whether it's suffering from an internal conflict. This gun is one of hundreds, if not thousands, of homemade weapons made every year, even in countries with no fighting (I bet the police recover many homemade weapons in the US, for example). If you want to create an article about homemade weaponry in general I have no objection, but this article should absolutely not be merged into any other article regarding the guerrilla conflict in Colombia, because it would be original research and completely false. Richard3120 (talk) 18:21, 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 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE...A one of a kind homemade rifle turned in to Colombian police during an amnesty period has zero notability.--RAF910 (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of original research here. The spanish-language sources don't actually provide a name, caliber, or any other pertinent information about the weapon. Its notability is entirely limited to news reports about its seizure, so WP:ONEEVENT applies here. A Train^talk 09:42, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K B Buddhika Sampath Darshana[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability - references provided are mainly unreliable sources. Was previously the subject of a PROD notice, which was removed by an anonymous two edit user, with no explanation or justification. Dan arndt (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete almost certainly self promotional. Created by a single purpose editor of similar initials. Unreliable sources. Wish this could be speedied . LibStar (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a PR platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page / resume. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure PR stunt / promotional. Personal not-notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Gillis McDonald[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a person whose strongest claim to notability is his involvement in a police case that was later fictionalized in a novel. While that might be enough to earn inclusion in an encyclopedia if the article were reliably sourced enough to satisfy WP:GNG, it might still just make him a WP:BIO1E -- and no notability claim ever entitles its holder to an exemption from having to be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we remove all unsourced articles from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found one source that confirmed he was a tracker but nothing significant in coverage to suggest he meets WP:BIO. If editors are going to create articles they need to make the effort to citate. It contains a lot of unverified claims. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew S.I.D. Lang[edit]

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

Hugely drummed-up biography of an obscure professor at Oral Roberts University. The article has an impressive-looking list of no less than 18 sources. Upon closer examination, most of them are articles written by the subject himself, a wiki website on Open Notebook Science that he maintains, dead links (that didn't amount to much independent coverage judging from the text they are supposed to source), and a few sources on the honors this person received: giving a keynote address at Oklahoma State University and a talk given at the White House. There's also an award from a "DaVinci Institute" and a fellowship from ProjectNExT (100 awarded each year). None of this seems to indicate any notability. As for his research, the article cites his GScholar profile (in the references and in the ELs). Despite the fact that GS often overcounts citations, Lang's papers garner a paltry 246 citations for an h-index of 9. This is far removed from what we usually take as indicating notability under WP:ACADEMIC. In short, this biography seems to miss all criteria given in WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 9 does not pass WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, basically per nom. Note that the "DaVinci Institute" Fellowship is actually just a small grant ($1000) for which the person applies himself/herself (see [15]), rather than an award/prize in the sense this term is usually understood. I am not seeing enough evidence here to pass either WP:PROF or WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Story is pretty-much the same from WoS: h-index 5, with highest paper having 25 citations. Archetypical TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, article never insinuates anything else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think WP:TOOSOON is the right description of this case — with a Ph.D. 18 years ago, if he were going to accomplish something noteworthy in his research, I think we'd have seen it by now. Unlike pure mathematics, mathematical physics is not a particularly low-citation subject, and neither is open science, the topic of some of his more recent works. Regardless, he doesn't pass WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My WP:Too soon characterization was made in a spirit of optimism and charity. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough, and admirable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine cities and municipalities by population[edit]

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

Delete and redirect to List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines. The target article contains a sortable table with land area, population and density figures, making this list redundant. Besides, the list is outdated. Deleting this will reduce the workload to update multiple articles each time there is a change. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect: Same reasons with the above: list is limited only to cities/towns with population over 100,000, and contains 2010 data as the latest. Updating it using 2015 census figures doesn't change the fact that the list is still redundant since List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines already contains the information. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect same reasons given as above. Mattximus (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:32, 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 and redirect to List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine cities and municipalities by area[edit]

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

Delete and redirect to List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines. The target article contains a sortable table with land area, population and density figures, making this list redundant. Besides, the list by area shows only the 100 largest cities/towns. Deleting this will reduce the workload to update multiple articles each time there is a change. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect: The same reasons with the above: list is limited to the 100 largest and contains the same info with the more comprehensive list. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - Redundant Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 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) 15:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Ahuja[edit]

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

Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a business writer, which is not properly sourced. Instead of actual references, this contains a contextless linkfarm of "external links" -- which consists exclusively of content where she's the bylined author of the reference, and contains exactly zero links where she's the subject. Wikipedia is not a free PR database on which a person gets an article just because she exists -- she must be the subject of articles written by other people to satisfy our inclusion criteria for writers or businesspeople, and does not get an article by being the bylined author of the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles like this belong in linkedin not in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the book Jugaad looks like it may be notable so i might create an article for it, as Ahuja is a joint author, unless theres more "stuff" available for her notability, this article can be deleted (with a bit of info about her added there}. ps. work beckons so it will be a while. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page / resume. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Skinner[edit]

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

Minor politician lacking adequate coverage to provide WP:Notability. Fails WP:NPOL reddogsix (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:NPOL the individual in question has received extensive coverage by several newspapers that focus specifically on the individual and his policy changes hence meeting the requirements of WP:NPOL. The individual in question is a popular local political figure who currently holds a municipal position and has pushed to create reform in the province of Ontario. I don't expect the article to stay up for the individual in question just by being an elected official, as this does not guarantee notability, I hope it stays up because the article in question follows all of the notability guidelines that are provided by Wikipedia. As WP:NPOL has stated if the individual has to fit the criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." I have provided multiple sources that are both reliable and independent secondary sources that write about specifically about the individual, rather than only making a mention about the individual. Under the General Notability Guideline, states " Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." There are no fixed amount of sources that are required, despite this though I have provided multiple sources that are of independent secondary sources which display the notability of the individual in question. Under WP:NPOL the individual in question meets the criteria for section two, and three. There are several local politicians that have their own Wikipedia with the less or the same number of sources that are provided.

Under the General Notability Guidelines: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. All the sources I have provided are secondary and are made up of notable newspapers, and news websites that focus specifically on the individual written about in my article."Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits." The individual in place despite being involved in Local politics has received national, and extensive press coverage about his policies, and his campaign to make computer science part of the education.

Ultimately I believe that the article I have provided has provided enough independent secondary sources that establish notability, as the individual is a popular local politician and has extensive articles writing about the individual. Hence I think that the deletion of this article would be unjust as I have proven how the individual in the article meets all of the notability issues. Although he is a local politician, this does not disqualify him from having a Wikipedia article being written about him. The fact is that there are several secondary about the individual in question and just because he might be a local politician this does not warrant deletion. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a knowledge as long as it's on a topic that has several secondary sources that prove the importance of the topic. I would understand why this article might be deleted if the sources involved about me or a campaign page as these sources would not provide proof of notability. I have however provided several sources on the local level, provincial, and national level concerning the notability of the person in question. Thank You for your time, I'm happy you have taken the time to hear my side of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravellingTycoon (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither a school board trustee nor an as-yet-unelected candidate in a provincial election passes WP:GNG just because local coverage of them exists in the local media — local coverage always exists of every school board trustee on every school board and every as-yet-unelected candidate in every provincial election, so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE. At this level of significance, a person gets an article only if they can be demonstrated as significantly more notable than the norm, by virtue of their coverage nationalizing to sources on the order of The Globe and Mail or the National Post or the Montreal Gazette or the Vancouver Sun, and is not kept on Wikipedia just because local coverage exists in the local media. No prejudice against recreation in 2018 if he wins his seat in the provincial election and thereby becomes an actual MPP, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here gets him a Wikipedia article today. And for added bonus, more than half of the referencing is to primary sources like the TVDSB's own website about itself and the personal website of one of his colleagues on the TVDSB — but these are not sources that are independent of him, so they cannot assist in demonstrating notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We would need much better sources to show he is notable as a school board member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a VERY well connected and notable political figure in London, Ontario. He is very interesting in that he won a school board election despite homeschooling his children and is known throughout the province for his leadership in adding computer science to the elementary curriculum. When he speaks people listen. He is probably a future education Minister in Ontario and is someone who will push the envelope when it comes to STEM education. He has created considerable opportunities for students in the field of robotics in London while other school boards do absolutely nothing to help inventive kids with an interest in STEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.27.228 (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately none of this meets the requirements of WP:N or WP:NPOL. reddogsix (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability on Wikipedia is measured by the volume of reliable source coverage that the topic has or has not received in real media, not by simply asserting a pile of public relations bumf. If he's known throughout the province, then surely you can show coverage in the Toronto Star, the Ottawa Citizen, the Kingston Whig-Standard, the Sudbury Star and the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal — but if the article does not show the degree of wider coverage necessary to support that he's known as provincewide as you claim he is, then being sourceable only to London's own local media (where coverage of him is routinely expected to exist, because local coverage of school board trustees and local election candidates always exists) is not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and strictly a vanity page. Sources are unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 30 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Thomann[edit]

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

Not enough third party WP:RS sources to meet WP:BASIC.

A writer, editor not in any news. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

delete I took a swing at sourcing this; failed to find more than is already in article. young-ish editor once-major magazine, that now puts out a handful of special issues a year. It may simply be WP:TOOSOON].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: LHJ is an iconic publication, if recently much-reduced. But add to that her work for The Advocate, and I think we have adequate indicia to meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 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 13:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. Third party sources are specifically required per WP:WHYN and I am unable to find any at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, originally I was on the fence, but when you actually look at the sources they're usually about other things and only briefly mention Thomann. This doesn't mean that she's not very good at what she does or isn't having a successful career, but she doesn't meet the guidelines set out in WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Snoop Dogg discography. Don't usually close on 2 however participation's extremely low and IMHO relisting is only gonna be a waste of time so closing as redierct (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Late Nights (Snoop Dogg song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Did not chart, no assertion of notability. MSJapan (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snoop Dogg discography Clearly not independently notable. Either redirect or delete, I am fine with both. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snoop Dogg discography Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lohchav[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the single source in the article is known to be pseudo-history. There is a book by Bhim Singh Dahiya that mentions the Loh Chab in passing & they may be the same people but, again, it is pseudo-history (in fact, I think our bio article for that author was deleted). I can't find anything else that is reliable etc to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 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 13:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing a thing that could make a case of GNG for this subject. Anup [Talk] 06:16, 30 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. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Jihad[edit]

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

Delete: This article fails WP:NF, as it is not a notable film deserving of its own article.

- The article is the work of a single editor, who contributed the article's entire content during a one-week period in December 2012.
- That lone editor, Bonkers the Clown, appears to have been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia in 2014.
- This article was first nominated for deletion by AbstractIllusions within days of its creation, and the main reason given for tentatively keeping it was that it was new, but that it needed substantial improvement. But in the nearly *four years* since then, the article not only hasn't been improved, it hasn't even been touched except for a couple of hyperlink cleanups and a promptly-deleted attempt at vandalism.

In terms of the specific WP:NF guidelines, it fails on every count:
1) It was a direct-to-DVD release produced by the director's own production company. The film has ZERO reviews by nationally-known critics; the only two reviews cited in the article are from a blogger and a user-submitted Finnish source (and which merited being deleted even if the article itself isn't, due to lack of notability, and which in turn will leave the article with virtually no content at all).
2) It is not historically notable. There's been nothing non-trivial written about the film since its release. The three non-review resources listed are a promotional interview with the director, and two articles about the director's other endeavors that merely mention this film's title in passing.
3) It hasn't received any awards at all.
4) It's not part of any historical archive.
5) There's no evidence that it's part of any curriculum at any school.

The only plausible ground for notability is that the director is notable. However, 'Atomic Jihad' is not a major part of his career, and as the WP:NF guidelines state, a separate page should only be created if it would clutter up the biography page. And there's only one or two sentences' worth of actual content here, the equivalent of nothing more than a promotional blurb. Lorencollins (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't even come close to passing gng. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect via {{r from film}} to the film's author, Joel Gilbert, is more appropriate than outright deletion, considering that the film does exist in reliable sources as passing mentions. It only fails GNG on the significant coverage criterion, that would warrant a stand-alone article. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has long passed its chance for a tune-up, and four years is ample time to wait before deciding that the article really can't be improved. It's also more than enough time to measure if the article's subject receives consistent, continued coverage, which it hasn't and it never received significant coverage to begin with. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect, though I prefer deletion as the first option. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 2 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. — ξ ^xplicit 02:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soumen De[edit]

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

Article is previously deleted by same user User:Sharmila patra under the Wikipedia guidelines WP:A7 and article has not reliable references. Mindcap (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A7 material. Anup [Talk] 19:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 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 speedy deleted pursuant to WP:CSD G10. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also judge that there was no consensus as to the overall notability of the subject. Safiel (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Kassouf[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as news search with the given Arabic name in the article and even the English name has no result in news search. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails the meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be good to have someone fluent in the languages of the references in the article take a look at them. We may be biased in our searches, too, because of language. I think there are different kinds of Arabic, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I may change my opinion pending sources, but there's quite a bit of notoriety here. She may meet WP:BASIC aside from any political office, NPOL does not trump WP:N. Montanabw^(talk) 04:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL9 and WP:DEL7. This is one of the worst cases of BLP violations I have seen. None of the sources have any mentions of the subject and yet the entire article is full of allegations about how she is a murderer and traitor and how her family members are the same as well. This is nothing but an attack page. The article contains links to some private Facebook accounts and accuses them of being aliases for subject herself. All of this while none of the references in the article contain anything about the subject and neither does a search for the Arabic name bring up anything. This should not be kept for any length of time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is doing this, doesn't seem to have good intentions. I found this on Commons created by the article creator. I have nominated it for deletion there. It's pretty clear someone is trying to target the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the article for CSD G10. This cannot be allowed to stay up for any length of time. There seems to be some devious intent behind creating this page considering the dubious edits by the creator such as this as well as using multiple accounts to stop the previous speedy deletion. Lenajib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lemitri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be socks as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:04, 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adzerk[edit]

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

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

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

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

Rely on non-credible media sources. Merely Press Release on media. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Total 16 Employee, not publicly listed. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 16:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, mostly press-release and publicity push coverage; only the DNT stuff got genuine third-party coverage for newsworthiness, and that's not enough to swing an article on - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough reliable sources available to establish notability, including this and this. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the 2 sole sources listed above are (1) the BizJournals is notorious and confirmed by AfD itself to simply be a local PR-hub for companies to seek and establish PR of itself; the two sources alone are then actually simply what the company's activities are and what the company says about itself, if that's honestly the best sources existing, that's not a convincing article. That's not surprising either considering this is still in fact a newly started company with barely any other substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you object to the BizJournal sourcing, there are other sources that establish notability, such as the New York Observer and TechCrunch. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really reading those articles or just looking at Weblink they belong to? Leave TechCrunch aside. They are not even a news. and Observer: "Reddit Adopts New Ad System, Adzerk, Allowing Users to Up and Downvote Sidebar Ads" This one? Seriously? does it make it notable here? Light2021 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, seriously. We are not here to judge what independent reliable sources choose to cover, we are here to judge if independent reliable sources have significantly covered a specific topic. And the bylined article in the Observer is one such instance. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely incorrect. We are absolutely here to judge whether a source is indeed being independent and reliable, on a case by case basis if need be. We are not somehow obliged to put in a piece of blatant churnalism because it appears in a soi-disant RS and then treat said reprocessed press release as if it is A+ first-rate editorially-verified information you can absolutely rely upon. In fact, investigating such questions is one of the things we have AFDs for. Because treating churnalism as editorially-verified totally reliable information is a direct disservice to our readers - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not convinced me. The Observer source is significant coverage. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The observer sources doesn't count towards notability per WP:INHERITORG (as it a brief mention of the company in context of a main article about Reddit). It can be used for verification, but not for notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, source is significant coverage of a significant event in company history. INHERITORG does not apply. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Updated September 19th, 2016 - New references have been added, including EFF, Inc.com, and non-promotional news articles on Adzerk's notable stand against NC's HB2 bill (Adzerk is located in Durham, NC). mrshuptrine (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2016 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshuptrine (talk • contribs)

Comment and analysis - The two sources listed after my comment above are one I examined as it is, and it was PR simply advertising what the company is, their services and what the company has to say about itself, the second link is the same where there was no actual substantial journalism. The Keep vote suggesting that new sources have been added is also simply adding the same sources that simply advertise what the company is about and what it wants to say about itself, not the specific news we need that is both establishing of independent notability and substance. The comment suggests that the news focusing with the HB2 bill are enough, but they are actually not, because it's outweighed the fact the entire article then still looks like a business listing, and to be honest, mentioning what the company's activities are, in this case the HB2 bill, are still advert-like. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After this AfD was initiated, and after some earlier !votes, some promotional content was removed from the article (diff, diff, diff) and additional sources were added, some of which do not appear to have been addressed within this discussion (diff, diff). Relisting to allow time for consideration relative to these changes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists to promote the business. In addition, sources offered above and in the article are not convincing; they are routine. This is an unremarkable SaaS startup going about its business. The coverage is routine, of funding, customers and partnerships, and minor awards, such as:

"In 2015, Adzerk was ranked #262 in Inc. magazine's list of the 5,000 fastest-growing private companies in the United States." (typical of such promotional articles).

So delete as it stands. Wikipedia is not a platform for companies' promotional materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among the many sources sufficient to prevent this article from deletion, there is one written by Cory Doctorow. If you think anything Cory has taken the time to write about himself does not meet the very low standards of WP:GNG, please explain how in a reply comment. Doctorow, Cory (September 30, 2015). "Ad server will respect Do-Not-Track headers". Boing Boing. Retrieved October 1, 2015. http://boingboing.net/2015/09/30/ad-network-will-respect-do-not.html. If that wasn't enough to prevent deletion, Adzerk is used by Reddit. http://observer.com/2013/03/reddit-adopts-new-ad-system-adzerk-allowing-users-to-up-and-downvote-ads/. Clearly merits keeping.Mbridge3000 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are a new editor. Companies have to pass WP:NCORP and in particular sources need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:INHERITORG. Boing boing is a well known blog WP:SPS and doesn't help towards notability. The article about Reddit using it needs to be discounted per WP:INHERITORG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was in fact an established Delete here alone, because the supposed improvements were not actually substantial and they were simply trivial in moving a few things around (the trivial improvements were in fact before and somewhat hours after the nomination, and yet another week has passed, and no actual improvements, that suggests enough by itself), certainly not convincing. What still stays is that none of the Keep votes are either substantiating themselves or are simply reconfirming the same trivial coverage that has been analyzed and listed as unconvincing. Once we become a PR webhost, we're seriously damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are thin and many of them do not count towards establishing notability per WP:NCORP. For example, this observer source doesn't count towards notability per WP:INHERITORG as it is a brief mention in context of Reddit. Simply because Reddit is using their service doesn't make it notable. TechCrunch published literally every small news in the tech world, using it for notability would lead to Wikipedia becoming a directory (which goes against WP:NOTDIR). The quality of the sources is pretty bad. I mean this TechCrunch article used an employee as a story source and this cannot establish notability per WP:ORGIND. None of the other sources are good enough and this seriously doesn't merit keeping. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Observer source is significant coverage of an important event in the company history. WP:INHERITORG does not apply and it is not a short mention. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the usual PR fluff routine to any serious tech startup, masquerading here as reliable sources. Doesn't mean it's not a quality product, but it's not notable yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The initial article was hopeless promotional, and though a little of the puffery was removed, the added sources are not sufficiently reliable for notability DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 9 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 Both articles deleted as G12 (copyright violation) as they are unattributed copies of Moroccans in Sweden. Unattributed copying is a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Algerians in Sweden[edit]

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

Almost verbatim copy of the (older) article Moroccans in Sweden. Except for a few numbers that were changed (without indicating any sources), the content obviously applies to Moroccans, not Algerians. Novarupta (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Novarupta (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason:

--Novarupta (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By nominating these articles I do not mean to imply that they are not notable or should never be created. However, in the current state they are mere copy-pastes and as such contain wrong information and no relevant sources. I think it is much better to have no article than obviously wrong ones.

Also, the creator of these articles (Kend94 (talk · contribs)) has created other similar articles. At a first glance, those articles are not obviously copied/wrong, but it might be worth to have a closer look. --Novarupta (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles cite exactly the same sources (two of which are not even identifiable, much less WP:V). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:17, 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. Per the last few arguments provided, as the topic seems to meet WP:GNG and there don't appear to be any other concerns meriting deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proactive communications[edit]

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

Non-notable marketing buzzword. The article itself flits between impenetrable business jargon and banal statements of the obvious ("it's better to address problems before they happen"). Joe Roe (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – A notable topic that passes WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Some of these sources are essentially paywalled, with GBooks previews available. It's a stub article that can be significantly expanded. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Proactive Communications in Agent Teamwork". pp. 271– . (subscription required)
Effective Online Teaching: Foundations and Strategies for Student Success
Digital Marketing Analytics: Making Sense of Consumer Data in a Digital World
The Role of Departmental Secretaries
Houston Chronicle
Inside Indiana Business
Businessworld. Published by Businessworld.
The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods
Strategic Communication for Sustainable Organizations: Theory and Practice. Quote: "This chapter focuses primarily on proactive communication: Proactivity has come to refer to a more or less unspecified set of nondefensive or nonreactive practices through which organizations handle their relations with the external world."
Advertising Transformed: The New Rules for the Digital Age

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Pls see below; Original comment: per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and rather trivial business concept. Of course, customer communications need to be "proactive" for best results. Not sure what else to add except for jargon that is included in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the sources have simply found essential PR and guides for a word involved with exactly that, PR. There's nothing at all forming of substance to suggest a both sufficiently improved and then convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) demonstrate that the term "proactive communications" goes beyond a dictionary definition.
As one book published by Springer Science+Business Media provided by Northamerica1000 notes:
Today, individual organizations engage in public disclosure practices, provide corporate donations and sponsorships, sign on to principled ideals from institutions of moral authority (e.g., sign onto the UN's Kyoto Protocol), and participate in conferences, public discussions, and open panels.
Their communication may be proactive or reactive. This chapter focuses primarily on proactive communication:
Proactivity has come to refer to a more or less unspecified set of nondefensive or nonreactive practices through which organizations handle their relations with the external world. Instead of waiting for threats and opportunities to become manifest imperatives, the proactive organization attempts to influence and shape external developments in ways considered favorable in terms of its own aspirations. (Cheney and Christensen 2001, p. 253)
Some organizations position themselves as proactive when they are actually engaging in a discursive fiction (i.e., saying they are taking positive actions when they are not) (Zoller and Tener 2010). True proactivity requires involves working with multiple and varied stakeholders to anticipate potential harms and to adopt environmentally sustainable practices (Bullis and Ie 2007). True environmental leaders make sustainability initiatives and communication an integral part of their core business strategy; create alliances to foster progress on targeted sustainability issues; implement Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting and fully and transparently meet the standards; integrate sustainability into corporate stories, mission, vision, and values; and direct varied, yet complementary, communication toward key stakeholder groups (Peloza et al. 2012).
That a chapter in a business book published by Springer Science+Business Media focuses mostly on "proactive communications" strongly establishes that the concept goes beyond a dictionary definition.
Cunard (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The sources I provided above cover aspects of proactive communications, which in some aspects is partially related to, but is not dependent upon the topic of public relations, which is also a notable topic. However, the sources cover additional aspects of the topic. None of the sources I provided above are public relations content in and of itself, as in press releases or promotional content designed to promote something. There is plenty of substance in the sources to base an article upon, such as proactive communications management, issue management, use of data relative to proactive communications, organization communications, the topic as it relates to teamwork in organizations and customer service, and more. Furthermore, the sources I provided above are examples; more sources are readily available and easily found, as denoted by more examples below I have provided. The topic is clearly quite notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More references

"Doctor Proactive Communication, Return-to-Work Recommendation, and Duration of Disability After a Workers’ Compensation Low Back Injury". Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. pp.515-525.
"Toward a theory for multiparty proactive communication in agent teams". International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems.
"A decision-theoretic approach for designing proactive communication in multi-agent teamwork". SAC '04 Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing. pp. 64-71.
"Multiparty Proactive Communication: A Perspective for Evolving Shared Mental Models". College of Information Sciences & Technology. Pennsylvania State University. pp. 685-690.
"Modeling cooperation by observation in agent team". Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2005 IEEE International Conference.

Keep -- the latest sources are compelling. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:12, 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) 15:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Lazlo[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a local radio program on a single radio station in a single market. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NMEDIA, which requires something approaching national distribution -- but the only other path for something like this to get a Wikipedia article is to be sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The sourcing here doesn't do that, however; four of the five sources are to internal radio industry trade magazines of the type that routinely cover comparable news about any radio program that exists at all, and thus don't demonstrate that this one is more notable in any way than the thousands of other similar programs that exist in the world -- and the only one that actually represents reliable source coverage in real media was written by a person who's directly affiliated with the program and thus isn't independent. All of which means GNG has not been met. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMEDIA. Thin coverage in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 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 11:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a good dose of WP:TNT; strictly an advertorial page and blatantly so. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 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 speedy delete. Ged UK 11:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adage Games[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Beside the references already in the article, there are very few other reliable sources regarding the topic. Very little coverage about their game, too. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:37, 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. Firstly, lets get WP:DINC out of the way, which applies to the original nomination statement. A mere suspicion that an article has been written by a COI editors is also not a reason for deletion. Those aside, there seems to be no agreement amongst editors as to whether the sources provided are sufficient to make this a notable subject and a suitable topic for an article. I suggest cleaning up any of the blatant advertising and making a decision then as to whether to re-nominate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stratajet[edit]

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

Alleged to be an A7 article, although at this point G11 may be more apropreiate, anyway the article looks like it could be salvaged with some copy-editing and perhaps a little more information of a less advertisement-y nature. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising overall, there's no actual substantial coverage, and even then, the information is all either advertising the company's services, its finances and noticeably its "corporate affairs", this is business listing and there's nothing else to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for page to remain

Dear all,

I would like to argue the case for this page to remain. I reference the following Wiki entry about a 'competitor', PrivateFly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PrivateFly, which follows a similar format, laying out the history of the company and the company's services.

I would suggest that the proposed content for Stratajet is similar and, most importantly, entirely factual (as per the references). Yes, of course there is an 'advertisement-y' element to this but surely that's the case with all entries that reference companies - aren't they designed to talk about the relevant company's services? The PrivateFly entry is similarly promoting the company's services.

The question of 'coverage' is referenced above - by this do you mean media coverage? If so, there is a multitude of media coverage on Stratajet across Europe and U.S, in publications such as GQ, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Financial Times, Business Insider, Yahoo!, Marketing Week, Tech City News, Aviation Week, and many more. Would it help to reference more of these articles?

I will naturally do whatever I can to more fully build the Stratajet copy, so would appreciate any advice. There is a lot of additional information that can be supplied to make the page more 'concrete', for example partnerships (similar to the PrivateFly page), which I will continue to build into the page.

Of course I would also be grateful for any other advice on how to make the copy less 'promotional'.

I look forward to hearing people's thoughts.

Jamesgwinnett (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the nominator: this article can easily be fixed by the usual editing process. I dunno what searching the single delete voter above did, but it evidently was not a very good search, or they simply have no understanding of what significant coverage means when dealing with a company or organization. Here's just a few samples of that significant coverage to start with:

This website lets you book private jet rides that are cheaper than some commercial flights from Business Insider
Stratajet: private jet hire made simple from Financial Times
How to fly by private jet for economy prices from GQ
Fancy a private jet? There's an app for that from CNBC
Web Summit: Investors line up to get on board private jet hire company from The Irish Times

and more. Now the user that voted delete above can reply to this vote in an excessively verbose manner to once again give us all evidence that they do not understand what significant coverage is. Go! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment and analysis - First of all, there's no need for personal comments and attitude such as visibly shouting out to analysis (such as visibly showing personal criticism of what other comment are listed here), since this is what an AfD is about, so any refusal about acknowledging and considering how those sources are PR, is that the headlines are PR themselves, "This website lets you book private jet rides that are cheaper than some commercial flights", "private jet hire made simple", "Summit investors line up to get on board private jet hire company" (FYI, it's an interview), all of that is PR and PR alone, simply citing that the major news source talked or mentioned them is entirely PR, in that the company is the only and, honestly best source, for any information about the company itself, and the fact this is a company that would clearly accept PR for their business, it's not surprising. Everything else from those articles never talk about anything else than interviewed information or company activities, which is not an article in itself, it's a business listing. The BusinessInsider itself begins with a "Strajet bills itself as...." which is then followed by what the company offers and how the company started, that's not journalism, that's PR, and blatant PR at that. With this said, these would not serve any actual improvements to the article because the entire article currently then actually looks like a PR piece itself, by having not only services but then other trivial information only clients and investors would want to know. None of those sources therefore could be called "significant, substantial, independent news or PR-immune". As always, deletion as advertising is an excellent explanation for deleting, especially if the only sources are they themselves advertising.SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "Comment and analysis'

I would like to thank people for taking the time to comment/post here and I reference another similar Wiki page to support my below points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_(jet_charter_company). Victor is a 'competitor of Stratajet, so particularly relevant in this case.

The coverage of Victor is highly promotional / 'blatant PR' in the same way that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SwisterTwister highlights is the case for Stratajet. I would suggest that, even though the 'coverage' of Stratajet has so far been positive, it is nonetheless coverage - the articles have merely been written in a particular way due to the proposition of the company. If you look at the Victor 'references' they are as follows:

Reference 1: http://uk.businessinsider.com/victor-app-uber-for-private-jets-2015-3 ... Victor — 'Uber for private jets' - this is a promotional article that also quotes the Founder as saying, "We make it cheaper by removing the broker. It's a really simple process — it's quick, easy, and there's just one fee."

Reference 4: http://www.worldfinance.com/markets/how-victor-is-opening-the-skies-to-private-aviation ... Victor is opening the skies to private aviation - again, this is PR. The Founder is quoted: "This transparency puts power back in the hands of private aviation customers."

Reference 5: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8700083/Private-jet-share-business-born-out-of-frustration.html ... Victor, which aims to open up the world of luxury travel to the wider market - the opening sentence says, 'It began as a brainwave ...' and the article promotes Victor's services: 'allows members to book spare seats on private flights already chartered by other travellers'.

I would suggest that these references have precisely the same tone as the Stratajet references but obviously the Victor page has remained, so there is no valid argument for the Stratajet page to be deleted.

Thank you for your consideration. Jamesgwinnett (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and it does not have much weight in a deletion discussion. However the general sentiment of basing a keep !vote on significant coverage in reliable sources is valid. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. See source examples below. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] (in Italian)
[23] (subscription required) (addendum)

Comment and analysis - Not only are nearly half of the listed sources above actually mentioned earlier, but the different ones actually then go to mention the same things, what there is to advertise about the company and that alone (The Italian article even goes to start with a flashy photo"). The Spears is as blatant as these others, it begins with a flashy photo of the man and his plane....and it's then an interview, with finishing with the best part of course! .... "Stratajet is available in", not only was that businessman-supplied information, but it's advertising of course. The CNBC goes to mention the company a mere 5 times, and that's simply a few sentences or so, there's no actual depth or substance, what's else is that the few sentences there are, are simply advertising what the company is and what its services are (another case where there can be no PR-immune guarantee, especially as national a source like CNBC), The GQ article begins with trivial information until going to "Unlike other private jet chartering apps, Stratajet allows you to see final, bookable prices for private jets, rather than quotes or estimates, and can bring the “per person” cost down to compete with business class, first class flights, and sometimes even economy ticket prices. Stratajet also doesn’t require membership fees: you simply look up a flight, book with the app on your credit card or Apple Pay, and head to the airport for your flight".... that's company PR and that alone, there was no journalism happening because it was all company-supplied, and unbelievably like the Spears, it shows the same exact photo and interview with the businessman himself (the next paragraphs are, of course, talking about the company and what it is, once again company-supplied PR). To then state the obvious, each time a journalist came at all close to making journalism sentences, it quickly went to the businessman interview again.... That shows only one thing, that PR agents were clearly involved and they were involved heavily. As always, copyediting means nothing if all the information as shown here and above by my comments earlier, show it's PR and that alone, we are not an advertising platform and no sources should convince us to become one otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The sources I provided in my !vote demonstrate that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. They are all bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources, and they all provide significant coverage. No evidence has been provided that these news providers have been paid by Stratajet for publishing these articles, and no such evidence likely exists, because it's highly unlikely. Also, I have added another source to the end of the list I provided above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure unadulterated corporate spam. With sections such as "Origins", "History", "Partnerships", the likelihood of paid editing is extremely high, and that's no allowed per policy. This article should be deleted with fire so that not encourage the spammers (see WP:BOGOF). Rewriting this article on a non-notable company will only be a waste of volunteer editors' time, and the value to the encyclopedia would be minimal resulting in a WP:DIRECTORY listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 8 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gokul Suresh[edit]

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

This article keep getting recreated and deleted on G7 grounds, so I do not think a csd-deletion is going to help here. I'm listing it here for an opinion from the community on whether it should be kept, merged someplace else, or deleted and salted since four recreations in the log demonstrates it won't stay red without the salt. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 10:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some coverage here. I have not yet gone through them. Will do later and !vote here. Anup [Talk] 19:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACTOR as of now.JackTracker (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject definitely doesn't meet NACTOR for he has appeared into only one film as of now, but he may meet WP:GNG. Here are some sources I was able to find:
The Hindu, Times of India, Times of India2, Times of India3, Times of India4, Deccan Chronicle, Deccan Chronicle2, Filmibeat, Filmibeat2.
There should be some more sources that I was not able to find, and some regional langauge sources sources published from the region he belongs to. I'm still undecided however. Anup [Talk] 03:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one film/role of his might be significant enough, but we need at least two, so this is at best too soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete - As comments made by editors above me, it's clear that it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 06:31, 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. Wizardman 13:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Blue Jays opponents[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATS. Consensus has been that most matchups between pro teams are not notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely trivial and incomplete article. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with Sabbatino. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is unmaintainable, because every single time the team plays a new game at all at least one set of numbers in this list would have to be changed. And it's WP:TRIVIA, because we are not a directory of sports statistics. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTATS – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just throwing out there that this, this and this are all Featured Lists..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable for its own page.. And to the editor directly above me, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Spanneraol (talk) 15:36, 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) 15:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G2 Games[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete obvious promo, no references - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- exclusively "corporate spam". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FlaxUK[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not for searches: company was formerly known as Lemur Consulting Ltd -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no RSes in article and none I could find in the world. I'm having trouble finding even unreliable third-party sources. Two book mentions (both just in passing, of Lemur Consulting), which surprised me there was that much - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No assertion of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not supporting the article, but "like thousands of others" is not a good arguement for deletion.. there are not just thousands, but hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of notable companies, and WP is NOT PAPER. Even in this general area there probably are a few thousand notable IT companies. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article says everything by itself: the basic information about what there is to advertise about the company, and it's not even a substantial advertising, showing it was simply an excuse to make an article and put anything PR, no actual substance of course, because no company would ever consider that. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 1 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwaaS Systems[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. All awards are questionable and non-notable entries. Light2021 (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I fail to see anything that would help subject meet the WP:CORPDEPTH standard. And kudos to nominator for finding yet another piece. Anup [Talk] 03:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - text is promotional ("DrBond is the best knowledge-sharing and networking companion for every thinking doctor." is not quite what I would think of as Wikipedia style), coverage is promotional, quasi-RS coverage is promotional, this is a big advertisement - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as the listed information is by far advertising what to there is know about the company and its activities, the sources also then amount to PR as they were clearly company-supplied information, nothing else, let alone convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; nothing but "corporate spam". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Wrong namespace, please use WP:MFD for User-space pages. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 14:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Minitooljoker/sandbox[edit]

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

Promotional and advertising only. All links are found as promotional, press or advertising. As per name User itself is the owner. Light2021 (talk) 07:47, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 00:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahi (clan)[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I suggest making a new list for these clans, and the namespace should redirect to the section of the said clan.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 10:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any evidence of notability. This is not to be confused with the unrelated Hawaiian clan, which is mentioned in several books. utcursch | talk 14:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. There is another clan who shares the name, but that is not one we looking for. Anup [Talk] 16:35, 30 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 00:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehlawat[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any evidence of notability. utcursch | talk 14:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 16:24, 30 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 BOL Network. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BOL News[edit]

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

Non Notable news channel that did not even start. It only did one test transmission then it's license was revoked due to fraud. Fails WP:GNG in every possible sense. TouristerMan (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be redirected to BOL Network. I guess we'd need to evaluate sources first; the channel doesn't have to 'start' in order to have an article, significant coverage on the controversy could make it notable too. However, I'd still lean with redirecting. Mar4d (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not independently notable, redirect to BOL Network as a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and redirect: The appropriate info from BOL News be put into BOL Network and the current pagename be made a redirect to that section.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BOL Network ; not independently notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —The nominator rationale that the subject fails general notability criteria is unsubstantiated. Its license was revoked but has been reinstated by the court and the subject is debated in independent reliable sources. sami ^talk 22:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BOL News per WP:INHERITORG. Not every news channel is notable. We consider the transmission history, presentation of original content as well as the references in third party sources. The sources need to be specifically about the channel itself and cannot inherit notability from the parent organisation. The controversy here is about the parent organisation and it cannot help to establish notability. I suggest a redirect here as it is clearly not independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:39, 2 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity (web agency)[edit]

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

Rely primarily on one independent source. Questionable reference are given. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 07:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find myself similarly unconvinced. Is there a second good source? - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources from St. Louis Business Journal, St. Louis Magazine, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are reliable and non-trivial per WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable web agency going about its business. Coverage is run-of-the-mill in the local press covering a local business. Biz Journals are generally considered non RS for the purpose of establishing notability. WP:PROMO also applies as the tone of the page is advertorial, such as:

"In 2015, Integrity became an official Google Partner. Several employees are AdWords Certified", and
"The company has shared plans for further expansion, adding an additional 100 employees."

The article exists to promote the business, and is not adding value at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. This is a pretty clear delete. Every single source is a local source which doesn't satisfy WP:AUD. There is literally no claim of significance here either. I mean stuff like Between 2009 and 2013, the company expanded from six to over forty employees shows that it is too soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Localism camp[edit]

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

It is grammatically incorrect and this term does not exist in the media yet. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For grammatically incorrect, the name can be changed to "Localist groups" (zh:本土派 (香港)) or something else, but it is NOT the same as "Localism in Hong Kong" (zh:香港本土化運動), as the "Localist groups" describes a classification of members of Legislative Council and District Councils and related supporters, but "Localism in Hong Kong" describes an "ideology" in Hong Kong (See an edit by Lmmnhn, he said: "Not a political party", and once more, he said: "we have to be fair, list all or none of them (ideologies)"). For the term does not exist in the media yet, this is surely wrong, as we should follow classification by the media (I know the classification existed in Hong Kong legislative election, 2016), whether it is traditional or new, whether it is in English or Chinese~

Apple Daily HK: 本土派奪6席　摑梁特一巴
Apple Daily HK: 本土泛民終分庭抗禮硬打港獨策略有變？
Ming Pao: 陳景祥第三勢力三分天下？
HK01.com: 立會板塊分析西環化成趨勢　本土派被誇大
Divinity School of Chung Chi College, CUHK: 香港本土派與基督信仰
inmediahk.net: 本土派為何必須面對「建設民主中國」

, and could not feel that because there is no such "camp" exists, we cannot create such articles. The feeling is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. UU (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I knew that there are the terms "localist groups" and "localists" which stand for 本土派 or the political relation of six people of HK Legislative Council in the media. So, I agree with UU that we can start a new page of "Localist groups (Hong Kong)" to correct the grammar mistake. By the way, six seats for localists: SCMP, Apple Daily and IPP Review. Keithchan1 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "camp" and "groups" are totally different concepts. A camp refers to a political alliance with a same goal and cooperate with each other, like the pro-democracy camp and the pro-Beijing camp. But the six localists have not yet formed any form of political alliance. In fact, they often disagree with each other on many issues and hostile to each other. Not to mention the article only refers the localists as "right-wing" alignment on the header but put the left-wing activists such as Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Eddie Chu into a subordinating position which does not reflect neutrality. There are a caucus within the pro-democrat and pro-Beijing parties but that does not yet exist among the six localists. Therefore the so-called "localism camp" (not to mention some wikipedians always make this grammatical mistake) equal to the pro-democracy camp and pro-Beijing camp does not exist. Additionally, until today the media only refers to the localists as "localist groups" but not "localist camp". There are localist groups but no "localist camp". Such camp may emerge in the future, but to state that there is a "localist camp" today is not factual, which I believe is "misleading" (a term UU likes to accuse me for). Lmmnhn (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make those judgement as this violates Wikipedia:No original research, and the sentence~

until today the media only refers to the localists as "localist groups" but not "localist camp"

is certainly wrong, as there are already~

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Standard: Beijing sees `no big deal' in Mong Kok strife
South China Morning Post: ‘A Hongkonger is someone willing to defend our values’: Baggio Leung on his mission to make nationalism mainstream

, as well as I listed the Chinese media link above. Chinese media links should ALSO be considered as Hong Kong people use Chinese. There are a lot of Chinese terms appeared in English Wikipedia, but do not have factual translation. In addition, Localism in Hong Kong#Localist figures and organisations mixed up the people and groups that are counted for Pan-democracy camp in Hong Kong legislative election, 2016, such as Gary Fan, Claudia Mo, Hong Kong First, Neo Democrats, and etc., which will make confusion to readers. In order to reflect the classification of media, keeping the article "Localism camp", which can be renamed to "Localist groups" (zh:本土派 (香港)) or something else, and separating from "Localism in Hong Kong" (zh:香港本土化運動), is necessary. UU (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still need more time to consider whether Localist Groups or Localism Camp is more appropriate to describe a new force that the localist parties had formed since 2016 LegCo Election. At current stage, I think both names are acceptable to describe the localist force in LegCo. -- Momocalbee (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe the users suggested this deletion do not read news, even search it on google. I think these guys live within the Great Firewall. How important it is! This is the hottest topic and major issue in Hong Kong nowadays. hoising (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support but not for any of the reasons so far expressed. There is a desperate need in some people's minds to jam disparate groups together under a snappy banner. This is simplistic at best and, at worst, is a disguised attempt to set up an easier target for future demolition, i.e. politically motivated. Before any group should be labelled a "camp", there ought to be solid evidence of bloc activity or co-operation in common outcomes. The various political groups currently espousing localist ideas/policies are by no means cohesive and, furthermore, even mainstream democratic groups frequently make statements with strong localism sentiments at their core, so are they to be excluded or included? My second reason for supporting this deletion is that the page is patent rubbish for (1) labelling the "camp" as "right-wing" (I mean, go figure. What on Earth is that supposed to mean or have to do with the subject? Someone wants to say activist or forthright?) (2) having virtually no worthwhile sourcing and (3) being poorly expressed, unencyclopaedic. My principled objection to this page applies equally to other political pages created for Hong Kong non-existent "camps". sirlanz 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I wish to add that I find it pathetic the way people run to rags (such as the SCMP) as some sort of authority for anything more than that wonders never cease what utter drivel can pass both for journalism and English in Hong Kong these days. sirlanz 14:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of expressing this objection is that the group being lumped together is simply too amorphous and the term "localism" cuts a swathe across most of the political spectrum. What IS viable for clear definition is Independence Camp. A policy espousing independence from the PRC is a well-defined one and no one is going to be unfairly lumped into it. And, let's not be coy about this, that is what we are really talking about when we try to speak of a political group other than the Establishment Camp, the Democracy Camp and the Fence-Sitters' Camp (poor old Ronny). So someone get real and get the Independence Camp page going and trash this silly page. sirlanz 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For what it's worth, "localist" or "localist camp" are clearly a notable concept that is extensively used in English-language media in Hong Kong: [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. There is also extensive existing coverage on the Chinese Wikipedia article on this loose political grouping. "Localist camp" is probably a better article title but deletion is not cleanup. On the other hand, equating "localist camp" with "independence camp" is probably original research; the latter is covered by the existing article Hong Kong independence. Deryck C. 16:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 18:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Issue on naming or translation is not a legitimate reason to delete an article, especially this concept or these groups represent the voice of Hong Kong people and has gained more and more international attention no later than the 2012 legislative election. As a foreigner outside of Hong Kong, I agree with the usages of "Localist groups" (zh:本土派 (香港)) and "Localism in Hong Kong" (zh:香港本土化運動).

Two possible issues here is some see the "Traditional pro-democracy camp" and the "Localist camp" are exclusive while others accept there is overlapping parts (ideology, actions, and members) between them in different periods. And I think emphasize "right-wing" can be misleading in the English context as the source of this sentiment mainly results from the lack of genuine, open, democratic, free, fair, universal election systems for both executive and legislative branches in Hong kong. What the HK "Localist camp" demands can cover neither or both elements of "right and left" in the political spectrum.

While different media and figures have somewhat different descriptions concerning the scope, I believe this "camp" should include persons with official positions (the six members of HK Legislative Council and other persons of lower level legislative bodies) and the civil society of HK. The idea or approach can include promoting Hong Kong independence, self-rule or self-determination of Hong Kong, and referendum for the future of Hong Kong by people of Hong Kong, etc. So the six persons are only the top representatives of this camp in the HK government (including different branches). It's not a big deal if they support different means or compete with each other as long as they are pro-democracy, pro-freedom, pro-human rights of Hong Kong people, pro-core values of Hong Kong, and pro-"Hong Kong First". -- Wildcursive (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a term is used by some people or in the media is not sufficient. The real question for an encyclopaedia is whether or not the subject matter can be cogently identified, defined and described. I support deletion of the page because I defy anyone to provide an uncontroversial list of the purported "camp"'s members. Supporters of Hong Kong localism are to be found far beyond the limits of those who support, for example, independence for Hong Kong. Thus, the "camp" simply does not exist; it is an imaginary construct and if the page is left in WP it will simply provide a talk shop on the subject, flowing backwards and forwards between people of different political viewpoints. It cannot be factual. More generally couched pages such as Localism in Hong Kong suffer the same fate but at least they don't misrepresent reality. sirlanz 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Deryck Chan, please note that localist "groups" and localist "camp" are different concepts. They are not a camp also in the following criteria, firstly it is not a single grouping, there are at least three groups with different agendas in those six localist legislators, 1) ALLinHK, believe in Hong Kong nation's self-determination and implicitly supports Hong Kong independence; 2) Demosisto and Lau & Chu, reject the idea of "Hong Kong nation" and call for "democratic self-determination", do not support Hong Kong independence; 3) Civic Passion, amendment of Basic Law and do not support Hong Kong independence. These are three totally opposite ideas and they always disagree and attack each other. To put them into a same camp is definitely misleading. Secondly, they do not have a common caucus or meeting, unlike pro-Beijing camp and its former caucus leader Ip Kwok-him and pan-democracy camp's weekly meeting and its former convenor Cyd Ho. They are not yet a united parliamentary group. I do not refuse the idea that they may form a political alliance in the future, but at this moment, they are only various (at least three) groups with similar ideologies which can be labelled as "localism" (even localism itself is a broad umbrella term with certain controversies). Additionally in response to some points here, the Chinese word "派" does not necessarily equivalent to a single "camp", it could also mean a "school" of thought or various "factions." That could also explain why in the English media there has not been a term called "localist camp" so far. To create such a word would be "original research" as some users mentioned above. Lmmnhn (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detail is Lmmnhn's forte and here you have the meat to my sandwich above. Something less amorphous might develop in future but it simply does not exist today. The page is pure fiction and to preserve the integrity of WP, it must go. sirlanz 09:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your attention to detail but Wikipedia seeks to present the current state of human knowledge. The boundaries are fluid but to deny the fact that mainstream media classify these politicians together would be original research. Deryck C. 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This issue does not even get to first base on any test of original research. If your test were correct, publication somewhere, sometime, no matter how nonsensical, is enough for a WP page. WP has to be a bit smarter than that or it will continue to get trashier by the minute. And the "original research" cry is a Furphy in the context of this discussion. The objection to original research is to material published in WP pages, it has no place in the consideration of whether or not a page is proper for inclusion per se. sirlanz 10:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Deryck Chan, the mainstream media group them together in the banner of "localist groups" (i.e. the various groups who believes in localist ideologies), but not a single English media source label them as "localist camp" (i.e. a single political alliance/caucus that shares the same goals of localist ideologies). In fact, I do not object the suggestion made by some users above to move the title from "localism camp" to "localist groups" with much looser definitions that equally represent both the left-leaning and right-leaning groups (in contrast to the current state that heavily emphasises the right-wing groups). But in that case I think the article "Localism in Hong Kong" has already done most of the job. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, it seems the idea of a "localist camp" won't be happening. (see 涂謹申代表非建制派議員出選立會主席) Lmmnhn (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In TAIWAN, we have Pan-Green Coalition and Pan-Blue Coalition. Some of those parties or political groups (eg. A & B) had ever cooperated or coordinated during election campaigns or for certain issues in Congress while some (eg. C & D) are not. But they, as individuals or entities, have worked together (eg. A & B & C & D, or A & B & C, or B & C & D, or B & D) for some political/social movements. However, the key point is there is a clear line between the two camps --- Pan-Green supports "TAIWAN First, Taiwanese People First" and "One Country on Each Side. TAIWAN is a sovereign state different from dictator China or other countries". They may have different approaches or means. However, they typically have recognizable voting patterns even without any direct coordination. That's enough. No one doubt Democratic Progressive Party (zh:民主進步黨, party flag: green), Taiwan Solidarity Union (zh:台灣團結聯盟, party flag: brown), and New Power Party (zh:時代力量, party flag: yellow) are parts of the Pan-Green even they competed with each other during the election and they never form a common platform together in Congress. New Power Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union members often criticize President Tsai Ing-wen and Premier Lin Chuan's Governemt are not tough enough toward dictator China and authoritarian KMT. But we all know they share some important ideas and thus belong to the Pan-Green Coalition.

Similiarly, these HK groups may have worked together during Umbrella Movement and other short-term or long-term social movements. It's very likely that the six localist members and other localist representatives in lower HK legislative bodies perform and will perform similiar voting behaviors, recognizable enough from others. It's not a requirement to from an formal or semi-formal alliance during the election or in the legislative bodies. Because the foundamental thing is they all challenge the ruling underground-communists and their authoritarian propaganda. They may have some direct communication not in public, who knows?

The choocing of word (coalition, camp, alliance, groups, etc.) can be discussed. However, the existence of these groups, a group of individuals with a common label or others, and this article can be confirmed. -- Wildcursive (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If taking voting behaviours, working together during the Umbrella Movement and semi-formal or informal alliance, these factors into account, the whole "localist camp" can put into the broader pro-democracy camp. Firstly, the pro-democrats and localists are very similar in voting patterns, pro-democracy, pro-human rights and pro-autonomy (despite the localists often criticise the pro-democrats not though enough, exactly the same as the TWSU against the DPP within the pan-Green coalition, in fact it actually gives another point not for the "localist camp", but for a camp which include the softer pro-democrats and harder localists). Secondly, they worked together in the Umbrella Movement, especially Demosisto, Lau and Chu closely worked together with the pro-democrats and the Occupy Central trio, as compared to Civic Passion and Chin Wan who had been attacking the leadership from Day 1. Thirdly, as the news report I posted above, Demosisto, Lau and Chu are going to form a parliamentary caucus with the pro-democrats under a new banner. I think that would be the most recent indication that such a "localist camp" will not be happening. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDFORMAT expressly prohibits decorating Afd discussions with needless templates and accordingly I've removed them all. If you wish, please consult that guideline as well as the information page Wikipedia:Voting templates for more on how to format your participation in Afd discussions. Thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 1 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. What is it with articles about companies recently at AfD? In this case, however, there is a relatively substantial consensus that the quality of sourcing is not sufficient to sustain an article. Sandstein 07:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrise[edit]

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

Merely Press Release covered by various media. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 16:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

delete mostly launch publicity, little to nothing in RSes actually about the company, and no evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company has received enough coverage in secondary WP:RS to satisfy notability requirements. See, for instance, Variety and Techcrunch. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page. The sources listed above are not convincing, as they relate to launch publicity and funding news, such as "AdRise Raises $2 Million From Foundation Capital To Put Video (And Ads) On More Connected TVs". This does not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH or overcome promotionalism concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROMO is an invalid reason for deletion of this article, because it has no bearing regarding if the article topic is notable or not. WP:PROMO is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem that can be fixed by editing the article. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above sources listed are not convincing. TechCrunch is routine coverage of a funding round: "AdRise Raises $2 Million". Variety is pretty much the same: raised $6 Million; announce a new hire. This does not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH, and if the article were kept it would contain two or three sentences, resulting in an WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIRECTORY is an invalid reason for deletion of this article, because a stub article is within policy, and it has no bearing regarding if the article topic is notable or not. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are more than enough reliable sources with significant coverage about what this company is and what they do. Just a starter list of refs showing notability:
Tubi TV Strikes Content Deal with Paramount Pictures by Joe Flint on March 12, 2015 in The Wall Street Journal. Flint is a staff reporter[32] concentrating on the media industry.
Lionsgate, MGM Invest in Tubi TV, Add Catalog Titles to Free Video Platform by Janko Roettgers on November 19, 2015 in Variety (magazine). Roettgers is the Senior Silicon Valley Correspondent[33].
Tubi TV Free Internet Video Service Launches with 20,000 Shows and Movies (Most of Which You’ve Never Heard Of) by Todd Spangler on April 16, 2014 in Variety (magazine). Spangler is the NY Digital Editor[34] at Variety.
AdRise launches TV-like advertising platform for connected devices by Tom Cheredar on September 21, 2011 in VentureBeat. Cheredar is a bylined reporter[35].
AdRise Raises $2 Million From Foundation Capital To Put Video (And Ads) On More Connected TVs by Ryan Lawler on October 2012 in TechCrunch. Lawler is a bylined reporter[36].

All issues with WP:NPOV can be fixed with Wikipedia's amazingly effective and community-driven process called editing. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I meant to comment sooner, the Delete votes are genuine and exact with the concerns since everything there is, is simply what the company wants to advertise itself, the above links are also the case, since it actually to specifics about company financials and numbers, something only the company would know and therefore care to mention, especially to interest clients and investors. Note how the current article largely focuses with exactly that, and it's not surprising because such a new company as this would not only have the establishment and substance needed for a convincing article, the history itself shows 2 accounts ever actually solely focused with this, and that emphasizes the PR intentions and actions if that's exactly what happened here; therefore concerns such as these should be taken quite seriously because that shows the planned thoughts of those advertisers, to think they could simply submit an article with information and sources and no one would care to examine it. Note how the WallStreetJournal is only a few mere paragraphs and all of that is simply company-supplied information since it goes to specifics about what the company is and its services, the next one is literally about the company's activities and partnerships for its own business, and it's no larger than a few thinly-sorted paragraphs, the next one is also literally simply advertising the company's services by showing what its plans are and have been, and the final two are literally simply repeating the company's own mindset and words about where its funding is going and how it got there. When a company has to focus that heavily with either mentioning its involvements with other companies or the fact it needs or has so far obtained money, it shows it has not even established itself yet to not have to focus with sole PR. Once again, considering the concerns here with actual convincing sourcing and then the fact this article itself was not only contributed by advertising-only accounts, the intentions and actions are still there, as if to say the company actually wants to keep this or else this would've actually improved, but a company wanting PR this genuinely is never going to because that's not its field of interest. Suggesting in a snide tone that we simply have to fix this to improve it is not in fact a solution if, once again, this is an advertisement from the start, and therefore we should not compromise by satisfying such blatant advertising by literally keeping it, because if this were actually improvable at all, then it could easily simply be restored when we have actual substance, not simply what PR is available or what advertising methods the company is using. As always, we should not accept sourcing alone if it's simply coming from a major news source, because major news sources can, have and still are publishing company PR so we cannot be so damning to literally presume it's 'significant coverage', without fully and actually considering the concerns. Once we become a manipulated PR webhost, we're entirely damned as an encyclopedia that can be taken seriously. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have specific information that would refute that Joe Flint from the Wall Street Journal, Janko Roettgers and Todd Spangler from Variety Magazine, Tom Cheredar from VentureBeat and Ryan Lawler from TechCrunch have supplied significant coverage in reliable sources, please do offer it. I'm not seeing anything of substance in your comments above. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To answer 1Wiki8's specific question above:
- Joe Flint from the Wall Street Journal. Routine coverage of a startup signing a deal with a customer. Nothing in here that meets the definition of in depth coverage.
- Janko Roettgers and Todd Spangler from Variety Magazine. The dateline on this is "APRIL 16, 2014 | 09:01AM PT". Surprise, a google search shows a bunch of coverage by many financial media outlets of this exact event, on this very day. Many of them with datelines that agree to the minute with when Variety released the story. That's because they're all just the same warmed-over press release, which was embargoed until that time. So, that doesn't pull any weight.
- Tom Cheredar from VentureBeat. This one's a joke. At the point this article was written, the company had been in existance for 10 months, had three employees, had launched their first product the day the article was published, and had received a single, undisclosed round of angel funding. It's pretty much inconceivable that a company at that stage has done anything worth noticing, which is pretty good evidence that Venture Beat writeups are meaningless as far as demonstrating notability goes.
- Ryan Lawler from TechCrunch. Routine announcement (i.e. warmed-over press release) of an early-round startup funding event, in a media outlet which specializes in this type of stuff. Meaningless.

-- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good commentary! Sadly it is based on false assumptions about what legit news coverage is, so it will have to be discounted. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not false assumptions. Just opinions which differ from yours. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure promotionalism about a promotional company. They would be expected to be good at getting press mentions, and they are. As we have seen here at AfD many times, the accumulation of such references is a sure diagnostic of promotional writing. 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstRhas it backwards--if an article is primarily promotional and require major rewriting it should be removed, regardless of notability. The provisions of WP:NOT are fundamental policy, and much more important than whether a subject meets borderline notability, which tend to be quibbles about the interpretation of guidelines. If the firm is important, someone will write a decent article, and the attempt at advertising will not remain in the article history. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a Keep and WP:TNT !vote, since you have given no case that the article topic is not notable. The idea to force a restart in order to censor the article history seems unwise, but that is a different issue for a discussion elsewhere, it's not about notability. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:TNT again. It says the exact opposite of what you think it does. The procedure suggested there is to delete' the article but then write a new one, or at least not to protect it from re-creation; not to keep it with all its preceding junk version and improve it. TNT is a reason to Delete at AfD. Almost all AfD deletions are actually TNT, because very rarely do we block re-creation in a close here. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

Nonnotable organization. Nothing but typical promotional material. No significant independent coverage. The page owner edit warred about the notablity tag refusing to discuss the concern in article talk page, so I guess the problem with the article is uncurable in a civilized way, so I am listing it for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominatior can't seem to accept that the page meets the criteria as listed on the article's talk page. Talk:Ontario Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Nomination appears to be homophobic. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed a personal attack. Comment on the merits of the article, not on what you think the motivations of the nominator are. clpo13_(talk) 00:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Yes I cannot accept that the page meets the criteria, because the OP did not answer my request to indicate which exactly sources cited provide significant independent coverage, so that I could reconsider my opinion. Instead, I was answered with personal attacks. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
borderline case. I'd keep it with notability template - as it currently stands, most of the sources fail short of being independent & secondary. OTOH, I see nothing "homophobic" here; stating that not every LGBT organization is necessarily notable is hardly that. "Me-123567-Me", please tone down. AGF, all that. Calling someone's actions "homophobic" hardly helps a civilized discussion.Poponuro (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BRANCH (a subsection of WP:NCORP) – "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area". Simply not enough coverage. A redirect could be made to Canadian Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, but I'm not sure its necessary. ¡Bozzio! 05:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I'd agree, but the OGLCC is older than the CGLCC. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the accusations of homophobia being flung around, I'm going to preface this with a reminder that I'm a gay man myself. But gay topics do not get an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia just because the word gay is involved — notability still has to be properly demonstrated through the use of reliable source coverage. But as written, this depends almost entirely on primary sources like the organization's own press releases and its own self-published website. Literally just one reference here (Globe and Mail, #2) counts for anything toward notability — but it's a blurb, which means it would be an acceptable source amid a mix of acceptable sources but it can't carry the organization over WP:ORG all by itself as the article's only acceptable source. Sure, the organization probably would qualify for a more substantive and better sourced article than this — but none of the sourcing present here gets it over ORG as written. No prejudice against draftifying, to give the creator a chance to make it better than this — but this, as written, is neither substantive enough nor referenced well enough to earn inclusion as things stand right now, and there's no homophobia required to reach that conclusion. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable organization. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce was just kept in its own afd. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And please see WP:IGNORE. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Understanding IAR. IAR is not just a license to do any random thing you want without regard to the rules. It requires that you make a compelling and credible case about how "ignoring the rule" is actually improving the encyclopedia, and is not a license to just do anything you want to do on here — for instance, IAR never allows you to stack an article topic's notability entirely onto its own primary source content about itself, or to write an article in an advertorial rather than encyclopedic tone, because those things aren't "improving the encyclopedia". What it permits is things like "there's a substantive reason why we should deviate from normal naming conventions here, because X, Y and Z", not "this topic is exempted from having to be sourced properly for no other reason than just because IAR exists". Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 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 delete. —SpacemanSpiff 00:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehria[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any indication of notability. utcursch | talk 14:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. (Tried Gbooks & JSTOR.) Anup [Talk] 16:23, 30 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 Neustar. Seems an obvious solution . I ask one of the people supporting this dto actually do the merge DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DNS Advantage[edit]

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

NN product. Notability not asserted, to the point where the article says "we have no idea who uses it." It's almost totally sourced from press releases and company sources, and isn't worth redirecting. MSJapan (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Neustar or delete. Not independently notable, but a pure delete would seem to create some red links. W Nowicki (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent company Neustar. Has a few minor mentions in the media, but no significant coverage only of the service. It seems to be a free version of the company's paid Recursive DNS product, so appropriate to mention on Neustar article. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:34, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SSL Wireless[edit]

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

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional tone and terrible sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Gerard ~ Moheen ^(talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A promotional tone can be fixed. The question is whether this company meets WP:GNG. It appears to me to be a notable Bangladeshi company. There is quite a bit of coverage of the company in The Daily Star, which is the most widely-circulated newspaper in the country. Sources that I found include Daily Sun, Dhaka Tribune,Daily Star, more Daily Star, and more Daily Star. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New sources need discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon the review of the sources presented above. The sources are PR-like and solely convey promotional information, with some likely to be redressed press releases. Headlines are:

Dolphin Computers, SSL Wireless sign deal [picture of signing ceremony]
Bangladesh Bank has awarded PSO license to SSL Wireless [likely press release]
Sonali bank partners with SSL wireless to provide SMS banking [picture of signing ceremony]
Activation ceremony between NCC Bank Limited and SSL Wireless [picture of signing ceremony]
NRB Bank Ltd. signs up SSL Wireless for Online Mobile Top Up Service [yet another picture of signing ceremony]

If an article were to be built on such sources, it would show no indications of notability or significance and would not be in compliance with WP:NOT. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PR and that alone, because the fact "one of the largest" is not at all close to actually being convincing, the information and sources are themselves PR and we should not let a news source's name affect that, because that's exactly what churnalism is, it's the manipulation and taking-advantage-of the fact these "news" will be taken and published by a known news source in exchange for PR, therefore they cannot at all be taken seriously, exactly as how we were to take seriously the company's own published PR, all of the sources listed show the exact same things, what the company wants to say to its clients and investors, and that's why it was published, because there are certainly no actual journalism efforts from having the news source allow budget cuts to compromise therefore letting the company supply its own information without letting the news source take and make all of the heavywork; all of the sources above focus, I'll specify, with company and business information, funding, partnerships and other company activities, of which said company would know and know it best....and that's exactly what this current article is, specifying and stating every particle there is know about the company, and we know that only happens when the company is involved and is heavily willing to obtain clients and investors. To therefore state that "advertising can be fixed" is certainly not the case if everything is PR and that alone, and we would be kidding ourselves, if we attempted to think otherwise, especially if we actually begin calling republished PR "significant and substantial" (the one Keep vote has then not substantiated themselves after these listed concerns, therefore there's nothing to suggest accepting the said and now-clear PR sources). If we compromise at all, and not consider any of this, we become a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not convinced by the above sources, and concur with K.e.coffman's analysis - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with K.e.coffman's analysis as well. The sources are problematic and do not count towards WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The quality of the sources matters a lot. If we start keeping articles based on these kind of sources, Wikipedia will become a directory of companies and a medium for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 4 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intore Burundi: Thesis[edit]

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

Article about a thesis. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A thesis is not a basis for an article. Greenman (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Should be nominated for speedy deletion as per WP:CSD criteria. Wikipedia isn't a collection of theses, but rather a collection of information with reliable sources about a topic/topics to form an organized system of information, made for general knowledge of the public (PS: I don't think my "comment" is relevant to the discussion)Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I suppose a thesis could justify an article if it was the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - but this one isn't. Neiltonks (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTESSAY and the topic is a pretty narrow one as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:46, 4 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super Saturday (Australia)[edit]

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

Not notable as an article on its own, lack of references -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of references and could be merged into another atricle. Chase (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per logic at WP:UNOPPOSED.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable term. No sources exist to indicate Super Saturday (Australia) passes WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:40, 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. A Train^talk 09:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Peace Officers Association[edit]

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

Delete. Article about an organization with no particularly strong claim to passing WP:ORG. The only notability claimed here is that one newspaper article once reported the number of attendees at their convention in the same article as they stated that the organization doesn't release its membership numbers -- which, until I poleaxed it for WP:NPOV compliance, was being editorialized as a special nadir in "the history of gay journalism". (However, since the article didn't give any of their names, and thus didn't individually out anyone, this complaint is just a meaningless bit of white noise and not any sort of serious ethical breach of the type that might be historically noteworthy.) And the only source present here is that exact news article, rather than any independent analysis of its "nadirness" -- so there's no strong claim to passing WP:GNG either. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody can write and source something much more substantial than an editorial commentary on one utterly inconsequential bit of trivia, but nothing here right now is enough in and of itself to make this a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now - yeah, this sounds like it could be notable, but it needs sources and right now I don't think there's enough for a whole article here. That's the thing with little "associations" and "community groups", they can often not last long and close when the original participants lose interests or move and they often seem to fade away without any specific source saying when they closed. This website implies it's defunct. Content might easily be movable to any one of many articles on the gay community or policing in California, so just to be clear to the page creator I am not suggesting that this content should not be on Wikipedia in any form, just not as a whole article. (The topic is already briefly discussed in the White Night riots article, in fact.) Blythwood (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:15, 18 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) 05:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not pass WP:NORG and sources are not sufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 3 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. No prejudice against recreation with better sourcing. A Train^talk 09:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For What It's Worth (American TV series)[edit]

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

Delete. TV series whose article can be basically summed up as "this is a thing that existed, the end", and which cites no reliable source coverage to support it -- the only "references" here are its IMDb page (not a reliable or notability-conferring source in and of itself) and a deadlink to the URL of its former profile on the website of the television channel it aired on (a primary source which couldn't assist notability even when it was live.) I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better database access to US media coverage than I've got can find the sourcing necessary to properly substantiate its notability, but WP:NMEDIA does not confer an automatic inclusion pass on every television series just because IMDb verifies that it existed. Bearcat (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance, and no secondary RS offered. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 18 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) 05:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is hardly any reliable secondary coverage available. I don't see any indication that this was a notable TV series (WP:TVSHOW). IMDb shows that it was 6 episodes at most. I don't really see a claim of significance here and without any secondary coverage, there is not enough to write an article per WP:WHYN. So delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:07, 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 no consensus. Not enough discussion to merit a third relist. A Train^talk 09:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and Steve Show[edit]

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

Delete. Single station radio program with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NMEDIA, and some overtones of ironic smartassery ("Since many residents of Tuscaloosa must arise early to sally forth and earn their daily bread"?) The closest thing to a reliable source here is an article in the university student newspaper — not a source that can carry a topic's notability by itself — with the only other sources being a user-generated chat forum and two random non-notable "facts about other topic" sites which don't actually mention this program at all, and are accordingly being cited as references for statements that the show isn't connected to those topics (see what I meant about smartassery?) A program has to have national distribution, not single-market college radio station distribution, to pass WP:NMEDIA — but the only other path for something like this to earn an encyclopedia article is to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing, which this doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Instaurare (talk) 04:37, 23 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) 05:50, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Saksena[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC Marvellous Spider-Man 06:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject gives an impression of notable personality but doesn't stand true when it comes to Google. I'm open to amend my !vote if someone is able to find 1 or 2 more sources similar to this one. Anup [Talk] 14:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:19, 18 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) 05:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing any notability here. The two general references in the article (including the one mentioned by Anup) are largely given over to quotes from the subject. Neither shows any indication that the authors of the articles did any research beyond talking to the subject herself. And the one in-line reference is an autobiographical piece. It just doesn't add up to notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from that those 2 interviews, (primary sources) there is literally nothing else which is available about the subject. Secondary sources are especially required per WP:WHYN for writing an NPOV article, but I don't see any here. The inline reference in the article isn't really a reliable source. Considering the lack of coverage, I am going with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unreferenced essay which is not acceptable for a BLP. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as this is essentially a business job listing in that it goes to large and noticeable specifics about her career yet no actual substance or sources, simply 1 unconvincing source. None of this suggests what we would need in a acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:30, 2 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. Hut 8.5 18:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey and Southside[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article, with some advertorial overtones, about a single-station radio program in a single media market. WP:NMEDIA does not grant a presumption of notability on a radio show until it airs on a network of stations approaching national coverage, but WP:GNG has not been met either as the closest thing to referencing here is the program's own primary source website about itself. Bearcat (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. over-detailed promotionalism. Should have been removed long ago. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 18 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) 05:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a good dose of WP:TNT; an unreferenced essay and badly promotional. No indications of notability or significance and borders on spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 30 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Jiménez (radio host)[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)

Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a radio personality, whose only claim of notability for more than just existing is that he "was one of the only morning radio shows able to compete on the airwaves with The Howard Stern Show" — but (a) he hosts a Spanish-language show, and thus wasn't in competition with Stern for a strongly overlapping audience in the first place; (b) as popular as Stern was and is, he was never so overwhelmingly dominant that other shows ever actually had to fold up their tents and go home; and (c) the claim is unsourced. I'm also batching the separate standalone article about his show, which is also poorly referenced: it cites just two sources, both of which are unreliable entertainment-PR blogs rather than reliable sources. As always, a radio program and its host can earn inclusion in Wikipedia if they can be properly sourced over WP:NMEDIA, WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:GNG, but do not get an automatic inclusion freebie on bad or no sourcing just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is unsourced and barely a two-sentence stub. However, searching finds evidence of a long career and top-rated show in NYC. Coverage includes: [[37]], [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], [[41]] all in English, with many more in Spanish. MB 21:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore older more detailed version at [42]. Bio is linked from El Vacilón de la Mañana. Notability should not be based on personal ethnocentric unfamiliarity. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that older version cites no referencing at all either — so it is not better or more includable than this version is. And nobody based anything here on "personal ethnocentric unfamiliarity", either — lots of things are reliably sourced enough that their notability is plainly apparent regardless of whether the reader already has "personal ethnocentric familiarity" with the topic or not, but this as written is not one of them. Notability is not a measure of what an article says, but of the depth and quality of sourcing that is or isn't present to support what it says — no Wikipedia notability criterion can ever be passed just by saying that it's passed, if the resulting article isn't sourced to any reliable sourcing that supports the truth of the claim. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage by the likes of the New York Daily News seem to indicate that he's had a notable career so far. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarig Anani[edit]

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

Perhaps this can be redirected to one of the corporate articles but I am struggling to see why the guy is notable in his own right. I don't have access to many US-based news sources so it would be useful if people commenting here could at least try to check those. Thanks. Sitush (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete un-notable business person. No coverage found in independent RS. A few minor routine profiles and quotes attributed to him in press-release type things, but no significant coverage of him either as a lawyer or in business. MB 21:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:56, 18 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) 05:45, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minz (musician)[edit]

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

Cant find anything notable about him, Doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:NMUSIC Rahul^{Text me} 20:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability guidelines. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:57, 18 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) 05:44, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Zulfi Abbas Bukhari[edit]

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

Sources do note establish WP:NOTE. Could not locate any additional sources to verify notability. He is mentioned as an "aide and friend" of Imran Kahn. Unable to inherit notability from Imran Kahn. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO & WP:TNT; blatant advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 2 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 hey hey hey Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clio (Hendrik Goltzius)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as nominated did not demonstrate a pass of GNG, but that's very different from the subject passing GNG, which is true when adequate sources exist regardless of whether they have been added already; nominator seems to have failed to follow WP:BEFORE. I expanded the article and added sources showing that it is held in the collections of some world-renowned museums and that it has inspired other notable works. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to David Eppstein for improving the article.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What happened to WP:BEFORE? E Eng 06:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this doesn't meet the GNG. To quote David Eppstein, it is held in the collections of some world-renowned museums and has inspired other notable works. Eman 235/talk 12:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone snow-close this? There are so many better things people could be wasting their time on. E Eng 21:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is going to help my AfD percentage! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just piling on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^[FBDB] Always good to know you're there when the chips are down. :P E Eng 23:57, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Longo[edit]

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

Typical striking coach who only inherited notability from his pupils. Nearly all the sources speak of Longo in relation to his pupils and the rest of this stub has trivial info that says nothing in regards to notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable martial arts coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see significant independent coverage of him. I find passing mentions of him in articles about some of the fighters he has trained and some interviews about upcoming fights for those fighters, but nothing that convinces me that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Notability is not inherited by who you trained.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Louise[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable adult entertainment actress. No significant RS coverage can be found. The award listed (Soft and Hard Adult Film and Television Awards) is fan-based and does not meet PORNBIO criteria of being "significant and well known".

The article underwent an AfD in 2009 and was deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing's changed since the first AFD ... Still fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was actually deleted before 2010, which is a very sure sign that the subject comes no where near passing our current inclusion guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sourcing, no nontrivial biographical content. Even if the claimed award were somehow to scrape past PORNBIO, the clear failure to meet the GNG requires deletion of this BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:34, 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 redirect to Bomb Factory. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monstar Cup Stage 1[edit]

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

Tracklist. No external references Rathfelder (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redir to Bomb Factory - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 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 01:19, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Heartbreak Kid (mixtape)[edit]

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

The article for that artist who released the mixtape has previously been deleted, so this should be too. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I find it a little more cited, but with Famous Dex deleted, who knows? DBrown SPS (talk) 02:31, 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 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of meeting WP:NALBUM - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not sure if we have a separate guideline for mixtapes, but this would appear to not meet WP:NALBUM which is probably the closest thing that we've got. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Mixtapes have charted before, so I see no reason not to use that - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means, as there is absolutely no substance for its own convincing article, nothing at all to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Stephen Mulhern Show live[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and none of the Google results I've seen indicate that this even justified a redirect. Sam and Mark live and Dick vs Dom have both met similar fates. Laun chba ller 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, I was the one who made it a redirect, and I'm neutral on it. I declined the speedy deletion nom mostly because it didn't qualify as being overly promotional, but it also didn't look notable. I figured a redirect would cut down on needless bureaucracy, and Google searches seemed to indicate it wasnt a hoax. (Though upon closer searching, most hits lacked the "live" at the end.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 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 03:29, 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 01:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the article is advertorial in tone and exhists to promote the show. The long name of the article is unlikely to be a search term. There is nothing to merge as the article currently does not list any sources, so WP:V applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keisha Kane[edit]

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

Another non-notable porn actress that fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Per other recent AFDs, UK Adult Film and Television Awards does not merit notability and besides the BBC Documentary mentioned in the article, which itself does not seem very notable, there is hardly any coverage of this individual The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:53, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails PORNBIO and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:PORNSTAR & WP:General Notability Guideline. –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to crossing any notability guidelines for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom'a accurate arguments. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:27, 1 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. Not enough discussion to merit a third relist. A Train^talk 09:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada men's national intercrosse team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A quick google search finds no reliable sources that indicate this subject passes the general notability guideline. The last two AfDs have been closed as no consensus with neither having received any !votes. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As senior national teams in an international sport, they easily satisfy notability guidelines. Smartyllama (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
National teams have to satisfy WP:GNG as much as any other article. Notability isn't inherited. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JustGive[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, very few sources, just one inbound link (Reddit), appears to be created by a (then) employee. Vectro (talk) 04:28, 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 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the existence of sources popping up in google news. Seeing substantial cites from CNET, Tech Times, Forbes, and countless more. Really, this is just scratching the surface. JustGive gets a LOT of hits on google news. So, keep. Fieari (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that almost all of these sources are incidental mentions, rather than providing any deep information about the organization. Are you seeing many that focus specifically on JustGive, its programs, significance, impact, etc.? Vectro (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources mentioned above, and add in the significant mention from PBS Newshour [43]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk)
Delete. Yes, thee are a lot of mentions and advertorials in G News. But the article is nonetheless primarily promotional,intended to promote the organization. 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 ) 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I meant to comment sooner, it's simply PR for a company whose environment is PR and there's nothing else to suggest better simply this was clearly part of a PR campaign, all of these concerns compiled or not are enough to delete, as we are not a PR website. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Passions. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hotchkiss family[edit]

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

This article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability, and does not have the sort of third-party reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Passions. Article does not establish notability outside of the aegis of Passions. Hotchkiss family is notable within the context of Passions. Useful content can be merged into the parent article or another appropriate article. Since aspects of a fictional work are still going to be covered, article or not, a merge suffices in this situation where independent notability can hardly be established, but the content is still notable within the fictional work itself. —Mythdon 13:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mythdon: Thank you for your vote. I am not entirely sure what material should be merged into the page for Passions however. I believe a majority of the information would be best suited for the Gwen Hotchkiss and Rebecca Hotchkiss articles instead (where they are already covered). Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 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 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Passions; strictly unsourced fancruft. Anything useful can be picked from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Either result is fine considering the article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jabil Circuit. The nominator has provided a reasoned rationale for deletion, and two users have provided reasoned rationales for redirection. Per the overall input in this discussion (which was rather low), general consensus is for redirection. Of note is that more user input here would have been optimal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Morean[edit]

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

No longer president of Jabil Circuit, if that ever made him notable. Now the only thing standing in his article is him being a billionaire and member of the 2006 Forbes 400. See jabil.com. -rayukk | talk 22:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC) rayukk | talk 22:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 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 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jabil Circuit of which he was (and so will remain) a founder. Useless article right now but maybe someone could make something of it. Thincat (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jabil Circuit; I'm seeing very passing mentions in various company directories only. Should RS manifest themselves, the article could be reinstated. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 2 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caherraggin Village Choir[edit]

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

I found nothing to show notability. It doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 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 01:14, 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Couceiro[edit]

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

~~WP:NMOTORSPORT Corvus tristis (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable car racing driver.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets #1 and/or #3 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. Three time competitor at the 24 Hours of Daytona, a leg of the Triple Crown of endurance racing (see [44]). Also, his Portuguese Wikipedia page has some references (see [45]). I have no idea how quality those references are, but their listing along with meeting the guideline leads me to say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also found that he has competed multiple times in the Macau Grand Prix as well one race of the Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft. I am not an expert in non-American racing, but I am familiar with the race and series respectively so I think they could also meet #1 and #3. RonSigPi (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Than add the references and more content, because in the current state, article doesn't look notable. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:11, 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 06:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated per request of Corvus tristis. RonSigPi (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly better. Cheers. Now I withdrew this nomination for deletion. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator withdrew, but a delete !vote remains in the discussion, so relisting. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References seem to check out, meets WP:NMOTORSPORT. Fieari (talk) 04:31, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given he low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando and Greg in the Morning[edit]

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

Delete. Inadequately sourced article about a single-station local radio program in a single media market, whose only (unsourced) claim to greater notability than the norm is that its hosts are the first openly gay duo to host a radio morning show in the US. (Just for clarity's sake, they're not the first openly gay radio personalities to host a morning show in the US at all; they're merely the first to do it as a duo rather than solo or with one or more straight cohosts. But our notability guidelines around LGBT-firsts don't allow you to keep generating an endless parade of new historic firsts just by adding the first duo, first trio, first quartet, first quintet, etc., to repeat the same base achievement -- once the pink ceiling has been broken once, it's done.) But nothing else in the article is a particularly strong claim of notability, about half the sourcing is parked on primary sources and press releases, and the sources that are reliable ones are all in the local media and thus fail to demonstrate any wider notability beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 11 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, 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 01:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of independent reliable sources to be found after doing a search. Fieari (talk) 04:06, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jason Ellis Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Minimally sourced article about a satellite radio program. While a nationally-distributed program like this would be eligible for an article if it were reliably sourced, it doesn't get a no-sourcing-required inclusion freebie just because it can be nominally verified as existing -- but the only "reference" here is an article on an unreliable clickbait site which isn't about this show, but simply namechecks its existence in the process of being about a person who once appeared on the show as a guest. That's not the kind of sourcing it takes to make something like this notable. The host has a better-sourced standalone BLP and other claims of notability beyond the show itself, so redirecting this there might also be an option -- but the show has to be much better referenced than this before it qualifies for a standalone article of its own separately from him. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 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 01:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per existence of numerous reliable sources popping up in google news. Granted, the majority of mentions are just that-- mentions, usually reporting on a variety of notable people who have shown up on the show. That said, the articles are in fact talking about the show, and talking about the 3rd parties who are appearing on the show in the context of the show, which should establish notability just fine. Beyond that, if I took the time to really DIG into the looooooong list of sources google news provides, I bet I could find at least one or two that are articles reviewing or otherwise about the show itself. Fieari (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable radio show. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbeing[edit]

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

Non-notable "cinematic aesthetic ." Lacks support as a Wikipedia topic. reddogsix (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 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 06:01, 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 01:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or as a second choice either redirect or merge to Yao Ramesar. This topic seems to have little notability except as Ramesar's own aesthetic, not a topic separate from him. In fact, it's not even clear to me that the primary topic for "Caribbeing" is Ramesar's aesthetic as opposed to other topics with the same name. [46] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- concur with above; I've seen "Caribbeing" mentioned outside of the subject of Ramesar; for example, here: Caribbeing: Comparing Caribbean Literatures and Cultures, so I don't think that this article is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 30 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) 15:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Jebasingh[edit]

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

I came across this article at NPP. I cut out a lot of spam and then searched for sources. Although Google Search gives (too) many links, I am not able to find significant reliable sources. (I searched out three sources, of which two were primary, and the third was quite insignificant; all sources from the same newspaper). I think a Delete is in order, but can change my mind if someone comes up with even a couple of reliable sources that have discussed the subject significantly. Lourdes 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable administrator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 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 06:05, 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 01:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think WP:BIODEL and WP:SOFTDELETE can be used here to delete this article, at the closer's discretion. Lourdes 01:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Only found one reliable source reporting on the subject (thehindu, cited in the article). I think I'm going to have to agree with the nominator here, there's just not enough to make an article with, and there's only one source for the little information we do have. If additional sources are found, I would have no problem changing to keep, or allowing article recreation. Fieari (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's this another RS, but still insufficient for WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 23:16, 30 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Morning Show[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced article about a radio program. This one was syndicated to multiple stations (although it only names three markets of which two are in the same state as the originating market), so it would probably be eligible for an article if it were referenced properly -- but there are just two sources here, of which one is the show's own press release about itself (a primary source that cannot assist notability), and the other is a deadlink of a local news story in their hometown media (which is not a source that can carry a topic over WP:GNG all by itself.) This has been flagged since 2010 as needing additional sources for verification, with no discernible improvement since. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 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 01:09, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy, Sam & Jodi[edit]

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

Delete. Improperly sourced article about a radio program. This one is syndicated, so it would pass WP:NMEDIA if it were properly referenced to reliable source coverage -- but of the 47 "references" here, 36 of them are the primary source webpages of stations that carry the show (which are not sources that can confer notability by themselves, because they're not independent of the subject) and 10 of the others are press releases and WP:BLOGS. There's just one source here that qualifies as actual media coverage, and it's a blurb which isn't about this show, but simply verifies a tangential fact about a charity event the hosts are involved in while not actually naming the hosts in conjunction with it at all -- which means it doesn't contribute notability either, and even if it did one source isn't enough to pass WP:GNG by itself. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can reference it properly, but what's here now is not the kind of referencing it takes. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 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 01:08, 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Davis (Selmer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Main source is a book by his daughter, Josephine. 1st AfD closed as no consensus as it attracted no responses. Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment the sort of person who looks like he should be notable, but sources are likely paper ... I'm still unsure on this ground - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 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 01:08, 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. Kind of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeVore and Diana[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a satellite radio program. While that is a claim that would pass WP:NMEDIA if the article were properly sourced, it's not an inclusion freebie that entitles a radio show to keep an unsourced article -- but since the show ended its run almost a decade ago, I can't find any referencing on the Googles to fix it with. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with deep database access to older US media coverage can locate the quality of referencing needed to salvage it, but it has to be deleted if it can't be sourced. Bearcat (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable radio show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 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 06:08, 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 01:08, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deji Balogun[edit]

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

Delete. Résumé-toned WP:BLP of a radio and television presenter, referenced only to his own primary source profile on the website of his own employer with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him in media that don't issue his paycheque. A person like this is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but must be sourced over WP:GNG to earn one. Bearcat (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 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 06:08, 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 01:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page. No indications of notability or significance per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO by a single-purpose account with no evidence of outside notability. Greenman (talk) 12:47, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mike Calta Show[edit]

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

Delete. Inadequately sourced article about a single-station radio program in a single media market. WP:NMEDIA does not grant a presumption of notability to single-station programs, but requires something approaching national distribution -- but WP:GNG has not been met either, as there are just five sources here of which one is a blog, two are internal radio industry trade magazines of the type that will cover any minor industry news at all, and the two that are real notability-conferring sources are both local to his own media market. Note also the redirect from The Cowhead Show, which until I caught it two minutes ago was standing as a separate duplicate article about the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 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 01:07, 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. One of several borderline-notable, perhaps borderline-promotional articles that AfD has seen in recent days. As is often the case, the consensus is not very clear at first glance, and valid arguments are made on both sides. But in this case I consider it appropriate to find a consensus for deletion because that side is not only in the majority but more "delete" opinions examine the quality of the sourcing than "keep" opinions do. Sandstein 07:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

40Billion[edit]

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

Written like a promotional website article. References are given such as cruchbase, and others not very credible in nature. Press coverage questionable in nature as some paid PR. Light21 07:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went through and deleted all of the questionable references and provided links to archive.org. Four references total plus two specifically about 40billion is enough notability for a keep for me.--Nowa (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the nice clean-up job by Nowa. Thanks for your work! Safehaven86 (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- still a WP:PROMO; the article is mostly about advertising its products and services. The sourcing is weak to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. The article is too promotional to add value to the encyclopedia at this time, while the company does not appear to be notable or significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the supposed improvements have actually not helped, in that the article is still PR, it's still with no significance or substance; nothing at all suggests there will be meaningful improvements especially with non-PR. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nowa (talk · contribs)'s excellent work on the article. The article is not promotional; it is neutrally written. Three of the four sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject. Black Web 2.0 (link), InformationWeek (link), and Adweek (link) all provide significant coverage of the subject. The CNN article (link) provides trivial coverage.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 40Billion to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and analysis - An article going to specifics who their partners and clients are is not "substance", this article then goes to specifics to state what the company's services and activities are, that's not convincing at all nor should it be if it's only PR; the BlackWeb source clearly seems like a PR-hosting website to republish PR, see "40billion.com seeks to democratize the venture capital process by giving members an easy and cost-effective way to create and distribute a business plan, raise capital through contributions and loans or invest in a start-up. It’s a novel idea....But 40billion.com seeks to do much more than that" (something only the company would to so elaborately say), the article then goes to specifics about its business and plans before it ends at exactly that. The SocialTimes says "40billion.com is a new platform for entrepreneurs’ micro-funding activities. The site matches entrepreneurs and investors online through social networking. It is an online marketplace for friends-and-family funding, or what we commonly refer to us “love money”, microfinance or social lending. Basically, 40billion is giving all of us access to affordable business financing through loans contributions/donations and equity partnerships...Then you invite your friends and family to invest...." (the following sentences then goes to specifics about how to use this company), that's yet another sales pitch in that it goes to specifics about what its activities are, not actual substance. The InformationWeek source goes to say "Atlanta-based 40Billion.com features proprietary online tools that entrepreneurs use to create social networks designed to raise funding, inviting members of their network to provide money in exchange for potential returns or discounts, according to the site...." which not only ends to cite the company itself, but it cites word for word what the company wants to say about itself, that's not independent or news. CNN not only cites it's "coverage for starting businesses", but it only ever mentions the company a mere 1 time and that was because of a company quote. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about removing the parts you feel are promotional?--Nowa (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to actually imrpvoe when everything is still PR, from information to sources. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH: [47], [48], [49]. The article has been significantly copy edited after this nomination for deletion (see Revision history). Any traces of promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article at this point. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - One of the sourced listed is then the BlackWeb which was interviewed information and PR attempts of advertising what the company's services are ("40Billion seeks to...."); the other two are also blatant attempts, one of them begins with "What 40Billion wants to offer you", if that's not a sales pitch, I'm not sure what it is.... Copy-editing means nothing if my analysis above has specifically shown thr concerns, that everything is focusing with what exactly the company wants their clients and investors to hear: what the company is about, its services and then its finances. The next source also then begins with "40Billion let's you raise money...40billion is giving all of us access to affordable business financing through loans contributions/donations and equity partnerships....40Billion is the entrepreneurs platform, matching entrepreneurs and investors....Now, how does 40billion make you money?", these are not journalism words, they are company-supplied information, because no journalist would ever care to advertise a company unless there was something it for said journalist, or that the company supplied it as PR. Once we start accepting "news" that are obviously company-influenced and -supplied, we are essentially accepting advertisements, which causes significant damages. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The conversational tone of a reliable source with editorial oversight does not make the source unusable in establishing notability. Descriptions of the company's products and history like financing does not make the source unusable in establishing notability. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "The article is not promotional; it is neutrally written" -- I do not see it this way. With content such as:

40Billion was started in 2008 by Cornelius Colin McNab, an entrepreneur, inventor, and graduate of Yale and MIT Sloan School of Management. The company had raised $1.05 million in three Series Seed financing rounds.^{[citation needed]} In 2011, 40Billion released social networking tools that let users connect to the site using their existing LinkedIn or Facebook profiles, as well as import contacts from email programs like Gmail and Microsoft Outlook.^[1]

References

^ Diana, Alison (2011-02-14). "Micro-Funding Site Integrates With LinkedIn, Facebook". InformationWeek.

...the article is not in compliance with WP:NOT and exists solely to promote the business. The readers are informed about the qualifications of its non-notable founder ("entrepreneur, inventor, and graduate"), while the article attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from his alma maters. (This is typical of such promotional articles, as they need to prop up the founding figures, most often by citing the non-notable companies they had previously founded and then sold to a notable entity. This paragraph is especially desperate looking, since the only "claim of notability" is that the founder can be associated with well known schools.)

The article as it stands has no encyclopedic value and accepting such promotional articles is not in line with Wikipedia's stated policies about promotionalism. Furthermore, volunteer editors' time would be wasted by trying to maintain neutrality of this page. Keeping this article is not in the best interest of the project, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A short summary of the founder's background is appropriate and not promotional. Redundant descriptors for the founder of a company like "entrepreneur" and "inventor" can be removed. That does not mean the article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kampyle (software), I don't find it possible to improve WP:PROMO articles through copyediting alone. There will be nothing left if such promotionally sourced content is removed: link to comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In connections with the response of my own comment above, a source is in fact unacceptable (regardless of where it comes from) if it contains noticeable PR intent and contents, in this case, one and only person who would know about the businessman's own career is the man himself, and that's clearly an attempt to shoehorn flashy PR information about himself, along with the company, because certainly no journalist would have knowledge of that nor the interest to mention it for an article. Let me also say that the Keep votes are not at all actually substantiating themselves to both acknowledging and considering the concerns, let alone take actions about it, because one thing is also certain here, no improvements have actually helped, see this and this, the essence of PR and that alone has stayed, and if at all, keeping it like this emphasizes it worse, including by of course only focusing with the exact information the company itself wants to say, and it's accomplishing this by publishing and republishing PR, by only focusing with such company-supplied information such as who the clients are, where the investing money is coming from, what its services, etc. In fact it's clear alone that this company has actually been willing to keep it like this the fact, not only had an IP started it, but it's not changed at all. To state the obvious, the IP was actually geolocating to the company's locality as it is! There are no actual improvements if an article is PR and that alone, because once we start compromising about accepting PR, that's when Wikipedia has become a PR host, and we need to stop kidding ourselves about thinking otherwise, because it causes severe and noticeable damages. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My goodness, there is no claim of significance here and the sources are seriously atrocious.

SocialTimes This is no article by a staff writer, but rather a freelance writer. Social Times is a niche website and gives over-coverage to social media news. The tone of the sources is highly promotional which makes me doubt that it is a redressed press release, not satisfying WP:ORGIND.
CNN Trivial one line coverage, which is a quote by the CEO
InfoWeek Routine news about a product release. More importantly, it uses quotes by the company employees as sources. See WP:ORGIND which says other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. are not useful for notability. See also quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources are excluded in WP:CORPDEPTH.
BlackWeb This is not a widely read site and doesn't satisfy WP:AUD. Plus the column is a personal opinion rather than a journalistic news piece.

Overall this clearly falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. The lack of references over a period of multiple years is indicative of the lack of notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Times article: I see no indication that the article is by a freelance writer. His author page gives his email address as [email protected]. Mediabistro is a subsidiary owned by Adweek's parent company. "Adweek Parent Prometheus Buys Mediabistro Editorial Assets. Includes about 25 sites By Adweek Staff". The article is an independent source because 40Billion has no affiliation with with Social Times, Mediabistro, or Adweek.
The InformationWeek article: The article discusses both the company's product and the company's history. I consider coverage about the company's product to be coverage about the company. The source provides "deep coverage" about the company that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage).
The CNN article: I agree this is trivial coverage.
The Black Web 2.0 article: I do not consider Alexa a reliable source. From Wikipedia:Search engine test#Alexa ratings:
Alexa rankings vary and include significant systematic bias which means the ratings often do not reflect popularity, but only popularity amongst certain groups of users (See Alexa Internet#Concerns). Broadly, Alexa rates based upon measurements by a user-installed toolbar, but this is a highly variable tool, and there are large parts of the Internet user community (especially corporate users, many advanced users, many open-source and non-Windows users) who do not use it and whose Internet reference use is therefore ignored.
Alexa discusses how they compile their rankings here. That it is based on a user-installed toolbar makes it unreliable.
That the article is by a columnist does not mean it cannot be used to establish notability. The article's author wrote:
In the end though I feel 40billion.com comes up short. For one, business plans are all over the internet and it does not provide a tried and true approach to writing a winning plan. Also, treating every business in any industry the same when it comes to start-up financing may also not be a good idea.
This criticism of the company clearly demonstrates that the source is not promotional. This is contrary to SwisterTwister's comment about the Black Web 2.0 source that it is "PR attenpts of advertising what the company's services are".
Cunard (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it was still interviewed information, hence not independent. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Adweek article is part of their blog network, as it discloses at the top, and cannot be taken as a RS for N. The Information Week article is in large part about other companies. And the other sources are even less adequate . DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It appears that the organization is known but not notable, in my opinion, so to speak. I also don't find the cited sources particularly persuasive. The problems have been hashed out already above, so there's not really much that I can add. I'm not sure, but deletion seems like the best move. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like notability is not met here, and the proposed merge target was deleted elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CampusNetwork[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional website content article. References are given as some college term paper or assignment. Press coverage questionable in nature. Nothing significant or notable about the website to be here. Light21 07:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete I'd hesitate to call it "promotional", though I can see why (lots of excitable coverage of the launch, little thereafter, likelihood this is supporting material to puff up Adam Goldberg (food writer)). But I'm unconvinced there's enough here to swing an article on - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Article could be merged/redirected into Adam Goldberg (food writer). Best source I've found is Slate. Does seem like a rather fascinating piece of Facebook history. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Pls see below; Original comment: to Adam Goldberg (food writer); Goldberg gets an extremely passing mention in The Facebook Effect (exactly one), so I can't say he's "notable" for early Facebook history. CampusNetwork is probably even less so. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment Adam Goldberg (food writer) has just been deleted at AFD, so "redirects" there are unlikely - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't see independent notability here, per my comments above; was not a notable part of Facebook origin history. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:39, 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. MER-C 07:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Progression[edit]

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

Promotional website content article. References are very poor. Nothing significant or notable about the website to be here. Light21 07:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 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 01:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly a vanity page, with such poetic language as this:

"In 2013 it was time to open the first Commercial Progression dedicated office. On May 7, 2012 Commercial Progression celebrated their 5th year anniversary and the grand opening of their first office in downtown Northville. On the second floor of a renovated historic furniture building, Commercial Progression set up shop."

Delete per WP:PROMO with a dose of WP:TNT; nothing's there to warrant an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 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) 15:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Engine Digital[edit]

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

Promotional website content article. References are very poor. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 07:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete the single RS is good, but not enough to swing an article on - David Gerard (talk) 16:08, 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 01:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly a corporate blurb; no indications of notability or significance. WP:PROMO applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernstein-Rein[edit]

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG. Company was at one time the 6th largest ad agency in the US and is notable for having the Walmart account for over three decades. See this, for example. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Pls see below; Original comment: I'm also finding sufficient sources to meet the CORPDEPTH requirement, such as International Directory of Company Histories and ~~The Advertising Age Encyclopedia of Advertising~~. Appears to be notable in its space. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This nomination brings up two questions that have not yet been resolved by the community. First, to what extent (if any) does a commercial organization inherit notability from its clients? And that does indeed seem to be a relevant question here -- if Wal-Mart and McDonald's had not been the subject's clients, would we even be having this discussion? Second, there is the more subtle question of whether we should be according any special treatment to organizations that engage in the business-to-business sphere. It is certainly true that such organizations generally have a tough time satisfying the general notability guidelines, because the mainstream media has little reason to talk about them, let alone talk about them in depth. But on the other hand, Wikipedia is intended for the general reader, so one can reasonably ask whether such organizations should have articles here.

Has the subject been a significant player in its field? No, it hasn't. It might be helpful to correct a misstatement made by one of the earlier discussants -- the subject was not the sixth largest ad agency in the United States, it was the sixth largest independent agency. Let's look at some numbers. The article tells us that just prior to losing the Wal-Mart account in 2007, the company's annual revenue was $550 million. But at that time, global advertising revenue was on the order of half a trillion dollars, with the North American market accounting for about a third of that. So, if we measure market shares by rounding off to the nearest whole percentage, the subject doesn't register in the global market, and doesn't even register in the North American market (and by "not register", I mean that its market share is 0%). In order to get a non-zero result, one has to look at fractions of a percentage, at which point we can say that the subject accounted for 0.1% of global advertising revenue.

The subject does not have an entry in the Advertising Age encyclopedia -- the cited link is to the entry for Wal-Mart. As for the entry in the Internal Directory of Company Histories, I can't shake the feeling that the directory is a "pay for play" arrangement (though I'll be happy to look at evidence to the contrary). In all, the subject has not been significant in its field, and an article on it is not appropriate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, NewYorkActuary, I don't think this company is notable because it has inherited notability from its clients. I think it meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing I'm seeing. I disagree with you that the subject has not been a significant player in its field. This agency created the Happy Meal. See this and this. The company also coined the "Make it a Blockbuster Night" slogan. These are notable, well-covered activities. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- switching to delete per analysis of sources by NewYorkActuary. The AdAge link offered above is not sufficient; it actually explains that the company is not very significant:

"It's devastating," said one agency-search consultant. "They've used Wal-Mart as a credential to get a number of regional and b-to-b clients. In one sense, they don't have that credential anymore. In another sense, they do retain all that retail experience."

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The cultural significance of the Happy Meal alone indicates that this listing should remain. While agencies tend to exist behind the scenes, the weight they add to the cultural landscape make them worthy subjects for listings. Ads have impact. See this ad. Hugely impactful, and if someone wants to know more about the agency that created this ad, and other ads, Wikipedia should be a resource for them.--Joshuald (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)User:joshuald[reply]

The linked Times article does not mention Bernstein-Rein, and says that the idea belonged to a McDonald's regional advertising manager. Notability is not WP:INHERITed from a notable entity; it needs to be demonstrated independently. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshuald: Welcome back to Wikipedia. I trust everything has been well during your five-year hiatus. In your former tenure here, you did a fine job of developing the Happy Meal article, including giving Bernstein full credit for his role in creating it. But this is what typically happens -- a person who plays a substantial role in an encyclopedic topic gets a discussion of what they did in the article on that topic. You haven't made a compelling case for having a stand-alone article on Bernstein's company. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per analysis by User:NewYorkActuary. Yes, they developed the Happy Meal, but nobody seems to have paid much notice to them because of it... at least not enough attention to get substantial coverage in independent sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as advertising for an advertising company, the claims that it's involvements with its clients would be enough is not so, because with a case like this, we would actually need considerably better for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 9 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. MER-C 07:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imagistic[edit]

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one RS is still present, the other (Bloomberg) is a 404, everything else is primary or press release. Where are you finding all these terrible company articles ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 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 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as the worst part is the 2nd sentence, going to specifics about the company, something that only the company would say and the company alone, nothing else is immune from PR because it involved PR, from its business activities to its PR awards, none of that was independent from said company itself. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. With a section on "Awards/Contributions", this is strictly "corporate spam". The company shows no indications of notability or significance per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZURB[edit]

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

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. Blogs written on popular media. References are link of profile on various website. No significant coverage by independent media. 14 Employee and not public company. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment look like they should be notable, though the article tone is promotional and the references are largely passing with nothing much about the company. If kept, this will need culling to about a paragraph or two - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all of the listed sources are PR in that they advertise the company's business and activities and what there is to say about it; there's no inherited or automatic notability from simply having the source be a major news source, as that's simply a shoehorn attempt at establishing "news". This company's environment is PR and that's what the sources are: PR. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there is significant enough coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. See TechCrunch, Venture Beat, PC World, and InfoQ. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The PC World cite literally does not mention Zurb. Why do you list that as evidence of notability of this topic? - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's about Notable, which is an application developed by ZURB. This and this are also about ZURB/Notable. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's still not evidence of Zurb's notability. It might count as evidence Notable was. But it doesn't at all serve the purpose you put it forward as serving - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Feel free to disregard the PC World source. There are still plenty of other WP:RS that cover this company, including the sources I listed above. Poking around Google now, I'm finding more, like this and this. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources offered are unconvincing. Mercury News is rather routine, "local company does good" coverage, with content such as:

ZURB employees spent 24 hours last week literally working day and night to complete a marketing campaign for a local nonprofit. “Our team really fell in love with their mission,” said Daniel Codella, part of ZURB’s marketing team.

Thenextweb.com is a bloggy sources lacking WP:AUD.

I would not consider this to be sufficient RS to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists to promote the business and deliver products & services information. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see enough coverage at the moment to write an article per WP:WHYN. There is some coverage in tech blogs about the products (some are literally brief product reviews with quotes by the employees), but these should be discounted per WP:INHERITORG as well as the relative overcoverage the tech blogs give to these companies. I don't see any references in mainstream media which is surprising. The dept of coverage is missing here. The article is also promotional, so this is a delete per WP:NOTPROMO as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:46, 4 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. Policy based arguments indicate that the subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines. —SpacemanSpiff 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Bansal[edit]

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

lack of mention in reliable sources makes it fail WP:NMUSIC Marvellous Spider-Man 06:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this page is very important because he is only sitar player whole chambal region and he is very famous in chambal too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabalgarh india (talk • contribs) 10:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:21, 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 01:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources makes subject ineligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG. There is also no evidence that he qualifies for WP:NMUS or WP:ANYBIO. Anup [Talk] 14:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Murph9000 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Mehra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. I'm not certain that there's even a WP:CCS right now, so it is possibly even eligible for WP:CSD A7. It's been around for a while, and has had a chunk of content stripped recently, so I'm opting for AfD on the basis that there might, maybe, be something in history to invalidate CSD. Murph9000 (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it only narrowly avoids WP:BLPPROD in its current state, with a single source which is only cited against a single, isolated fact. The main content (i.e. the prose) is entirely unsourced. Murph9000 (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator — The article now appears to verifiably pass WP:NBIO, due to significant changes made to it today. I am therefore withdrawing my nomination. Murph9000 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sources: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], more. Anup [Talk] 14:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject might meet those, but I believe the article fails in its current state. I'm not certain that the content has ever properly established notability, from a very quick browse of the history, although there might be some WP:CCS in history. Murph9000 (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:42, 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 00:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Murph9000: That's not really how we assess notability of a topic on Wikipedia. It is not the article contents or sources present in there, but existence of sources for a particular topic what in present case has already been provided by me above. Anup [Talk] 17:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anup: My point is that if the notability is there, the article should clearly establish it with good inline citations. This article has been around for a long time, barely makes a WP:CCS, does not clearly demonstrate notability, and is almost entirely unsourced. If it was submitted as an AfC draft today, in its current form, it would almost certainly be rejected. Failing to clearly demonstrate verifiable notability after two years makes me sincerely doubt that the notability really exists. Please do prove me wrong on that, by fixing the major problems with the article. With the exception of one table row, the article is WP:UNSOURCED, leaving all of its content open to challenge and deletion, and basically on the wrong side of BLP policy and guidelines. Murph9000 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused.. the article in its present shape makes a solid claim of notability (you can try to A7 it). That was "before" in past when article probably didn't make any claim of significance. Anyway, a simple Google search reveals tons of sources for the subject. It seems like you did not perform WP:BEFORE.

And to be blunt, I'd term it a ridiculous assumption if you are still questioning the existence of notability after seeing multiple reliable sources in my !keep rationale. I partly gets what are you asking for, and I will throw in there some refs from mine previous find. If you are still not satisfied, there is nothing I can do. We should better wait for others to jump in and weigh in their opinion.

Unrelated note: you pinged my secondary account. if you hover on my signed account name for few seconds it will reveal my username as, Anupmehra (I'm unrelated to topic under discussion. In India, last name is not really family name, it's a bit complex). Anup [Talk] 00:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: Sorry for pinging the wrong username, an unintentional error pasting the wrong part of your sig into the ping. The article has changed significantly since my last comment. It does now have a verifiable notability claim, and significantly improved sourcing in general, so I have withdrawn my nomination. At the time of nomination, based on the evidence reasonably easily available to me, it looked like notability may well have been lacking, and the tag for lack of notability had been present for almost 2 years (added shortly after it was created in 2014, then apparently ignored). Had I been certain that notability was lacking, I would have just tagged it under CSD. Since it was unclear due to the long standing problems with the article, AfD seemed like the best way to address the issue.

In essence, I was challenging most of the prose in the article as WP:UNSOURCED (and therefore eligible for removal), and the burden to address that is not with the challenger. With much of the prose disqualified due to lack of sourcing, notability came into question. The issue needed to be pushed, as the article was not in compliance with WP:BLP policy. I did see your sources here, but they needed to be in the article. Thanks for significantly improving the verifiability of the article.

Murph9000 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added a contemporary source for the subject having his current role in the soap opera. I'll defer to the two of you as to whether this is enough to pass the notability hurdle. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 30 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mason and Remy Show[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a radio program which airs in just two markets. That might be enough to pass WP:NMEDIA if the article were properly sourced, but the referencing here is parked primarily on press releases and online directories of radio station streams -- there are just two references here that count as reliable source coverage and they're both to local media in the program's own home market (plus one of them is a dead link), but that's not enough to get a radio show over WP:GNG by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 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 00:54, 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 merge to List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters#Sou Yaguruma. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider KickHopper[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters#Sou Yaguruma. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jclemens. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:21, 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 Matt King (producer) article was deleted by Northamerica1000 on 18 September 2016. The Andrew Ferguson (producer) article was deleted as per below on 8 October 2016. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt King (producer)[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)

Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLPs of the main partners in a film and television production company, based entirely on primary sources and directories (IMDb is not a reliable or notability-conferring source) with the exception of a single piece of reliable source coverage which just namechecks their existence in conjunction with a project while failing to be about them. As well, the articles were created by User:Johnnylarue490 -- since the production company was named "LaRue Entertainment" in memory of John Candy's SCTV character "Johnny LaRue", the conflict of interest is apparent. People like this would be eligible to have Wikipedia articles if they could be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but the mere fact of working as a film and television producer does not constitute an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass in and of itself, or an exemption from having to be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input would be desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The nomination lays out a good argument. They get mentioned in reliable sources, such as [58] from The Hollywood Reporter, but I don't see significant coverage about either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article noticeably simply lists names of other people and entities, nothing actually forming information confirming his own independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Matt King (producer) article has been deleted, per consensus herein. However, only the nominator and the !vote by User:NinjaRobotPirate seem to address the nomination for Andrew Ferguson (producer). The other two !votes of "non-notable producer" and "... as the article noticeably simply lists names... (et al.)" imply that only the Matt King (producer) article listed atop the discussion was considered, per the singular forms of grammar used. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Andrew Ferguson (producer) remains nominated for deletion within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you search for Andrew Ferguson in this source, there is simply a passing mention. This essentially quotes the subject in relation to an event, but there is hardly anything about the subject. This is not significance coverage, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert and SwisterTwister it would be helpful if you clarify per the concerns mentioned in the relisting. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Epstein (Israeli writer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, as tagged by Grayfell. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources include "Less Is More: Alex Epstein’s Poetic Prose, The Jewish Week, [59] an article form which a proper bio can be sourced. "Most of the page is still blank: An interview with Alex Epstein," The Kenyon Review, [60], Almost Blue: Israel’s New Borges, an article about Epstein in The Forward [61], and quite a few more. But I think these suffice to demonstrate that this writer passes WP:AUTHOR. I suspect that Nom, User:Grayfell, searched this virtually unsourced author and found many other Alex Epsteins. I searched, "Alex Epstein" + Israeli and immediately hit these 3, and more I do not cite. More undoubtedly would come up with other keywords. In sum, a patently notable author with an unsourced stub of an article, what else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory's sources, demonstrating notability. See also the review of his second English collection in the National Post [62]. I've added a few sources to the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 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.

[informationweek-1] Diana, Alison (2011-02-14). "Micro-Funding Site Integrates With LinkedIn, Facebook". InformationWeek.

[1]