Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 September	1 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highlight (application)[edit]

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

the app store links? No body bothered to cover it for press. Not notable. Light2021 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the promotional links are not good, but I'll note the NBC article about why it's a bad idea is genuine third-party RS coverage that definitely isn't promotional ... same for this Wired article - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable for being a bad idea, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE as equivalent to an expired Prod. Article nominated for weeks with no objections raised to deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sajid Ishaq[edit]

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

Article is unambiguously promotion with statements such as "He is playing an essential role in creating...", "He holds strong reputation in", "his experience and expertise in the field" etc. If this was just a few instances, then I would fix it and not nominate for deletion but basically the entire article is written this way. IMHO it is a prime candidate for WP:BLOWITUP. I also question the notability of the subject to begin with. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 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 05:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:07, 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 List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm). Overall consensus is to Redirect, If anyone wants to merge I have no objections (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Baader[edit]

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

An unremarkable German Luftwaffe captain of World War II; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The passing claim of notability is the award of the Knight's Cross in April of 1945. This can be confirmed via a book by Veit Scherzer (1-line listing), but this is insufficient to overcome WP:BIO1E and lack of sources. WP:SOLDIER, an essay by Project Military History, has been recently modified and the award of the Knight's Cross is currently not considered sufficient for criterion #1 (highest award for military valour). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Kleuske (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: the award seems verified, but there doesn't seem to be enough coverage to warrant a stand alone article, which is the point of what is outlined in WP:SOLDIER. As such, a redirect to the parent list (List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)) seems warranted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm). As a verified KC recipient it seems likely to be a valid search term, even if the subject currently lacks the coverage req'd to justify his own article. Anotherclown (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Australian. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm) Unless there is significant coverage to write and article per WP:WHYN, KC doesn't make a soldier automatically notable. A redirect is appropriate here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable WWII soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to TLC discography#Singles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gift Wrapped Kiss[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. This song did not chart and it was not discussed by multiple secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and WP:NSONG - they way it's written even makes it seem less notable. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The chart position claimed as 28 on the Hot Dance chart is unsourced. According to the article, it was released on 24 Dec 2014. The chart for the week of 27 Dec 2014 (and any other week) only shows the top 25 so is a peak position of 28 notable even if it is verified. I can find minor mentions of this single but no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is, the vagaries of the site display can't be used to claim that a chart entry isn't a chart entry. The idea of that bit of WP:NMUSIC is that a chart song is something a reader might reasonably want to look up (though this one has very few hits) - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TLC discography - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TLC discography#Singles. I don't think there's really anything worth saying about it that isn't already there. --Michig (talk) 07:48, 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 TLC discography. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist: The Very Best of TLC[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. This album did not chart and it was not discussed in multiple secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TLC discography. Article makes claim of charting on the Billboard 200 and the UK Albums Chart, but the official databases for both charts (Billboard, UK Charts Company) do not mention this album or its alleged chart peaks. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect to the TLC discography. We should not be keeping the article history when it contains bogus information. The claims for the Billboard 200 chart performance is false. According to the article, it was released 17 May 2010. Looking at the the Billboard 200 for the week of 22 May 2010, there is no entry for this album, nor are there any entries ins the subsequent few weeks. There is an entry for Playlist on the 19 June 2010 chart at position 165, but that is for the Dixie Chicks album Playlist: The Very Best of Dixie Chicks. Note that this is not the only article where user:Thallysson Halperinn, the article creator has added bogus chart positions. See my nominator's comments and my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turntable (TLC song). -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 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) 08:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson Appiah[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD as contested by an IP for promotional reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails GNG and NFOOTY. Wikipedia is not a promotional space either so I totally disagree with the reason given for removal of PROD Spiderone 08:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of notability --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:59, 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 Snowball keep (withdrawal requested by original nominator) (non-admin closure). ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina clown sightings[edit]

Note: the article has grown in scope and has been renamed to 2016 clown sightings

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

This is redundant to Evil clown#Phantom clowns, where it's already covered. I redirected the article there after someone merged it, but an IP editor reverted me. Rather than edit warring over this, I'm bringing it to AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There sure are a ton of sources out there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply one manifestation of phantom clowns, which are already described in detail in evil clown. This fails WP:NOTNEWS and has already been incorporated in the appropriate article. We're not actually going to have articles on every single clown sighting when some local paper reports a phantom clown, are we? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - But evil clowns seems more suited to the trope of Clowns in horror films. There have been sightings of clowns in over a dozen states, as well as several school closures, many arrests, and many police departments on watch, Every single sighting getting its own article would be a bit much, but the sightings throughout the United States combines to create an event, that has been going on for over a month, which makes it Not News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.91.243 (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "...not NOTNEWS" right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that

Good point NinjaRobotPirate. Every single sighting shouldn't get an article, but this is a cluster, so maybe GNG. If this ends in a redirect, maybe that section in evil clown could have subsections. You know, so it's not all lumped together and the redirect could go to the exact spot. Anyhow, this whole thing is giving me the creeps. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom clown is a possible spin-off target eventually, but it's not overwhelming evil clown yet. The whole thing strikes me as recentism, as this "clowns have been sighted in our town" thing flares up intermittently. It's become routine at this point and is best covered in the form of an overview, much like shark attacks are at shark attack. I put it in evil clown because it fit and the article was smallish. Once it's no longer smallish, I have no objections to a legit spinoff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that this "...flares up intermittently..."?? Has there been such a cluster before? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar case in 1981, however what made that notable was that only children saw the clowns, never the parents. Also there were no arrests made or school closures, things I feel give credence to the 'current' epidemic.

I documented a few outbreaks of clown sightings in evil clown#Phantom clowns: 1981, 1985, 1991, 1995, 2008, and 2014. Those are just the major ones covered by reliable sources in overviews of the topic. There's also the Northampton Clown, who was a prankster. Following the Northampton clown, there have been a few other pranksters. It's silly to create articles on each epidemic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, NinjaRobotPirate. That makes sense. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Evil clown article can adequately cover the content, which is not large. BTW, I think there are problems with the layout of Evil clown. The depictions section seems over emphasized - it would be better at the end of the article (and probably better collapsed) - and is very disorganized. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield. It is at the end of the article. And collapsed? Since when do we collapse such content. Anyhow, that is a matter for the article talk page. Please feel free to bring it up there. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at the end, "Response to evil clowns in media" and "Phantom clowns" are currently after the depictions section. Lists are sometimes collapsed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depictions, yes, you're right. Sorry. I didn't read carefully. Not a bad plan. And collapsed, well, I doubt that will be agreed upon at article talk. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that evil clown is a mess. I've been meaning to clean it up, but I always get distracted. Right now, it's this whole South Carolina thing. Once this gets resolved, we can work on cleaning up the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's spread outside South Carolina, hasn't it?

Comment - Note that Coulrophobia#2016 "Creepy Clown" Epidemic exists. That is how I arrived here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and make a redirect to Evil clown#Phantom clowns. Even if GNG can apply, other guidelines and common sense say put this into evil clown. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my delete. The article is filling out and the clowns are spreading. Now Oregon, some school closures, and even a murder. This could be just the beginning. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is now way to big to fit into Evil clown. It easily passes GNG. There are probably hundreds of media stories on this now and it has spilled over into social media, has involved murder, assault, arrests, the involvement of the FBI, school closures and lockdowns around the nation, and Halloween is still a month away. This is an easy keep. NinjaRobotPirate, what do you think at this point? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just saw a news report moments ago on TV about creepy clown sightings in several neighboring towns. There was even footage of one of them. (The clown indeed looked creepy). Police were dispatched to deal with it. The newscaster mentioned it was also happening all over the country. So I looked it up on WP, and that brought me here. The phenomenon has gone viral, and is causing considerable disruption out there. So much so, it is getting significant coverage in the news. I think it has passed the notability threshhold. The Transhumanist 12:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this article is still a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The facts could be succinctly summarized at evil clown. But Wikipedians love turning encyclopedia articles into overly-detailed "news of the weird" newspaper articles, so I'm not surprised it's being expanded. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was one of the editors who expanded it and I do not love turning encyclopedia articles into overly-detailed "news of the weird" newspaper articles. And what part of WP:NOTNEWS does this violate? As for WP:RECENTISM, well that is not policy, nor a guideline, but it still has value as an essay. I like the section "Recentism as a positive". The article can be eventually boiled down, surely. However, whether something of this magnitude should simply be a section within Evil clown is absurd at this point. I mean, murders, assaults, arrests, an FBI investigation, students not going to school en masse, school closures? Surely this should be a standalone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A portion of this clown epidemic may simply be pranks taken too far and social media freakouts over nothing, but another portion includes schools being shut down, people who have actually been attacked by clowns, and even a murder. I think it is wikiworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.91.243 (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now). Otherwise the news froth will inundate a proper article. Just let this tempest blow itself out in this flagged work-in-progress and then decide what to do with the result a few months from now when (we hope) activity subsides. Jeffryfisher (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This phenomenon has also been reported in Canada, making this international. Re-evaluate after Halloween.--Auric talk 23:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, eh? Thanks for noticing that, Auric (love the new sig, by the way). I like the calls for keep with evaluate later. Maybe this will eventually get condensed and it could fit into Evil clown. But for now, it's too big, and as Jeffryfisher wisely points out, this would innundate Evil clown. Now to check Euro news for any spread there. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – While I had not edited this article until recently, I have been watching it since the day it was created. I refrained from editing it, though, because I was doubtful it would survive any sort of AfD. However, as of late, it seems the subject has greatly broadened in scope and significance, and at the current time, it does not seem like it would be a good idea to eliminate this article from the encyclopedia. Dustin (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – bizarre but notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cut down. The phenomenon of '2016 clown sightings' appears to be notable, regardless of whether there's any real-world significance to it or if it's just an instance of mass hysteria; but I don't think it's encyclopaedic to list every single purported sighting, some of which are better sourced than others. It would be better by being reduced to a smaller number of representative examples of the trend, and turned into more of a general overview. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like consensus is against me, which is fine. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination. We don't have to drag this out for an entire week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad one bit. You nommed this with perfect rationale when it was a teensy paragraph. Plus, your AfD calls are almost always spot on. And who knew it would balloon into a scary twenty sections and 3k hits a day. Anyhow, I guess we can close this as it will certainly be a keep. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're withdrawing this, then I think we can go ahead and close it. And as a withdrawal, it can be a non-admin closure. I'd do it myself, except I've never done it before and am not sure I want to start here. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, changed my mind. I'm going to go ahead and try closing this. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable and sources are out there.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I stumbled across this from the Most Edited chart, but have been seeing this in the news so much I wondered where it was being covered. The concentration of these events in 2016 is notable at this point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepImportant article50.202.185.114 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect – Widespread epidemic with dozens of sources. If the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:33, 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. Michig (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armitage (DJ)[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Only reference is unrelated to the main topic of the article and there is nothing to indicate that it is the same person. noq (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable DJ. –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avanquest[edit]

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

Non-notable company per WP:CORP. No significant coverage. Everything cited or mentioned in this article is essentially promotional. The WinFax software mentioned is different from the notable WinFax. FalconK (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of WP:CORP was not supported with evidence and is refuted by WP:LISTED. Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTED does not directly provide notability. My evidence for WP:CORP is that there is only the forbes citation in the article, and I can't find anything else about the company that would make it notable (see WP:CORPDEPTH). FalconK (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avanquest S.A. is the parent company that is listed, so it may be notable. But not a division by default. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article fails WP:NOT, why does the problem rise to the level of WP:DEL14? Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The company's full name appears to be "Avanquest Software", so adding search parameters below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:PROMO. The company is established, so not a flash in the pan. But the copy is too promotional, including: "In 2007 Avanquest Software strengthened its international presence with the acquisition of ...". The article then goes on to discuss the company's sales channels. So delete it as corporate spam, likely written by a paid editor; no point in wasting volunteer editors time rewriting this unacceptable copy, on a company that is highly likely to be non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 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) 08:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double-Anti-Spy[edit]

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

Delete per WP:PRODUCT; no independent notability. I don't think the publisher of this software meets notability either. FalconK (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially a business guide listing, 1 source but that's not nearly enough, nothing else is suggesting better for the needed substance, I certainly found literally nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 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 merge to Core Security Technologies. Core Security Technologies isn't up for deletion so am closing as Merge, Ofcourse if it is deleted at somepoint then I reccommend this redirect gets deleted too. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damballa (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP notability guidelines, and vaguely promotional. All articles referenced are incidental mentions or just about raising money. Little to nothing in a google news search either. FalconK (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Damballa was acquired by Core Security Technologies in July 2016... and therefore the information in this article should be merged with Core Security Technologies, and not deleted.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, Core Security Technologies isn't very notable either, but are themselves owned by Courion (which hasn't yet garnered an article). FalconK (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In December 2015, Core Security was acquired by identity and access management (IAM) company Courion; in May 2016, Courion rebranded itself with the Core Security name. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Core Security Technologies or delete if that's killed first - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Core Security Technologies where the subject is already discussed. I don't see anything worth merging from the current page; it's all promotional fluff. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 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) 13:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazarian Para PMC[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)

Procedural AFD; this was deleted under the WP:PROD process back in July, but the deletion has belatedly been challenged so temporarily restoring it for an AFD discussion. Procedural nomination so I abstain ‑ Iridescent 20:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I've posted a request here for Norwegian-speaking editors to check the Norwegian-language sources. ‑ Iridescent 15:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. I looked for some not cited in the article and didn't find any. FalconK (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold delete Only sources provided are either self-sourcing (WP:PRIMARY) or unreliable (mostly YouTube). Other 'sources' online are only gaming boards and forums. Therefore, no significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Also falls far short of the requiremets laid out in WP:ORGDEPTH: no broad audience (niche / fringe group), no WP:PERSISTENT coverage from mainstream, independent sources. This is basically promoting a phenomonally non-notable motorcycle group who have failed to even reach much notoriety, let alone respectable coverage for their activities. The original PROD was flink ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arguement Notability. Nrk.no is Norway's National state-owned broadcasting Network. BT. Is Bergen's-tidene Norway's second largest Newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.7.141 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
arguement Sources. Youtube is cited unreliable source. Clips From youtube Show NRK's News logo, meaning it was aired on primetime news for several days. Youtube is no less unreliable than Wikipedia?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.7.141 (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
arguement Notability. Nazarian Para PMC. Where wildly covered 'locally' in Norway, And is in that regard a Local phenomenon, Many of the articles where removed because of false accusations. Both national aired news coverage and national aired radio programs where lost in NRK's restruction of archive. But the mere loss of evidence does not make for loss of notability in local collective memory. If so.. did 3,9 million Jews not die, Simply because their deaths where try'ed hidden and destroyed. But, given the facts. it is verymuch so a local phenomenon and not portrayed otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.7.141 (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know Norwegian and I've fixed up the article's English a bit for readability. The subject is unknown to me and there is no article in either of the Norwegian Wikipedias (Nynorsk nor Bokmål) with the title "Nazarian Para PMC". I feel not competent to !vote. It seems likely to me that the subject is minor and there is too little coverage. --Hordaland (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For some Norwegian's Me included "the author of this Wiki". Norwegian is rather incompatible with Internet, cellphones, Computer's etc. thous english where preferred. that is solely my preference. As stated, the coverage where intense, but based on an false agenda of "neo-nazism" and accusations of child soldiering etc. which where due to Norway's press etichs selfgoverning laws for a short while demented and retracted. before removing most material. So most material is now not available. this however does not make it uncovered or without notability. internet is a new forum, and etichs are still in the process of being created. Therefore subjects as this may rise, and that is why we have this discussion. is it or is it not noteworthy? the article in itself is by all means correct and neutral "although" it is written by me, a partial member. but it is by all means written in a neutral way stating only objective facts rather than subjective feelings. 176.11.7.141 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertorial with advertising information along with advertising sources, not one piece comes close to being meaningfully improved and then substantial, therefore there's nothing suggesting otherwise, delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Compared to SwisterTwister outstanding argumentation, i feel word fails to short of nearing any usefull argument. thous i'll just vote keep, and keep silent..176.11.7.141 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'am from bergen, i actually remember this very clearly. it was in mainstream news for about a week or so, an in other medias like newspapers for well over a month. it was talked about all that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.20.195 (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Fails WP:NORG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what i can learn from Norwegian Google Seartch i find newspaper articles about this so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.111.148 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol yeah, OK! :D _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yea, this was very well covered in the News, on primitive tv and radio. Also Even by nafs 'Norwegian airsoft association' who demented nazarian. So keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.187.45 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None or marginal media coverage in large Norwegian newspapers (no hits in Afteposten archive, one hit in Bergens Tidende). - 4ing (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arguement Hits in media User 4ing.. have you tryed NRK.no state owned broadcaster? https://www.google.no/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=Nazarian+nrk 176.11.7.141 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Only two hits from 2006 from the local Hordaland office of NRK. - 4ing (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you personally remember it on national News in dagsrevyen 21? and than followups at 18:00 day after.. 176.11.7.141 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you aware that NRK purged its old archive in 2010/2011 and thous lost all news aired on tv pre that date?176.11.7.141 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please refresh your memory with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WObtINtNjgk forward to 1:50176.11.7.141 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Argument deletion. I have nothing against people voting for a deletion, if such vote is objective. but when contributors do not even bother to do a just background check before voting. i have a problem with it..176.11.7.141 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i was a member, back when female members where alowed. I was also fetured on National tv. So i remember quite Well. However i'am baffled over that almost all articles looks clinical removed. But IT is a strong keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.96.138 (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles removed or missing based on false accusation of Neo-Nazism http://www.bygdanytt.no/saker/nazarian.html Does not exist anymore. but may be obtained thru Microfilm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.7.141 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Press statment about Nazarian by NASF Norwegian airsoft association http://www.nasf.no/pressemelding.pdf again removed. 176.11.7.141 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nazarian ASC Demented by NASF Norwegian airsoft association on National Radio Purged By NRK.NO also Purged By User who recorded it Mr. Holm i NRK P1 Hordaland idag kl 16:

http://home.broadpark.no/~njalb/nrk-hordaland2.wma 176.11.7.141 (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like the group's entire membership has turned out. Shame it's not a vote, guys. _Muffled ^Pocketed 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was, you would have 12 active votes in favour. but we've put a ban on active members voting. only me the author have been allowed to have a saying. keep your subjective thoughts for yourself please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.7.141 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK- thanks for the confession to WP:MEATpuppetry and WP:TAGTEAMing. Cheers! (subjectively, yours...) _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Subjective much? Do find other reasons for justifying your actions, than assumptions.. I'am hoping your age preceeds 12..176.11.7.141 (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it is said. i do not know any other authors on wikipedia, iam rather unexperienced. only one i've talked to are the one helped me make this article. where he is now i dont know. so TAGTEAM?

and Meatpupetry was new to me. are you accusing me of this? well my question under stays. i'am sure you know much about Barock england or whatever.. very nice. but i would like to know the questions under here.176.11.7.141 (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - my answear above "If it was, you would have 12 active votes in favour. but we've put a ban on active members voting." does suggest i'am not meatpuppetrying. so how you turned that around, well i cant figure.176.11.7.141 (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User Mundi How do you know this article content personally? do you have a recollection of it? do you remember it 10 years ago? just asking. would like to know how it was preceded by you personally.176.11.7.141 (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you hold you national conference in a telephone box? Or is that too big? _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

are you trying to be rude? really? do you really want to tarnish your own reputation by being an arse?176.11.7.141 (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Is there an admin around that may contribute agains Mundi's poor attempt at bullying? I'am not an experienced author.. but i'am pretty sure bullying and trying to ridicule others are well out of bounds. WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE 176.11.7.141 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly ironic. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How About you try to use some of your more serious side, to actually answer the questions? i'am am sure it is a topic you know nothing of at all. And instead you resort to trolling instead. why?176.11.7.141 (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have access to basically all Norwegian newspapers via the news service w:no:Retriever Norge. I have looked at every newspaper article in Norwegian mentioning Nazarian (used the ANDNOT function to for instance get rid of hits on persons like Armen Nazaryan after a lot of persons named Nazarian was excluded from the hit-list I was left with 116 articles mentioning "Nazaryan". I have looked at all of them. The article is referenced with three Norwegian newspaper articles. I can confirm that this is all the articles there is. One of these is editorial and two is readers debating the organization. The news coverage cannot confirm most of the content in the article and it is basically without reliable sources.

-- None of the sources confirms any motorcycle activity as the article claims. They confirm Softgun-activity in military uniforms and not being accepted in the organized softgun-community. Norwegian newspapers and local newspapers are in general very good at mentioning local clubs and their activities. Very small clubs at least get a mention in activity lists for the local community. The fact that I cannot find any of this indicates a basic lack of any activity that has public interest.

-- I have looked at the Norwegian registry for organizations (not just businesses but also non profit organizations) at Brønnøysund Register Centre and no organization named Nazarian is registered in Norway. Most organizations in Norway are registered in brreg.no since this often is a prerequisite for being recognized a lot of places in Norway. Small bridge clubs or similar private little clubs are often not.

-- The article claims "Nazarian Para PMC started in 2002 as a Private Military Company, with intentions of providing military personnel for foreign security and warfare". This is illegal in Norway and punishable by law. If this was true I definitely should have found newspaper coverage. However I cannot confirm that they ever tried anything like this.

-- This is not a notable organization as the total newspaper coverage consists of 1 editorial and 2 reader comments in Norwegian newspapers from 2006. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 12:21, 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) 08:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AJIN Industrial Co., Ltd.[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A car parts company who usually stay under the notability radar. In this case the refs are an own web-site, a share price listing and a notice about an expansion. Searches yield little but this could be a language issue. As written it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability at all. I tried to search the Korean name and google translate some results and most seemed to mention it only in passing if at all, but this is no substitute for someone who actually speaks Korean looking into this. There's no article on Korean wikipedia at https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/아진산업 for what it's worth. FalconK (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the largest claims of signifcance here are simply the major company partners claims, nothing else is convincing and that's because everything else simply advertises the company itself and what it wants to say itself, exactly how PR would be used, and that's actually because that was the plan here clearly. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 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) 07:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyVideoCool[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. This is a short compilation of previously released videos, not a real album. This release did not chart and it was not mentioned in multiple secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It charted!! See the link: Crazy Video Cool--88marcus (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I looked for that but failed. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was certified Gold by RIAA too. see the certification--88marcus (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NALBUM per sources found by user:88marcus. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NALBUM.--88marcus (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YourStory[edit]

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

A blog written by people in huge amount. Not even credible journalism. Heavely funded by notable people. All the references are nothing but " FUNDING - FUNDING - FUNDING -FUNDING. Blatant promotions and advertising of being get funded and nothing else. BBC Article reference? Seriously? I am trying to find out what significant they wrote about this one! Nothing significant but another startup company. Merely being popular or capturing good Alexa rank does not make a website encyclopedia significant. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Light2021 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability at all per the relevant standard WP:CORP. FalconK (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising. No value to the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as this is an interesting one because this website itself is actually used by other people who want to start PR articles, and they not only cite it as a source, I imagine they also cite it as an existing article example, therefore this is a PR website whose environment is PR and it welcomes it, none of that is acceptable here, and any supposed "independent news" are of course merely republished company PR. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepYourStory is popular news magzine for new scholars/entrepreneurs from India. Jessie1979 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 20:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Merely being popular does not amount to its notability. People or company are using their sources for citations of notability. It is just another blog written by people or promoting companies of any kind. No sign of credible news media by any credible media agencies. Wikipedia even blocked this for using as a references for any people or company. do not meet Wikipedia standards. Light2021 (talk) 15:27, 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 redirect to Love Wars (song). (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen & Elizabeth[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability as far as I can tell. Though I'm not sure how to gauge notability of a one-shot promotional tie-in music group. TTN (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious thing to do is merge and redirect to Love Wars (song), which is notable as it was a mainstream No. 4 hit in Japan - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Love Wars (song) per David Gerard, as there is no evidence of activity beyond the song. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euroleague 2010–11 season attendance figures[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT Spiderone 19:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this article has been tagged as not meeting GNG since Sep 2013 but no improvements have been made Spiderone 20:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and NOTSTATS. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article would work as simply one section of the main season article. Asturkian (talk) 12:03, 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 Sleigh Ride#Notable recordings. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleigh Ride (TLC song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. This song didn't chart and it was not the subject of multiple in-depth discussion in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to Sleigh Ride, seeing as it as cover of that song, it should be merged there regardless of notability, Per WP:COVERSONG. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually WP:COVERSONG states that a particular version should be included if either there is coverage in reliable sources or meets notability, so actually, your recommendation to merge regardless of notability is contrary to the guideline you cited. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken. I've changed my vote to Redirect. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Sleigh Ride#Notable recordings, or Home Alone 2: Lost in New York#Home Alone Christmas track listing. There isn't really anything worth merging. The bulk of the prose in the article was lifted right out of Sleigh Ride and wasn't about the TLC cover of the song. The song did chart on the R&B chart peaking at 42 as well at least one Holiday chart. However, there isn't any significant coverage about the song; only inclusion on lists of favourite holiday songs with a brief description that usually is of the form "... and then there is this R&B take on Sleigh Ride by TLC." -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 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 by nominator (non-admin closure) Varun FEB2003 15:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. The claim that a "raid" took place on Pakistani Kashmir is by India. Pakistan has rejected that any action took place inside its territory, and said that it was a case of cross-border firing. The article is also redundant to the already existing pages 2016 Uri attack and India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present) - to whom it is linked, and within which the incident is adequately covered. Mar4d (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the discussion below and content expansion, I am now withdrawing the AfD nomination. Accordingly, this AfD awaits admin or non-admin closure. Please do the needful. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the nom, this is not even encyclopedic to begin-with. These types of minor skirmishes take place every other day on India/Pakistan border. At this time, these are all claims, one side is claiming they carried out a surgical strike inside other's territory, the other side is saying it was an incident of cross-border firing and losses were more on Indian side than Pakistani side. So due to conflicting claims, the article title would not be agreeable. This is just an attempt to open another Pandora's box. Rather than having a separate article for such minor skirmish, the content for this article should be covered under India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is self sufficient has enough evidence provided. also Mar4d has deliberately changed India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present) article though it was India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–2015) and only contained data from 2014-2015. Also Mar4d has only added September 2016 event details without adding all the details for Jan 2016 to Aug 2016. to deliberately make a point. --Dude7190 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that there should be a separate page for skirmishes for every year especially when there is not much data to cover? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether to create new page for every year or not depends on many criteria. It is being discussed here right?, BUT when there is a discussion going on to decide whether these were mere skirmishes between Indian & pakistani military or raids/ strikes on terrorists launch pads along the LOC, AND weather there should be a new page or it should be merged with existing page. It is not acceptable to vandalize existing pages like India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–2015) to deliberately make a point. --Dude | Talk 14:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't feel all right. I'm sensing WP:BATTLE type mentality of few editors; looks like some kind of wiki-skirmishes is going on between India and Pak editors. Anup [Talk] 21:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The events in this article is very similar to Death of Osama bin Laden, which is an accepted one. Quartzd (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This military operation is exactly similar to the Operation Geronimo in terms of precision, and larger in terms of fatalities. The death count varied from 38 to 70 onesided, as cited by different media. It is also expected to be a huge game changer in India–Pakistan relations, militarily and strategically. ~ Irrigator ^talk 04:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, agree with Anup I'm also sensing WP:BATTLE type mentality of few editors here and as well on 2016 Uri attack which is heavily edited by editors from India and Pakistan only so I think it will be better if someone experienced user from some other location can decide. GSS (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – Clearly passed WP:GNG, and is also an article of high importance in scope of India. Following 2016 Uri attack, it was the response by the Government of India (such as Irrigator said, it is something like killing Laden for his role in 9/11 attacks). Covered by many reliable news sources that clearly passes WP:RS. But presently the article's style, structure and prose has lot of errors. This must cleaned-up. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has garnered massive media attention especially in South Asia; whether the "raid" actually happened or not is a different matter but its encyclopaedic significance cannot be contended. Almost all the major international news websites/channels have given it coverage (NY Times, Bloomberg, The Australian, BBC). It has been described as a "historical shift in the position of India in regards to Pakistan" as apparently the Indian Military never "crossed the Line of Control" even during full fledged wars e.g. Kargil War; ay dios mio these two countries fight a lot! Many countries have raised their concerns as both are nuclear-weapon states and escalation can lead to a very undesirable situation. What we are going to see here is Pakistanis voting for "delete" and Indians voting for "keep". I'm not questioning the judgement or neutrality of the nominator, who happens to be a Pakistani, but I've seen this kind of disagreement between both sides in past on several many occasions and sometimes it even gets ugly. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically a cross border firing incident made out to be something special. All the keep votes seem to be from Indian users who watch too much Indian news channels and seen to think its their word over the worlds its non notable outside of India to begin with. Inaghetto (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user has only one edit outside this AfD, Inaghetto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). GSS (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I'd say keep whether it happened or not. It is a significant topic - with wide-ranging debate about what it implies and it effects a lot of people. Over time, if more detail is revealed, then the article can be enriched accordingly. Amiwikieditor (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indian government and India media report that India had carried out a cross-border raid. Pakistani government and Pakistani media deny it. The international media is non-committal. This is not the first time we have such a problem. Kulbhushan Yadav was created based on one country's media, it was AfD'ed, but the AfD didn't succeed. It can't be any other way. We can't declare that one country's media are unreliable. As long as the article is based on sources that we normally regard as reliable, the article stays. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - A very very big and a huge incident that basically can be a base for a world's first nuclear war between 2 countries. Highly notable. Varun FEB2003 12:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCRYSTAL. If there is, God forbid, a nuclear war, then yes, this will be very noteworthy. But wikipedia is not the place for such predictions. We can only judge this article by the information we have at the moment.VR _talk 23:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An important news item.Ghatus (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely! But wikipedia is not news.VR _talk 23:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A very important incident that has been rejected by Pakistan as is done to some other military operations. Rajan51 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was a fictitious incident without any independent sources backing up the claims of the Indian media and military. Unless and until independent sources collaborate Indian claims, it doesn't merit an article, which serves as POV pushing basically. cӨde1+6^TP 19:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If such an incident is not supported by a diverse international media and more importantly evidence, it should be stated that this was claimed and not written as some sort of "proof". And I argue this the same for the so-called Osama Bin Laden killing which till this day has not been supported by any sufficient evidence aside from American government an media claims. That article should just state the name of the operation and include affirmative and negative arguments. Otherwise NPOV is pretty much dead or lost to democracy.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this writeup. Indian claims have not been substantiated by international third parties and have been vehemently rejected by Pakistans forces. Moreover, India is yet to furnish proof on the international stage which would uphold their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.231 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present): The article is about the just everyday minor skirmishes that occur along the LoC. As Sheriff pointed out, should we be having and article about very other skirmish that takes place there? Also, the Indian claim has been unsubstantiated todate. Even their own media and some sane voices have been questioning the claim. No independent source has verified it either. Though it has received considerable coverage, but then it's due to the fact that India media, in times of crisis, behaves like a mouthpiece of Indian establishment. This article in huffingtonpost.in: In War Season, Beware Of Disinformation Campaigns will give you idea about how fake the incident was. I wonder if everything which gathers media's attention is supposed to be at WP albeit being unencyclopedic?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 20:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present) deals with a continuous set of skirmishes from 6 July 2014 to 2 November 2015. An event of 29 September 2016 is hardly relevant for that article. This page was also moved recently to 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation and while Pakistan denies the military raid in Pakistan administered Kashmir, there's no denying that there was at least a confrontation that led to both Indian and Pakistani casualties. Filpro (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is an extremely controversial claim which no neutral or independant sources have confirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.233.209 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- The events in this article is very similar to Death of Osama bin Laden, which is an accepted one. Jayprakash12345 (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a terrible nomination. Even if we acknowledge that confrontation was blown way out of proportion, the controversy in and of itself is sufficient to keep this article. I hope Mar4d isn't too quick to nominate articles in this manner in the future. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an extraordinary single incident which is separate from the ongoing fighting. It has been covered alone by many media sources and as a single event has been the subject of commentary by noted experts in multiple countries with various perspectives. It meets WP:GNG. The event is already been discussed as something on which to reflect over time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, it definitely is an extraordinary single event and is to be cited for ages. It marks a very notable strategic shift in India's policy towards its neighbor country Pak. For the first time India officially accepted that his army crossed the Line of Control, and that it carried out a surgical strike in PoK. Earlier it declined any such aggression even during Kargil war when it was reported by various media houses that Indian army reached territories beyond LoC. Anup [Talk] 07:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Must Keep This article contain enough information till date regarding the incident. Also the present state of confrontation between both nation may lead both countries to the war. The situation is just like the past incidents where later it turned into the war. The information on this page need to be monitored on neutral basis but it must be keep as it seem now. सुमित सिंह (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As many said, clearly passes WP:GNG. The information is cited with many reliable news sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, The article is well referenced, Books, newspapers references are given at the sentence end in the article, The title is as well not controversial so I recommend strong KEEP this article. "The Wikipedia is concerned with the reliable sources, to which this article fully accomplished".If the article has some sentence corrections, unwanted words that may be excluded and this article is strongly recommended to be KEEP as it fulfills all the criterion of Wikipedia. Thanks for inviting me for this discussion, India and Pakistan should live with peace, resolve every issue with peacefully... --Jogi 007 (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG sami ^talk 08:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article is notable enough having sufficient sources and references. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:17, 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) 08:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HERT[edit]

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

An WP:SPA editor has been creating a little WP:Walled garden of non-notable articles related to Anthony Zboralski, who is notable. But as is the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belua (company), HERT fails as a notable WP:CORP and doesn't merit a spin-off article. Any content worth preserving can be merged to Mr. Zboralski's bio article, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so convinced on Zboralski myself. But delete this per nom. w00w00 is also more than a little dubious - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely advertising and this hints at being part of a persistent PR campaign, in that it has all the classic signs of simply tossing some information and sources, but it's all thin since none of it actually means anything, and certainly nothing for substance. Once we become a PR webhost by allowing such trivial and unconvincing articles, we're not the same encyclopedia once conceived. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: Much of the article content is about related activities by this organisation's founder. To focus on HERT itself, my searches are finding little, possibly the best being a short piece from New Straits Times in 2006 – via HighBeam (subscription required) , but far from enough to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly advertising. Nothing to be salvaged with a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no sources to prove otherwise than a standard Wikipedia Spam. Writing to reference nothing is there! Light2021 (talk) 20:49, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of regular season club attendance figures (2014)[edit]

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

See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Wikipedia is not just a collection of sports statistics. Spiderone 19:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea that a list has to be "notable" is fairly silly, given what Wikipedia has become. Why force people to check 50 or a hundred different pages when someone compiled the info. in one place? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as NOTSTATS/LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 11:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no evidence this is notable. Eldumpo (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Total WP:LISTCRUFT. Essentially this list has no inclusion criteria, and could essentially be limitless in length even just for this one season. Fenix down (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons given Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:08, 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. Michig (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Conroy[edit]

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

Procedural AFD - was PRODded with a previous AFD from 2005. Concern was "Non-notable musician", to which I'll add "non-notable actor" - no evidence he passes WP:MUSBIO or WP:NACTOR any better than he did for the first AFD in 2005. Basic WP:BEFORE shows nothing, but plenty of other people of this name. David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This smells like it's all a big hoax. I can't find any evidence this person ever existed. There's a real Irish actor born in 1979 named Rúaidhrí Conroy, Rory being a short form of Ruaidhri, but there's no real indication they're the same person (and if they are, this article is redundant anyway). There are some... interesting quotes from the last AFD, especially:
- "And there's certainly no evidence of any kind that he was a great young physicist or a rare martial arts master (and I've looked) as the article claims."
- "The "International Astro and Theoretical Physics Consortium" doesn't exist, nor does the album The Transformed Man 2. Whoever's putting up all this stuff is infecting other articles with the nonsense, too: e.g., having Johnny Cash collaborate on an album after Cash's death. (Also notable is that the pages of Cash, Trent Reznor, and Woody Allen reference Conroy's supposed band, "Centipede on the Roof" even though that name is not mentioned in the main article— it's obviously being made up as it goes)."
- "As a physicist or Irish historian, he has no articles or textbooks in university libraries that a number of Wikipedians, including myself, have been able to find. As a martial arts master, his achievements cannot be verified."
- "He is mentioned as playing key roles in the Irish dramas "Fair City" and "Batchelor's [sic] Walk". IMDB lists "Fair City" as an Irish television series beginning in 1988. No Conroy, Rory or Ruaidhri, is credited. IMDB does not list a "Batchelor's Walk", however, "Bachelor's Walk" is listed as an Irish television series that ran from 2001 to 2003. No Conroy, Rory or Ruaidhri, is credited."
- "Mr. Conroy is listed as a recipient of the "Best Young European Physicist of the Year" award. No such award is mentioned on Google. The awarding body is the European Science Foundation, which has no reference to a "Conroy" on its website."

The band "Centipede on the Roof" was deleted as a likely hoax. The only hit I can find (other than Wikipedia mirrors) is a Geocities page, which looks like a middle school prank. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:97A:534:2304:9CF2 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a potential hoax. No RS to be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Evident (and glaring) hoax overtones notwithstanding, as there are no cites offered or available this clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Guliolopez (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is so little information out about this person that we are led to believe the article about him is a hoax, there's no way it meets WP:GNG. FalconK (talk) 12:26, 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. Michig (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belua (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. I couldn't possibly care less. Gastly is my homie (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC) blocked user[reply]
Delete A search for the company name yields a few hits, like a passing mention here, but fails GNG. I suppose we could redirect to the company founder, who is more notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HERT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what on earth. Anyway, basic WP:BEFORE shows not even unreliable sources - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means, an advertisement with only advertising information about the company and its services, and the sources are absolutely unacceptable, no coverage at all. I would've PRODed sooner if it wasn't that there were risks of having it removed, especially if it was part of a persistent PR campaign. Delete, and the AfC Draft for this has now been deleted also. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is way, way too soon for an article. FalconK (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not even worthy of discussions Light2021 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although the discussion is leaning towards "delete", opinion remains divided, in good faith, over whether the sources are of sufficient quality to sustain an article. This also applies if one only counts the views of established editors. It seems that the attempts at canvassing have had no apparent effect. Sandstein 18:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zeek[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)

Company is not notable. Fails CorpDepth and GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - note that the article used to be much longer, but it was all unsourced, so I cut it to RSes a few hours ago. This appears to have originally been created as a puffery-filled promotional piece (see also the recently-deleted Daniel Zelkind, which was part of the same cluster). I can see sources in GNews, but they're all funding rounds and ownership (which the article already covers) and promotional churnalism about what the company aspires to do - lots of trivia, but not much WP:CORPDEPTH. There may be articles actually about the company that don't originate with the company and aren't about funding rounds and ownership which I've missed, of course. Be careful not to confuse coverage of Zeek the journal. - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are trivial coverage of the subject; no substantial reliable coverage appears to exist. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources to where there is no possible content that would substantiate to justify an article. Notability is not established. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Goldenberg, Roy (2014-03-19). "Zeek allows shoppers to trade credit vouchers". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting, but the process is still somewhat clumsy. This is due to the fact that the retailers refuse to accept physical or digital copies of store credit, only originals.
  ...
  Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear, and the two founders are in talks on the matter with the retail chains, but they emphasize that no matter what, for users, the buyers and sellers, there will be no charge for use of the app or transaction fees of any sort.
  The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future. The US is irrelevant, because store credit is very rarely used there.
  For the time being it only has a Hebrew website.
  The first investor in the company was Uri Levine, former president and co-founder of traffic app Waze , who today is chairman and co-founder of financial fees comparison site Feex. He is also an angel investor.
2. Shamah, David (2014-08-21). "Stuck with a store credit? Zeek helps you get rid of it. A new app helps Israelis reclaim hundreds of millions of shekels lost annually to unused credits". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are. According to Zeek CEO Daniel Zelkind, retailers are cleaning up on this system, to the detriment of consumers. As much as NIS 600 million ($175 million) in store credits go unused every year.
  The Zeek app, available for Android and iOS, allows users to scan a copy of their credit and upload details to Zeek’s cloud. Users name their asking price. Zeek categorizes and tags the credit by store, product, style, gender and age appropriateness, and any other criteria users potential buyers would search for. Buyers pay no commission, and depending on store policies, sellers can often sell different chunks of their credit to different customers, allowing them to maximize their sale coverage.
  While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”
3. Keach, Sean (2015-01-20). "Zeek app lets you buy and sell unwanted gift cards". TrustedReviews. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Zeek looks to combat this age-old frustration by setting up a digital marketplace where unloved gift cards can be bought and sold with ease.
  It’s simple really - Agatha’s ungrateful sod of a nephew uploads a picture of his gift card and sets a price, all via his smartphone.
  The app then lets willing buyers pick up the gift card at the discounted value – Zeek reckons it sees an average 20 per cent skimmed off – and find it in their postbox shortly thereafter.
  Money goes direct to into the seller’s bank account or PayPal, and the buyer is now free to spend his or her new gift card as he or she pleases.
4. Rabi, Idan (2016-07-27). "Israeli gift card marketplace co Zeek raises $9.5m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Zeek is a mobile app and website that allows users to buy gift cards and vouchers from their favorite brands at a discount and sell unwanted gift vouchers for cash, providing a solution to the estimated $100 billion of unused gift cards globally.
  ...
  Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, VP Marketing Itay Erel and CTO Ziv Isaiah and has 35 employees in Israel and London. The company has raised $12.5 million to date including the latest financing round.
5. Reback, Gedalyah (2016-07-27). "A gift card startup just raised $9.5 million to solve the unclaimed gift card problem". he:Geektime. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  If you thought gift cards didn’t have traction, think again. Israel-based Zeek announced a $9.5 million Series B funding round led by Scale-Up Venture Capital on Wednesday. That financing includes contributions from major players like Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Ventures.
  The company’s site and app sells gift cards to major brands, as well as resells unused or unwanted gift cards. Reselling would presumably put a dent in what Zeek‘s press release says is a staggering $100 billion in unused gift cards, up from an estimated $41 billion in unclaimed gift cards between 2005 and 2011.
  ...
  Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, Itay Erel and Ziv Isaiah. Zeek will direct a chunk of the new round toward expansion in the UK market.
6. Levy, Ruti; Appelberg, Shelly; Orpaz, Inbal (2016-07-28). "TechNation: Zeek Raises $9.5 Million for Store-voucher Marketplace". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
7. "Top 10 Israeli Undiscovered Startups". Jewish Business News. 2016-07-06. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion worth of unused gift cards and vouchers for users. Zeek is a web-based and app marketplace platform that allows users to buy gift vouchers for over 350 leading UK brands at discounted rates as well as sell their unwanted gift vouchers quickly and easily. zeek.me
8. O'Hear, Steve (2005-05-18). "Zeek Lets You Buy And Sell Unwanted Gift Vouchers". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say.
  Today the Tel Aviv-headquarted company is disclosing that it’s closed a $3 million Series A round from Blumberg Capital, Qualcomm Ventures (the chip maker’s venture arm), and Waze founder and existing Zeek investor Uri Levin. Originally launched in Israel before expanding to the U.K. in December 2014, the startup plans to use the new funding to “expedite” further European expansion.
9. O'Hear, Steve (2016-07-27). "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth.
  The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount.
  In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast.
  With that said, in a statement Alex Lazovsky, General Partner of Scale-Up VC, is talking up Zeek’s unicorn potential, although I tellingly failed to get the startup’s current valuation.
10. Chang, Lulu (2016-07-27). "Growing startup Zeek helps you sell those unwanted gift cards". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons.
11. Shapira, Ariel (2015-05-27). "Tech Talk: Israel is a Kickstarter superpower". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million in Series A funding from Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Inc. through its venture investment group, Qualcomm Ventures and Waze founder Uri Levin.
  Zeek said it will use this new funding to facilitate its expansion into Europe this year.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zeek to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those look really really like paid product placements. Zero^talk 02:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree that any of the reputable news organizations Globes, The Times of Israel, TrustedReviews, he:Geektime, Haaretz, TechCrunch, Digital Trends, and The Jerusalem Post have accepted "paid product placements" from Zeek. Do you have evidence for this exceptional claim? Cunard (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the coverage has promotional undertones, such as:

Zeek said it will use this new funding to facilitate its expansion into Europe this year. (Comes from the company, obviously)
Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear, and the two founders are in talks on the matter with the retail chains ... (comes from the company about the state of the "talks")
The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets (discussion of company aspirations)
Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US (potentially unverifiable claims by the company, as the firm is private and does not release revenue numbers)
Zeek looks to combat this age-old frustration by setting up a digital marketplace where unloved gift cards can be bought and sold with ease. (more of company aspirations)
Reselling would presumably put a dent in what Zeek‘s press release says is a staggering $100 billion in unused gift cards (directly stating that the numbers come from Zeek's press release)
Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion worth of unused gift cards (yet more of company aspirations)
Today the Tel Aviv-headquarted company is disclosing that it’s closed a $3 million Series A round (routine funding news)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS to be uncritically republishing corporate statements put through the filter of newspapers and online sources. Media sources are at the bottom ladder as far as RS are concerns. In this particular case, these are secondary sources, but I would not call them reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is good journalistic practice to seek information from the article's subject. That these journalists from reputable news organizations follow this practice does not render the sources unreliable. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above statement confuses investigative journalism with the practice of redressing press releases and / or taking briefings set up by PR firms. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I updated the article adding information which passes as"significant coverage in reliable sources exceeds far beyond just trivial coverage. Moreover, the company has won The UK and Israel business, was selected for Red Herring (magazine) 100 finalists. This is evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH Ymd2004 (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the Delete votes here are firm with stating what the exact concerns are and why we should delete this (the one Keep vote above me is simply restating what the user said above but not actually giving their own thoughts; I'll note that every single source offered above is PR, in that it only contains what the company says about itself, not the journalism itself, see: "Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting"...."The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future"...."In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are"...."While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”...."If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say"...."Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth"...."The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount"....In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast"...."Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons"....Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million from....". None of that was actual journalism efforts but instead actually the company supplying its own information "coated" as news (none of that came close at all for significance, substance or of course "news"), once we accept that at any and all costs, we're an advertising website. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; even the sources listed above state: "Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear..." The second rationale for deletion is WP:PROMO, with content such as:

Later that year the company won Appcircus's Connect & Enrich App Challenge award^[1]. In 2015 the company was selected among, Red Herring Europe: Top 100 Finalists^[2]. In June 2016 Zeek won The UK and Israel business award for most promising start up of the year.^[3]

In 2015 Zeek secured $3 million funding from Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm.^[4]^[5]

In December 2015, they were featured on Sky and CNBC^[6] and launched their #ZEEKFACE campaign, which ran until January 2016. In July 2016 the company manged to secure a $9.5 Million succesful round B funding led by Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm^[7]

References

^ "Felicidades a Swift File Transfer, Guudjob y zeek! Las mejores apps Android de la Connect & Enrich App Challenge 2014". AppCircus (in Spanish).
^ "2015 Red Herring Europe: Finalists". Red Herring.
^ Ruthven, Hunter (2005-11-05). "Sajid Javid: "Israel has made business bloom in the barren desert"". Real Business. Archived from the original on 2016-02-09. Retrieved 2015-06-10.
^ "Blumberg Capital & Qualcomm Invest $3 Million in Israeli Startup Zeek Mobile". Blumberg Capital. 20 May 2015.
^ "Fintech Fundings: 25 Companies Raise $450 Million Week Ending May 22". Finovate. 21 May 2015.
^ "UK sees $1.4B in unused gift vouchers each year". CNBC. 24 December 2015.
^ "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". techcrunch. 27 July 2016.

The awards listed are not significant, and Red Herring is pay-per-play. The rest is about investments, and "being featured in the news" which is a hallmark of such promotional articles. The sources offered above are not convincing either, as they hue closely to the company messaging and are PR-like or routine announcements about funding rounds as would be expected of a VC-backed company. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

"The awards listed are not significant, and Red Herring is pay-per-play"?- The awards the company has won are legit. You can basically argue that every award could potentially be fixed by payment. Are you suggesting that all 100 finalists on Red Herring have paid for their placement?
"The rest is about investments"- If theses investments about the company have gained such significant coverage than I would say that it is notable in the eyes of the media. These are not PR articles but actual reporting on the start-up company.
"*Later that year the company won Appcircus's Connect & Enrich App Challenge award"- What's wrong with this sentence? It is what the original article reports. The company won the award plain and simple. Is that not notable? Why is this advertisement?
the company supplying its own information "coated" as news? Are seriously suggesting that such a broad media coverage is all supplied by the company? I find that to be exaggerated since these are not one or two individual sources but instead a wide range of different media sources from three different languages.
"Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear- That article is from early 2014 when the company just started. This is evidence of neutral media coverage. Media coverage of the Zeek dated back almost three years which confirms my claim that these are a lot more than PR articles.
Regarding the awards Reporting about different awards the company won seems neutral news reporting as done the original article. If that is advertisement I'll remove it from the article.
"In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast":
- The article mentions the company business model. How is this a RP article?
The media coverage goes well beyond the ones referenced in the article. For example this article about 10 promising start-ups^[1]. Is this article considered as pure PR? Did all 10 company paid for article placement? I still struggle with SwisterTwister talk claim that all sources are not reliable as well as the claim that all media sources here are basically Sock Puppets at the hands of the company is far from accurate. Given more time I could improve the article. There are sufficient sources in order to so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymd2004 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am unconvinced by the stuff added to the article, and my delete opinion stands - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to see more recent and harder (like from long-established newspapers) sources that show the company has had some staying power before voting to keep. That doesn't include articles about the seeking of funding. Also, I'd like to note that we're supposed to judge the notability of the subject, not the presentation of the article's content -- any lightweight promotional junk can be removed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Please tell me what you consider to be "lightweight promotional junk" and I'll remove it from the article ASAP
- To answer the claim:"I'd like to see more recent and harder (like from long-established newspapers) sources"
  The company was included in several different (beyond references in the original article) articles by main stream media sources such as Marketing Week and Forbes. The Marketing Week article might be just a passing mention but it is further proff that the company is well establish.^[2]^[3]
- There are enough notable mentions about the company from many different sources that pass as sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zeek to qualify Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There are sources in at least 4 languages about the company, and the claim that all news about the company is due to VC-backed funding is just not realistic
Ymd2004 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - The Forbes link is blatantly to one of their hosted blog pages, not to anything published under their editorial imprimatur. They explicitly disclaim it right there on the page. That you link to a blog page and claim it's an RS severely lowers my opinion of your skill in assessing sources, and leads me to distrust your assertions on source quality - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed with David Gerard, and compounding that is the lack of wiki formatting ability (see above), plus the idea that inclusion in a list is meaningful for our purposes. The WP:TOOSOON argument above is pretty compelling to me, which is why I ask for what I asked for. I think it's going to have to come from another editor for me even to take a look at it. If nothing like I've requested is supplied, consider my !vote a Delete (for now). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification
  - It is absoulotly true that "The Forbes link is blatantly to one of their hosted blog pages". That is why I did not include it in the original article. Thank you for agreeing that the other two references pass as reliable sources.
- "compounding that is the lack of wiki formatting ability"- This should not be the issue here. Please focus on the subject at hand. If you feel you can improve the article formatting than by all means please do so.
- Marketing week :
  The article notes:
  UK consumers are estimated to waste around £1bn in unused voucher credits each year.
  When Itay Eral realised a voucher he received as a wedding present had expired before he had a chance to use it, he decided to do something about it. The result it Zeek, a mobile marketplace for unwanted gift vouchers and cards, where sellers are charged a fee of 7% of the card’s value and people can buy vouchers at a discounted rate. Eral founded the business in 2013 along with Daniel Zelkind and Ziv Isaiah from a headquarters in Tel Aviv. Zeek raised $3m (£2.07m) in funding in 2015.
  Zelkind told The Guardian last year: “The app solves a problem we have all experienced. We are allowing people to earn real money for something that would go unused or ultimately expire.”
- Jones, Rupert (2015-11-14). "Overdraft or a 'money transfer'? How to ease the cost of Christmas". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-09-27.
  The article notes:
  Consumers given unwanted gift cards and vouchers as Christmas presents may want to try a new app which promises to sell them on for close to their original value.
  Available for Apple and Android devices, the free Zeek app aims to match people with unwanted gift cards with people who would be shopping in that particular store anyway. Zeek estimates that 47% of Brits are given an unwanted gift card each year – half of which never get redeemed.
  The app allows sellers to scan in their unwanted gift card and set the price they want for it. Buyers, some of whom might be in the store to make a purchase, can buy the unwanted credit for a discount of around 3%-10%. Electronic vouchers can be redeemed instantly; others have to bought as a physical card and sent in the post by the seller within seven business days.
  Co-founder of Zeek Daniel Zelkind says: “The app solves a problem we’ve all experienced. We’re allowing people to earn real money for something that would go unused or ultimately expire.”
  He says 94% of vouchers sell within 24 hours, with Amazon vouchers holding the record time of just five seconds.
  Sellers of vouchers will be paid by PayPal or bank transfer. Be warned, however, that you have to wait up to 14 business days for the payment to be made. The Israeli company, which has been trading for more than a year, says the delay is for security reasons. It says the money raised by sales is held in a separate collateral account before a payment is made.
  Guardian Money took a look at the site and was slightly underwhelmed – many vouchers were being sold with just a 2% or 3% discount, making it hardly worth the hassle. However, voucher discounts may become much more attractive after Christmas as more of them appear on the market.
Ymd2004 (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with any of your assertions of sourcing, based on your putting forward bad sources previously; please don't try to put words into my mouth. Also, please learn to use wiki formatting, instead of messed-up HTML that appears cut-and-pasted from elsewhere - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of that is advertising and that alone, because the "articles" explicitly and largely state exactly what the company wants to say about itself, not what an encyclopedia says; all of that actually goes to excessive specifics about its services. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, it is established that the company has sufficient coverage in trusted sources such as The Guardian, CNBC, Globes, TechCrunch, Jewish Business News and The Jerusalem Post. These long-established newspapers are evidence of the notability of the subject. The claim that all of that is pure advertising is just absorbed.- Ymd2004 (talk) 8:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
References
- Comment -- at this point, the article establishes that it exists solely to promote the business. It should be delete as WP:PROMO. Once Wikipedia starts accepting such promotional articles, it will lose its value as an encyclopedia. WP:ENN also apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With content such as:
Awards: May 20, 2014, third place Tel Aviv Innovation Day Contest at Tel Aviv University.^[1]^{[unreliable source?]}

2015 Red Herring Europe: Top 100 Finalists.^[2] ^{[non-primary source needed]}

June 2016UK Israel Business award for most promising start up of the year.^[3]
References
1. ^ "TAU Innovation Day". Telecom News (in Hebrew).
2. ^ "2015 Red Herring Europe: Finalists". Red Herring.
3. ^ Ruthven, Hunter (2005-11-05). "Sajid Javid: "Israel has made business bloom in the barren desert"". Real Business. Archived from the original on 2016-02-09. Retrieved 2015-06-10.
...this article is not in compliance with WP:NOT, which is a policy, not a guideline. The rest of the article is not much better. There are no indications of notability or significance, and the article also attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from the company the founders previously worked at (Waze). Do the readers need to know that the company secured funding "in order to further expend (sic) the company's market presence in the UK market"?

There is no encyclopedic value to this article as it stands and sources presented do not amount to encyclopedia notability. Accepting such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project, IMO, as it would also mean that volunteer editors would waste their time trying to maintain neutrality of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I want to also add that the Keep votes themselves have not either challenged the analysis listed, which includes my own above, or substantiated themselves in any shape or form. Honesty is that not one single source actually came close to becoming both substantial and non-PR. One particular user has come to continue listing that "major news sources" are alone to accept, but it's the contents that are unacceptable, therefore since I have firmly and clearly stated such contents were PR, there is absolutely no compromising with that. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At this point at seems the editors above are just repeating their previous statements as they refuse to accept article sources. It seems The Guardian, CNBC, Globes, TechCrunch, Jewish Business News and The Jerusalem Post no longer pass as significant coverage. "contents that are unacceptable, therefore since I have firmly and clearly stated such contents were PR" Which contents exactly are you referring to? Or is it your subjective opinion.
- BTW the recently deleted content "Most vouchers are sold for around 3%-10% off the card's original value. transactions are paid through a PayPal or via Bank transfer. Sellers may be forced to wait for up to 14 days business days due to security reasons before they can receive payment. Meanwhile, the money made from the transactions is kept in a separate collateral account until the payment can be sent" This is media coverage provided by The Guardian. Why was it deleted in the claim that is was content provided by the company? How is this content promotional? it seems like an attempt to sabotage the article.
Ymd2004 (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is repeating their concerns, it's to emphasize what and why they are. No one is making any other statements than that, so as for the deleted contents, this is because it went to such overspecifics about the company and its services, it's clear it only came from one place: the company itself, since that's the person who would know the company's own services best....therefore republished advertising, aka churnalism. My stated analyses and concerns are reaffirmed because, again, to state the above words, "they firmly and clearly state" the PR and concerns. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article meets notability guidelines, and multiple WP:RS supporting it. Appears the article has evolved substantially from it's first draft and I don't see any promotional puffery. The article states facts and is well sourced. There is lots of room on wikipedia -- and this article may be of interest to researchers/readers. Since when does an article about a company supported by sources such as The Guardian, CNBC, Globes, TechCrunch, Jewish Business News and The Jerusalem Post not clearly deserve a place on wikipedia? This is an open and shut KEEP case. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When an article is not acceptable, is when there's enough to suggest we should otherwise not accept it, and in clear cases, it's because of PR intents and actions, which is the case here, the Delete votes including mine and then my analyses above have shown these exact news sources are in fact simply sugarcoated PR, and are not immune from company-supplied information, therefore the company can and is in fact saying whatever it wants, without having to pay or use another platform, because the news publisher is allowing them to use their in clear exchange for "publishing news". What is always by far important than accepting potentially acceptable articles, are not allowing, at any costs, advertisements, because that's exactly what we have worked to not accept for so long, so by allowing this article and other articles, it would cause a snowball and domino affect to then become excuses of "Well, that advertising article was Keep at AfD because people simply listed sources? I'll list my own sources and republished PR without any worries since no one will likely delete my own advertising". Stating that this may be of interest to viewers in fact not the case, because listing such blatant company information and PR sources, are only what their clients and investors want to see, because no one else aside from these intentions, would care to learn about the company's services, plans or interviewed thoughts by the businesspeople, that's why PR exists, for companies themselves to state what they want to say to their clients and investors, not people completely uninvolved. When we become a PR webhost, we're damned as an ad-free and PR-free encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although perhaps on a slightly weaker level. Some sources in the article and listed above provide coverage that is more on the routine side, while still providing some non-routine style coverage. However, other sources provide more comprehensive and thorough coverage, such as the examples provided below, which are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Also, the article has been heavily copy edited after being nominated for deletion (see the page's Revision history), and does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
- Shamah, David. "Stuck with a store credit? Zeek helps you get rid of it". The Times of Israel.
- Goldenbery, Roy. "Zeek allows shoppers to trade credit vouchers". Globes.
- O'Hear, Steve. "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". TechCrunch.
- Tanenbaum, Gil. "Voucher Trading Startup Zeek Moves into UK Market". Jewish Business Times.
- Moules, Jonathan. "Uncashed vouchers hold key for MBA app". Financial Times.
- Comment and analysis' - The sources above are entirely still PR, because for one example the first article listed, is not only containing company-supplied information, the beginning itself states "the benefits that Zeek gives you!" No one says that unless they have financial gains and interests in the company itself, this article actually never actually focuses with the company as largely as it may first seem, because the large amounts of first paragraphs are about other things such as the political events happening, and the company is finally started to be mentioned in the fifth paragraph and even then, that's simply about ""Zeek aims to replace the hassle by transferring credits to someone who wants them, eliminating the inevitable squabbling over refunds", company puffery and that alone, until the focus goes to politics again, and then after a few other paragraphs, it starts talking about Zeek again but that's only because of the CEO and how it's stated how the company can be used, and the "benefits it causes!"....until it gets to puffery again "Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly", the information following this then goes to state “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.” The last sentence then goes to actually state information about the investing, that is by classic examples of past AfD Deletions, obvious company-supplied information and PR. Having such blatant company-supplied information therefore clearly affects actually calling it "journalism", especially if there are budget cuts involved, therefore there's not only leniency in what's published, there's then leniency about who places what. Now, as for the others, not only are they also beginning with such puffery company-supplied information, the worst cases are, one, the fact the company is not mentioned until the sixth thin paragraph, it also then simply focuses with other events, the actual information about this company in those sentences then simply goes into sales-pitch mode talking about how the company works and how it can be used, next, is how the buying and selling methods work. This then goes to state interviewed information from the businessman and then goes to other specifics about the company's current business plans and actually then goes to end with the same damn sentence about who the investing people are, so that shows the peculiar similarities in the past 2 articles I've examined, showing the essence of interviewed information also, the fact how carefully crafted the article is. Now, the next article is also as blatant in that it noticeably contains interviewed information, and of course focuses only largely with what the company's current status is about funding and finances, it goes to say "Meanwhile, Zeek co-founder and CEO Daniel Zelkind tells me the startup isn’t yet profitable but implies that it could be if it chose to", this is an obvious attempt at seeking to interest clients and investors by enticing them about available business opportunities. The next one then goes to state about ""To use Zeek you simply need to download the free app from the App Store or Google Play, upload an unwanted gift voucher, set the price wanted and wait for a buyer. Zeek will send cash directly to sellers and vouchers to buyers, so everyone can get on with the purchases they would prefer to make, with either the cash they wanted, or a bonus on their voucher, which this is entirely PR and something only the company would say about itself, certainly not some uninvolved journalist, and then the article goes to en with an interview, but not before going into specifics about the company's business and finances. Also, see how the company article has changed from this and this, all of the essence of PR has in fact stayed and has actually become worse now that the PR sources listed. There is no amount of copyediting that fixes an article when its core and basis is advertising and that alone, because we are essentially simply fashioning it into something either the same or worse. Now, the last article listed contains noticeable amounts of interviews, such as beginning paragraphs, "Mr Eral admits", "Mr Eral saw", "Mr Eral talks about..." and this continues as the interview continues itself, and the information about some other matters about business school and education, the article simply contains a few other paragraphs until it ends, so that was hardly journalism at all, if a large amount was simply an interview (the last sets of paragraphs, for example, are all either interviews or company-supplied information, nothing actually independent). What still says, as my analyses had shown before above, is that this is clearly a company intent with finding and establishing any platforms it can obtain and use as advertising and PR, and it shows when a large amount of "news" are simply either interviews or company-supplied information such as the background of company-involved fundings and finances. Also, it's quite unlikely that any other amount of news would actually help, especially given what I have clearly stated above which was the concerns of using whatever news, because of the severity of churnalism. Once we start compromising about accepting advertisements, we have become a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot agree that any of the reputable news organizations Globes, The Times of Israel, TrustedReviews, he:Geektime, Haaretz, TechCrunch, Digital Trends, and The Jerusalem Post are publishing content that is "entirely still PR" from Zeek. I cannot agree that these reputable sources "have financial gains and interests in the company itself". Do you have evidence for this exceptional claim?
  Cunard (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are from my quotes above, showing the specific examples where the majority of one of the articles simply contained the man saying his own words itself, that was not journalism if the "news" article kept going back to the man himself, instead of the journalist actually making her own efforts, but that was clearly not the case since the man was advertising his own company, making the article churnalism, in that the news source was simply publishing what the man and company said, not what said news source own words were. "Reputation" means nothing because there has been notoriety as it is that any source can easily republish PR and-or have the person themselves, such as the CEO or businessperson author the "news column" itself, so it is never convincing to state that any news source is automatically acceptable simply because it's a "news source", because once we start accepting anything that comes from there, we're not the closely analyzing encyclopedia that hopes and is careful to not accept advertising. There has been consensus also as it is at AfD that these news sources will even state themselves "This information comes from the company", showing how it was not even the news publication's own efforts, they simply republished company information. The notability guidelines themselves state that any sources must be actual substantial coverage itself, and because I noted above that the listed quotes were not substantial or independent, it's not a convincing source. SwisterTwister talk 01:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the language in this article is puffed up to the point of being comical: "...the company managed to secure a $9.5 million successful round...". Yes, the company's accomplishments have been to the point its ability to take money from investors. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing I can think of to fix it is to delete this worthless advertisement.

In addition, your use of {{sofixit}} comes across as not just snide and dismissive, but disingenuously reductive - the poster has outlined many problems with the present article, making out that fixing a lesser one than its extremely dubious notability is the one fix constitutes you deliberately ignoring the previous discussion right here on this page. This is not a helpful mode of discussion; please do not do this - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing your part to quell freedom of speech on Wikipedia. My comment is pure and only positive in intention. Also, my comment was geared toward K.e.coffman; perhaps allow the user time to respond before scolding good faith comments here before the user even responds. Also, I'm not ignoring any aspects of the discussion here, although you seem to entirely ignore those in favor of retaining the article, as though if any !voters for retention are all in error. Sorry, but this seems a bit biased. It's all good though. No worries. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- yes, I also find the templated suggestions to not be appropriate in deletion discussions, as they do come across as condescending (pls see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I've seen this done at least twice by the same editor, and I would echo DG's suggestion to please avoid this practice. On the substance of NA's comment, I've expressed here and in other AfDs that promotional articles on marginally notable subjects cannot be improved through copyediting alone. If all the fluff were to be removed, what would be left is a WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closing admin I would ask that you come up with as clear a "keep" or "delete" as you can, and not be distracted by the chaff thrown up by a remarkably concerned advocate - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting suggestion, but any closer should also keep in mind that a no consensus close is allowed in AfD discussions, if such closure is warranted. Other potential closure options are also available. Discussions are not required to be closed exclusively as either keep or delete. Such either-or restrictions would over-simplify closure options on Wikipedia, essentially making discussion closures into a "yes" or "no" default, which is akin to a WP:SUPERVOTE, particularly when users have divergent opinions. See Wikipedia:Deletion process § Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions for more information. Also, per the above, it's unclear who the "concerned advocate" would be here; who would this be, the nominator advocating for deletion, another user advocating for deletion, one of whom has provided two gigantic walls of text, or one of the users who have advocated for retention? Which user? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: because article subject meets WP:GNG, and per WP:WORLDVIEW. An Israeli company is going to have different types of coverage than a US or UK company, but it still meets WP:SIGCOV based on Times of Israel, TechCrunch, and Globes. These are three examples of bylined articles offering significant coverage in publications with editorial oversight. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment - (1) The first 2 are ones that have been listed and counted as unconvincing (see analysis carefully above so mentioning those 2 new links are not acceptable and (2) the last one is literally talking about gift cards and how the business is making money, and it goes to talk about its own plans about money....That's not news, that's PR. As consensus recently has shown, simply iterating that there are news sources meaning nothing if the analysis and Delete votes above have explicitly shown it is the contents the matter, because, hell, the source could even be listing a press release and "Say: Press release by [company]" and that would be, nothing, literally nothing, except that they hired a PR agent for advertising. There is no substantial coverage if a source is simply repeating what the company's own information about their own business plans, because when it's a specific as these, it's not only showing the news source submitted every word, but that the company supplied that exact information. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "mentioning those 2 new links are not acceptable...." I am allowed to have an opinion. I have one, and I shared it, and it is what it is. You may not agree with or like my opinion, but I have a right to have one. Please don't try to intimidate or bludgeon me into feeling that I am not allowed to share a legitimate and reasoned opinion here. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence meant that the links were unacceptable themselves, I'll note I never mentioned anything else in that comment. SwisterTwister talk 15:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all these weeks of discussion and work on the article, there's still literal press releases being used as sources. Just tagged another two. Are these really the best that any of the "keep" editors can find? If so, that condemns the article itself - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At his point, it looks like weak attempts are made from editors still asking for the deletion of the article. The fact that you are claiming that all major reporting done on the company is just PR is just astonishing. Moreover, I'd like to address the following quote:
  "Yes, the company's accomplishments have been to the point its ability to take money from investors. :-)
  The company's media coverage goes well beyond fundraising.^[1]^[2] Both CNBC and The Guardian articles are evidence that the company and its product do generate real interest in worldwide media, and has nothing to do with fundraising or PR. Please note that at this point the reason the article is incomplete in due to over moderation from editors seeking to delete the article. Ymd2004 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean, removing content and sources that aren't up to Wikipedia standards - I can't apologise for that - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/14/overdraft-money-transfer-christmas-banks-credit-cards
2. ^ http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000469149
- Comment – I have expanded the article. In the process, I have added several sources that are not included in my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closer - Be aware that the history shows these supposed changes were actually simply to add specifications about the company's gift cards operations which of course is PR and this has been noted above with my analysis, the other ones are simply mere simple changes about it, particularly see also which shows the long history of concerns with this article and the noticeable actions of this only existing for PR and that alone. At the time of AfD starting, the article was this and it is now this, but let not the massive sources and information suggest otherwise, it's simply consisting of trivial and unconvincing information about the company, again an example is specifying information about company gift cards, which no one cares about aside from clients and investors and therefore only belongs at the company website instead. The article then actually cares to go to specifics about the numbers involving said clients and investors and of course the sources repeat this also, because it's unacceptable to simply state the fact it's a known news source automatically makes it acceptable, because as notorious as churnalism is becoming, we must take sources, especially ones heavily focused with company-supplied information, lest we become a PR webhost, which is clearly what the company and SPA users involved with this, considered it to be. There's particularly one user of concern, Eyaladam, which not only went to go as far as adding a massive amount of company PR, but then simply stated they were removing the advert templates themselves simply because they were the author, but that they certainly were not involved with the company....yet they never made any other contributions and they also focused quite heavily with this article alone, that's not something anyone would emphasize as boldly unless they had gains in this article itself. Note one sentence that was added "The company has the potential".... SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- the article is still unconvincing, even with the recent changes. For example, it contains this material:
- The mobile app is open to both buyers and sellers, and provides a secure platform for voucher transaction. Zeek's operations also accommodates the purchase of gift cards by consumers at a discounted rate compared to their face value. In April 2015, over 80,000 people were using the mobile app, and in December 2015 it had over 100,000 users. Zeek's profits are realized via commissions that are charged to sellers for each transaction. In July 2016, Zeek had 35 employees.
As SwisterTwister mentioned, this material belongs solely on the company's web site. This is not encyclopedic content. The uncritical inclusion of 80,000 and 100,000 "users" is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. This could only have come from the company, and is not independently verifiable since the company is private. With such editing, Wikipedia becomes a churnalism platform itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of users demonstrates the company's impact and provides a claim of significance, and has been reported in reliable sources. I'll throw in an oherstuffexists argument here: if figures pertaining to user information is going to be omitted from Wikipedia, then we better delete the second two paragraphs in the lead of the Facebook article right away, because it contains content about users, including numbers of users! Furthermore, in the Facebook lead, the number of users is verified using this primary source! Well, at least in this Zeek article, secondary sources are used to verify this information! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is not pertinent as Facebook is a billion dollar corporation which is WP:LISTED and a subject of great scrutiny. This is clearly not happening with Zeek. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So company-provided figures are okay for large companies, but figures provided by secondary sources for smaller companies are no good? You allude above that company-provided figures are problematic, yet also appear to state just above that it's also okay, depending on the size of the company. No offense is intended here, and I appreciate your points, (e.g. Facebook is much larger and under more scrutiny) but Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state, whereas primary sources should be used sparingly and with discretion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's big difference between large WP:LISTED companies and private, venture-funded ones. The former are independently audited and under a great deal of scrutiny. The latter could be lying through their teeth, and the Wikipedia editors are taking this at face value, turning this promotional materials into something that is (ostensibly) authoritatively presented in Wikipedia's voice. For example, please see this uncritical editing in action: "according to the company" was conveniently left out. The editor had presented the number (that even the publication attributed to the company) as info independently verified by RS, as they claimed: "Appboy’s software processes approximately 2 billion messages per month between 420 million users.<ref name=fortune/>– this is verified by the Fortune article." (same diff as already linked). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This certainly cannot be compared to Facebook, an established company compared to this one which is still needing money and investors. SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because nobody has effectively countered SwisterTwister's deep analysis of the sources, except to suggest that we can trust that journalism occurred in "reliable sources" even with no examples of such given. Simply saying "but it was covered by {laundry list}!" doesn't suffice -- how it's covered is critical. If it's covered in a passing or run-of-the-mill or PR-ish way, we cannot go by that, unless we wish to cheapen this encyclopedia. At best for this subject, it's WP:TOOSOON. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment restating the same repepetive content is by no means any sort of deep analysis. There is no need to counter SwisterTwister's "deep analysis" of the sources because it is simply not convincing. Ymd2004 (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  I have clearly and staunchly listed exactly the unacceptable parts from those listed sources above, and I have also been clear that we cannot compare this to other articles especially worldwide ones such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. because they are not the same subject, I repeat myself to make these concerns clear, not because it's "convincing", other comments have stated these same concerns, so it's not a matter of "affected analysis or statements" at all. The Delete votes have still continued in noting the concerns. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  
  There is absolutely a need to counter it, and how dare you talk down someone's good faith analysis. If you cannot counter the arguments made, you have no case for keeping, unless you can find other reliable sources demonstrating significant, non-promo coverage. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Convincing arguments for deletion have been made; in particular it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources are blatantly WP:SPIP and using these for notability is a violation of WP:NOTPROMO. Many of these sources quote the organisations employees and use it as a story source which is explicitly not allowed by WP:ORGIND. I am amazed that the Forbes/sites (not Forbes) has been considered a reliable source when it is very obvious that there is no journalistic oversight. In many of these sources presented, the amount coverage is so limited that the entirety of it has been pasted into this AfD. That's not indepth coverage. The rest of the "news" is essentially very brief pieces about funding which clearly show that they have been placed by the company. None of this is useful for notability. More importantly, I see this as a case of a COI editor pushing to "keep" the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: Canvassing concerns Check out some of these attempts to influence the discussion: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I see a COI here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am concerned by the heavy persistence of somehow attempting to think not acknowledging the actual concerns listed, by thinking others will say differently, is not actually what will happen. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note to closing admin: I am well aware of the concerns raised by opposing editors regarding the article. But I don't believe they are justified at this stage of the article. The subject here should be the actual content of the article as opposed to how the information as it is presented by the media, although I do think It can be said with great certainty that Financial Times, Haaretz, The Guardian, Globes, and CNN Money are trusted sources. In regards to the claims made by opposing editors regarding COI. I'm not the creator of the article, but I do think it meets WP:CORPDEPTH and worth preserving. I did seek help in improving the article and I see nothing wrong with that. Editors seek help every single day in Wikipedia and as a community, we should strive to help one another as much as possible under the proper guidelines. I can't apologize for doing by best to improve the article. I did not try to intimate Wiki editors like other editors that have participated in this discussion.Ymd2004 (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2016
    - I don't mind you finding folks to improve this article (although it kind of looks like canvassing), but it is clear to me that you're not really considering the reasons behind the delete positions. I can see this because you're not effectively responding to any of the concerns that are based in policies/guidelines. Repeating that {laundry list of sources} are trusted sources isn't a serious response. You need to make a case why WP:SPIP, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:ORGIND and WP:TOOSOON don't apply. If you found any non-promo language (true journalism) in any reliable source and presented it, while also demonostrating that such is significant coverage, it will be considered. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Allow me to answer your concerns, I think we should examine the current state of the article independent of the article's history. In regards to the article sources; I'd like to point out that we should try to review the information itself, not how it is presented. In regards to WP:SPIP, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:ORGIND and WP:TOOSOON:
- WP:SPIP & WP:NOTPROMO- While I can understand the concerns raised about the promotional language of some of the sources, I 'd like to point out that currently there are 16 different sources stated in the article. Some sources openly criticize the company's product[7]. That is while the article is heavily moderated i.e those sources do comply with WP:SPIP.
- WP:ORGIND- None of the sources referenced in the article have been written by the organization or any of its members and disclosure of collaboration was not used in the articles. This leads me to believe that the media coverage provided is independent by nature. Every time a journalist interview's a company's point person information is exchanged. Although I can understand how some of it can pass as self-promotion, I think the extent of the coverage exceeds well beyond standard media coverage by far. Furthermore, there is a wide range of information provided by the article's sources that details much more than just fundraising or the investors behind Zeek such as the company's business model, services rendered and current activity.
- WP:TOOSOON- This is probably the weakest argument of all. Perhaps could be true if the article was published in early 2015. At this point the company has a clear business model with and has made a notable impact in worldwide mainstream media
Ymd2004 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2016
- Keep It passes WP:GNG. –seanhaley1 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is rather thin here because, as shown by the analysis the sources themselves are PR and so is the article and this also shows by the fact this article's history suggests it was only started by PR in and of itself, and that's something we take quite seriously, lest we become a damned website because of PR webhosting. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would question the contribution from Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1; this is a brand new account and already voting at AfDs. How would an editor with a 2-day old account know what "salt" is in deletion discussions? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created on October 2, in the middle of this AfD. Many of the article edits were without merit and I reverted them. If this is a sockpuppet, then it's one that is seemingly trying to appear independent (behavior-wise) of a participant in this AfD, as the article edits were kind of silly (e.g., unlinking red links and poor grammar changes) and the articles and AfDs chosen for editing/participation seem scattershot. But telling in the AfD !votes is a sensitivity to whether an article is promotional (delete) and if the subject appears in a sufficient number of sources per Google search (keep). I wish I had more to go on for a sockpuppet report. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom This is the height of misusing sources to create Wikipedia entry. Merely citing sources does not make anything notable. And the above case of using fake accounts to Keep vote is highly questionable. Light2021 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At this point, it seems the account does more harm than good for this discussion. The weak keep argument made by this user seems like an attempt to harm the article's credibility more than anything else.Ymd2004 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2016
- Comment, (warning, totally off-topic!) wow! is this some sort of record, an article of around 300 words (excluding references) generating an afd of about 12,000 words, does wiki have an article on "List of really, really, really, really long afds"? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is precise what is explored in WP:BOGOF. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find the responses to my request above to be unsubstantial. Continuing with the crutch of a multiplicity of sources, and simply the opinion that the sources check out as significant non-promo coverage, isn't enough to counter SwisterTwister's analysis. Also, WP:TOOSOON isn't necessarily as time-restrictive as suggested -- it's about whether a subject has yet proven itself notable. There's no timetable set for that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Algorithm (Short Film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seem to be a few Wikipedia articles about this filmmaker and his films. They probably all need to be examined for notability. The original article was pretty messy, so I tried to clean it up a bit, such as adding URLs to the citations. One of the citations goes to a blog on Blogspot, another goes to a questionable online magazine, and another goes to an article on Forbes.com written by a blogger. The Forbes.com article doesn't mention this film and is used as decoration, I suppose. I didn't remove that or the IMDb user rating, as I didn't want my edit to get reverted. I don't really see anything better than this on Google. As someone's debut short film, it's quite difficult to get coverage. The other articles probably have a better chance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 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 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While one does find coverage such as this, I agree it falls short of GNG and NFILM. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 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 redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (P). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Preiß[edit]

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

An unremarkable Wehrmacht soldier; no significant RS coverage can be found. The article states that the subject has "200 confirmed kills" as a sniper, but searching for various combinations of "Josef Preiß", "Josef Preiss", sniper, Oberjäger, etc, did not produce a confirmation. I located an entry at feldgrau.com (non RS): Josef Preiss, but it's essentially empty.

The article was discussed at AfD in 2015, resulting in a keep decision. The discussion centered on whether the subject met WP:SOLDIER and did not produce new sources, and none were added to the article. The subject does not have a de.wiki article. He is mentioned in the 100. Jäger-Division (Wehrmacht), with one line: "Oberjäger Josef Preiss, Gruppenführer 15. Kp./JR 227, verliehen am 20. April 1945", but no citation is provided and his kills are not mentioned.

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

Available sources on KC winners were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer), with an insightful contribution from editor Assayer, who provided historiographic perspective on the sources (Thomas & Wegmann; Krätschmer; others) that were mentioned in related discussions. Per available information, such sources, even if available on the subject (which is not certain), are non-RS for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Josef Preiß in German or Josef Preiss:

Oberjäger Josef Preiss, Gruppenführer 15. Kp./JR 227, verliehen am 20. April 1945.

There are pictures with him, and information in German, if there are not in English it doens't mean that you will not find it in German. And watch your language such as "unremarkable soldier".

Here from the start: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/100._J%C3%A4ger-Division_(Wehrmacht)

He was recipient of the Knight's Cross and met WP:SOLDIER, there is no need to delete it. That, added to the other mentions in directories of KC recipients is, in my view, sufficient for GNG. If there was a keep decision why do you insist?

And leave us alone with your "given that many were not awarded for valour and that too many were awarded overall (over 7,000)". Are you historian to decide which one was awarded for valour and which was not, are you historian to decide which intricate detail or not should be kept (deleting referance from one soldiers life), are you really a historian who understand how the German system of awards worked? The Knight's Cross, which was the highest decoration for a German soldier during WWII, was awarded for extreme bravery "exceptional acts of gallantry which decisively affect combat actions" and was awarded to any rank in the German Army, and you had to been awarded first the Iron Cross 2nd Class and Iron Cross 1st Class, which were awarded for combat valour. These were conferred progressively. These awards dates back to 1813. Unlike British system, it was bestowed across all ranks and grades. It could have been awarded for a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troop in battle, or to a humble private soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry. It could have been awarded for an ace pilot for shooting down enemy planes, to a tank ace for destroying enemy armoured vehicles, or to a submarince ace for sinking enemy ships.

There were over 18 millions germans who served in the German Army, plus hundreds of thousands of non-germans who served (mainly in the Waffen-SS) and were eligible for Knight's Cross.

There were 7,282 awards of Knight's Cross and it's highest grades (the exact number is unknown as records for the last hectic months of war are incomplete), and although it might seems high to you, the Knight's Cross was a wide-ranging award (whether you like it or not). There was a rigorous process when awarding a Knight's Cross, it had to pass to many levels of scroutinity (the Divisional commander, the Korps commander, the Army Group and so on all the way to the Armed Force High Command), and was reviewed meticulous and had to be approved by Hitler himself. Like the British Victoria cross, it come with an accompanying citation and it appeared in different newspapers and others forms of propaganda, just like London Gazette. The recommendations papers, complete with added comments by various senior officers, can be found in the German Federal Archives, and I invite you to study them, because they will help alot to understand why they were awarded that medal.

Lastly, Germany fought continuously from 1939 till was defeated in 1945, even so the Knight's Cross was clearly an extreme rare decoration, taking in considerations how many served in the German Army with its four branches: Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, the non-germans and allies who received it, and the various Knight's Cross grades awarded to the original recipients.———

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:C0BD:C900:F18F:5AA7:29EE:395E (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the Knight's Cross was not "extremely rare", if we compare it to the U.S. Medal of Honor, of which ~450 were awarded during WWII. Taking into account that U.S. armed forces were slightly larger (20M vs Germany's 18M) and the fact that Germany fought in the war longer (56 months vs 41 months for the U.S.), to be just as rare as the MoH, the Knight's Cross would have needed to be awarded in about 620 cases. This makes the KC less than 10% as "extremely rare" as the US highest award in the same war. Other points re the Knight's Cross are covered in the discussion linked above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative analysis Intensity of combat is frequently linked to the number of military casualties sustained, an aspect which should not be neglected when talking about an award made for bravery in combat. Germany (including Austria and foreign nationals fighting for Germany) sustained about 4.4 to 5.3 Mio military deaths. The United States sustained 407k military deaths in World War II. Using this indicator, on average, there was 1 presentation of the Knight's Cross for every 600 to 730 military deaths in comparison to 1 Medal of Honor presentation for about 900 military deaths. This comparison shows that the MoH was less frequent, but taking into consideration that the KC was also awarded for leadership, puts both awards into the same order of magnitude. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few things here which should be cleared up. You could receive a KC for an act of "extreme battlefield bravery" without having received the Iron Cross 1st and 2nd class in advance. In those cases you'd receive the Iron Cross (both classes) together with the KC. The awards do not "date back to 1813". The Iron Cross, formerly a Prussian order, was recomissioned (once again) as a German order in 1939. The KC was newly created as an additional grade. I think it would be most interesting to learn more about the circumstances under which a KC was actually bestowed. In cases where professional historians have reviewed the personal records of recipient's the result was mixed. Valour, so to speak, was simply not enough. In his biography of Jochen Peiper, Jens Westemeier has argued that awards were bestowed upon Manteuffel and Peiper to cover up the disastrous outcome of the Battle of the Bulge. Moreover, Himmler looked after it that members of the Waffen-SS received high awards in sufficient numbers to be able to portray the Waffen-SS as an elite unit. (Himmler's Krieger, 2013, pp. 354-5.) Relationships were crucial, in particular to your superiors. So Peiper didn't recommend Werner Pötschke, whom he disliked, for the Oak Leaves after the battle of the Bulge. It is true that compared to other military awards the KC was a rare and prestigous award (echoed, e.g., by Günther Grass in his novella Katz und Maus). But the documents pertaining to this award have to be reviewed wih care and cannot be taken at face value. In most of the KC-literature, however, these sources have not been met with sceptcism. The number of military casualties should not be equated with intensity of combat. Other variables like weaponry and armament, troop strength, training, leadership, teritory, determination and so forth do apply.--Assayer (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was meant to present an alternative view on a statistical comparison. Linking intensity of combat to military deaths is not my idea. This concept can be found in numerous sources, available online. See here, here and here. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the MoH was awarded to Douglas MacArthur and Jonathan M. Wainwright to cover up the disastrous Philippines Campaign (1941–42). Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument along the lines of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists or for modifying WP:SOLDIER #1, if its application results in propaganda-driven articles. Although in the case of Wainwright and MacArthur, MoH is not their only claim on notability: the former was Commander of Allied forces in the Philippines and the latter was a five-star general. So both are quite notable outside of the MoH award. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So the MoH being a propaganda award, it confers no notability; the notability of the subject is defined by other considerations, such as passing WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, notable and clearly received it as a combat award. Although I would like to see added some addition of information, but unlike others, does state reason; "200 confirmed sniper kills". Post-script Note: When I wrote this cmt, I assumed this was sourced to the books cited, but if not, it does need a RS cite for it to be kept. Kierzek (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to list where he is mentioned; otherwise, I cannot find any English RS source to confirm why he received the high award. I assumed the sniper information was sourced to the books cited, but it cannot be confirmed and as I said, to keep it would need an WP:RS cite. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- is there a source that confirms the kills? I was not able to locate any information on this, even in unreliable sources, such as Feldgrau.com. This statement was added by an ID without providing a source: diff. I'd like to see a source for this before taking it a face value.K.e.coffman (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find this information anywhere. For example, this WWII memorabilia site simply states: "He was an RKT, and a sniper that killed a lot of guys." I believe that whoever added this information confused Preiss with Friedrich Pein. Here's what I was able to find on a non RS website, but still:

"Oberjäger Friedrich Pein: Pein (...) served in the 12th Company of the mountain infantry regiment 143 as a sniper on the Eastern Front. (...) On 28 February 1945 he was awarded the Knight's Cross for 200 confirmed enemy kills.[7]"

Preiss is mentioned once on the same page: "Oberjäger Josef Preiss, Gruppenführer 15. Kp./JR 227, verliehen am 20. April 1945", with no kill information. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- 200 sniper kills might make him notable, but this needs expanding from a mere stub and reliable sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been presented to confirm this. The addition of this number was made by the same IP editor who made this sarcastic edit. Who knows if they meant to add "200 kills" in jest or as a prank. Per WP:V, a source is required to take this number seriously and not as a hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The German Federal Archives have digitized the nomination, and/or approval/rejection documentations for the Knight's Cross. These records are available online via the de:Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek. I believe you have to register to get access to Preiss' records, available here. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The German Federal Archives have not digitized the nomination, and/or approval/rejection documentations for the Knight's Cross. As far as I know they do not plan to do so, either. What they are putting online are their inventories and finding aids. So in BArch, RH 7/424 you'll find documents pertaining to Josef Preiss' award. But you still have to visit the archives to have a look.--Assayer (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- They are available, so someone can go and get them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS requires reliable secondary sources (especially in the context of WP:MILMOS), not unreliable primary ones. Please see Assayer's analysis (link) on why the nomination materials may not be reliable as to what actually led to the nomination. Additional comments at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Bachmann (both AfDs closed as "delete"). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Passes WP:SOLDIER. Snipers can be notable in their own right, eg Billy Sing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- snipers can be notable, but so far no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been presented to indicate if this particular soldier is notable. WP:SOLDIER is a project-specific essay, and WikiProjects do not define notability, only community as a whole. Further, the essay is subordinate to WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV is required to establish notability of the subject under discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- so far, none of the keep votes have provided policy-based arguments or included any sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bei letzterem zeichnete sich Unteroffizier J Preis besonders aus GeneralfeldMarshall Schoerner Oberbefehlshaber der Heersgruppe Mitte wuerdigte zum Vorschlag fuer die Verliehung des RitterKreuz am 7.4.45 die Tat des Josef Preis init folgenden Worten: "Ein beispielgebender entschlossener gewehrfuehrer dessen in kaltbluetigem Ausharren erzielten Kampferfolg der Aufbau eine neuen Hautkampflinie zu verdanken ist. Der Vorschlag fuer die Verliehung des RitterKreuz wird besonders befuerwortet" Do we even have the name of the article right? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same person; he's listed in the German archives as Preiss: link. The text above appears about him: Preiss was nominated for the RK on 7 April 1945, with Ferdinand Schörner enthusiastically endorsing the nomination in these words: "An exemplary resolute troop leader who achieved success in the enduring struggle." (blame the kludgy translation on Google). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see anything about being a sniper though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable (and also stubby and with unsrc "he totes killed two hundred enemies!" to boot which really grinds my gears). Seems like much of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer) provides ample reasons and parallels, no? About failing GNG and BIO1E. (Thanks for teaching me a new Wiki concept, Mr. dead SS officer!) I see people saying he passes WP:SOLDIER but that's only an essay and does he really? Yes, he was "awarded their nation's highest award", but even according to that page (or the previously linked AfD talkpage) that's not an automatic notability pass, it also says that there ought to be "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" and that people "only mentioned in passing in secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article", which judging by the info about sources at the Debus AfD talkpage might also apply here? Oh and I don't want to get involved in wiki drama too much but I feel like there really ought to be some kind of a tune up to the customs and guidelines when it comes to people like this whose claim to wiki-fame-and-reliability is an inclusion in a list of an inflated reward. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:SOLDIER has been modified to state:

"What constitutes the "highest" award has been the subject of debate. Some awards, such as the Légion d'Honneur and the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, are/were bestowed in different grades and/or have civil and military versions. For the purpose of this notability guide it is considered that only the highest military grade of such awards is likely to result in significant coverage to confer notability."

Please see diif. As such, a KC award is currently not sufficient to satisfy WP:SOLDIER, which in any case is an essay, not a guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: there doesn't seem to be enough coverage for a stand alone article, but if the award is verified it seems fair enough to redirect it to the parent list. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (P). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Lacks WP:SIGCOV but seems like a valid search term at the least given that he appears to be a verified recipient of the KC. Redirect to parent article i.e. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (P). Anotherclown (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It clearly passes WP:SOLDIER. Cedible sources state the amount of confirmed kills seanhaley1 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Pride[edit]

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

Non-notable event, fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. There's Southern Decadence, which this might be related to JMHamo (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG as per significant coverage received: [8], [9], [10], [11], ~~[12]~~, [13].North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Northamerica1000: I struck out 5 as it was added in error. Not relevant at all. JMHamo (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, looks like I made a copy/paste error there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. New Orleans Pride and Southern Decadence are two different celebrations.[14] Both have substantial coverage in reliable sources, both are notable. Here is a nice article about New Orleans Pride from a New Zealand newspaper [15]. (Note that "New Orleans Pride" was also the name of a Women's Professional Basketball League franchise, coached by Butch van Breda Kolff, 1979-1981.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources provided by NA1k - Article meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan–American Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

Fails GNG: Unable to identify any demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpb^T 18:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 18:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom The basic BEFORE turns up a ton of passing mentions, but nothing actually about them - David Gerard (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete zero gnews hits and gbooks only has contact details listings. For something with an American connection you expect some coverage. Definitely fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "org spam"; strictly promotional and no RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 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. Michig (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production no.4[edit]

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

Too early, the film has not been named yet Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the title of the film, perhaps. Or if not, if it is just a placeholder, a Gnews search search for that very title still does reveal a surprising amount of short mentions in major Indian news outlets. Still, it's too soon I agree. I'd recommend moving to userspace/draftifying if possible.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to have gotten mixed up. Striking through !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title of Kalyan's first 2017 film, Katamarayudu was only announced this month (aside: that's a terrible stub, about an unreleased film, but that one probably is at least inclusion-policy compliant). This has not had a title announced--it doesn't seem likely to be called Production no. 4--and it's not at all clear whether principle filming has even begun. Eventually, we'll have enough information to warrant inclusion, but that's not now. I strongly oppose a move to user or draft space; the infobox data is all (or, charitably, mostly) fabricated, probably via copy-paste of the infobox template from another film (the listed release date, at a minimum, matches Attarintiki Daredi). In any case, no information is preferable to wrong information. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF. Production no.4 is a film-title, but that's another one, not this film. Anup [Talk] 18:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What is Production no.4, Wikipedia does not accept this type of base less articles. Jessie1979 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 20:41, 13 November 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iamdominiquelee[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. There appears to be no reliable sources backing up the notability of this artist. Seems to be a promising new rapper, though -- maybe he'll get an article later. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Famous Birthdays" is a very notable source and has a large following. Not just anyone gets written about on their site. They are known for fact checking. The publisher of the material is Laura Ruiz. There are sources in this article(Iamdominiquelee) that directly support the material on their(Famous Birthdays) website such as ITunes and Kentucky Birth index "US public records" This Article shouldn't be deleted. Shawntheman (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And from my understanding it is not required to have more than one reliable source to create a Wikipedia article. Shawntheman (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry @Shawntheman: but you understand wrong. "Multiple" reliable sources are expressly required. One does not suffice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't add to what others have correctly said about Famous Birthdays, but the other cites only prove existence of this person, not notability. If existence is all that was required, there would be an article for me and for you. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Famous Birthdays, according to its own information page, comprises user-submitted information, at least in part, and that information does not appear to be distinguished from material over which the site executes direct editorial control. I do not believe it constitutes a reliable source in the sense Wikipedia uses that term. That aside, the notability standard for the project, in its broadest terms is: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The nature of the Famous Birthdays site makes it very unlikely that its coverage of this subject is truly independent; none of the other sources provided are independent, either. My own search efforts do not suggest that reliable sources have provided this subject with significant coverage (at least not yet). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I couldn't find any evidence of passing WP:MUSBIO either - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Famous Birthdays is just a publicity site: the person mentioned, Laura Ruiz, is Head of Marketing, and it states in her bio on the site that she "enjoys working with up and coming celebs to get them profiled on Famous Birthdays", which doesn't sound very independent to me. Even if it were an RS, all it would prove is that Mr. Lee exists and has a birthday – there's no evidence that he's done anything notable as yet. Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I would not consider Famous Birthdays a reliable sources from this on their about page: "Help complete pending profiles by submitting missing info". User-submitted items that are unsourced? Not a chance. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frede Blaabjerg[edit]

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

No indication of notability, severely lacking in sources and WP:NOTCV Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Question~~ Keep Would nominator like to comment on relevance of subject's GS citation record to WP:Prof criteria? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Snow keep. Very clear pass of WP:PROF #C1 (ISI highly cited, and five of his papers have over 1000 cites on Google scholar [16]), #C2 (Power Electronics Award, knighthood, etc), #C3 (IEEE Fellow), and #C8 (editor-in-chief of an IEEE Transactions), at least. The nominator deserves a WP:TROUT for this stunning failure of WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein and Xxanthippe: appologies for the late response. Been traveling.... Taken directly from WP:PROF Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. For instance, major awards listed must be confirmed, claims of impact in the field need to be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, library holdings, etc. (see below for specific notes), and so on. 99% of the page is unsourced. I just removed 3 "references" from the page, 1 was a dead link, 1 linked to a search engine and 1 linked to a home page of a website. NONE of these three verified any of the information in the article. @David Eppstein: I will be first to admit that I certainly earn a good trout slap now and then, but in this case I stand by analysis. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You get a trout from me as well for not carrying out WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

And a {{whale}} from me for removing all the awards from the article, while the AfD was still ongoing, after several of them had been noted here as a cause for notability, and with no evidence that you made any attempt to source any of them before removing them [17]. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a clear case. Article needs improvements in formatting and referencing, but notability shouldn't be an issue. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author I am new to writing articles on wikipedia. What is expected from me in these discussions? And for how long will they be active? When links and content is deleted from my article, I cant really fix these mistakes. Please be more accurate on what is expected from me. Regards A-K.C.P AUB (talk) 14:58, 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. Michig (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonino Castrone[edit]

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

No indication of notability, severely lacking in sources and WP:NOTCV Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a non-notable business person who was appointed to a purely administrative position at a university on the basis of having financial experience, but who has not really had any documented impact in academia outside of his own institution. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the highest-level position at his university (he works under the rector and pro-rector [18]) and no other type of notability evident. The article is just a cv and says nothing other than his administrative position about what he might be notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, purely an administrator, does not pass WP:PROF, too little evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the position, although it may seem significant at first, is still not convincing for independent notability and for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete! The person is insignificant and lack of any interesting events, possibly a PR project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandradiliges (talk • contribs) 09:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Author I do not understand why passing the WP:Prof should be considered, as Antonino is not a professor nor an academic. Regardless of this, how long is this whole discussion thing going on? because I do not want to edit, if the article is going to be deleted - then I would much rather do a new reconsidered article. Furthermore I am new to writing articles on wikipedia and I find it hard to know how I should react to comments and this deletion discussion?A-K.C.P AUB (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand very well how it is difficult for a new editor to know what to do about a deletion discussion such as this one, and please do not take this discussion personally or let it discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. A good place to find out about these deletion discussions is at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and the reasons why such processes exist are explained at Wikipedia:Notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Svend Brinkmann[edit]

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

Not sure about the notability of the subject and full of WP:NOTCV. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 30 in a high cited field passes WP:Prof. Nominator is advised to devolop more certainty about notability before taking BLPs to Afd: WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as although this will need improvements, notability is certainly convincing in that, perhaps so severely for WP:PROF, but certainly for WP:AUTHOR, WorldCat shows not only over 2,900 library holdings, one of the highest held books was published by Oxford, and that's alone convincing by itself. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs work, but AfD is not cleanup. I've added one possible reference to the further reading section, but you'll need HighBeam subscription to access it (although I think all the relevant bits are viewable by anyone because the cut-off is after the mention). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Taken directly from WP:PROF Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. For instance, major awards listed must be confirmed, claims of impact in the field need to be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, library holdings, etc. (see below for specific notes), and so on. 99% of the page is unsourced, and the sources that are there are not WP:RELIABLE. At least 1 is a search engine, another is a dead link and one is to a self-published class page. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author As answer to 'note'. Before deleting links and content, could I have a chance to fix the wrongs? I'm new to wikipedia and I find it hard to know how I should respond to this kind of discussion. As for the links and the one 'Zackmann08' mentions that leads to a search engine, this is because the source is located on a server that you can only acces with user registration and in case you have that, the link takes you to the right site. Regards A-K.C.P AUB (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep subject clearly passes WP:PROF, and the evidence that the subject passes WP:PROF is adequately sourced for non-contentious material. Article could easily be improved and brought into WP style, but there's no grounds for deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:09, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Fentener van Vlissingen[edit]

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

No indication of notability and overly promotional. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per notoriety in The Netherlands - ichabry This person is part of the most influential families in The Netherlands, half of his family is already on Wikipedia. Please can you recommend modifications or add on instead of Deleting. Thanks for helping out to bring international personalities on the English Wikipedia. —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete -- 100% spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Canyon High School[edit]

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

School doesn't actually exist yet. WP:TOOSOON. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this is actually an example of why WP:CRYSTAL is a thing. It turns out that after community pushback over the school name and the mascot (the Black Canyon Phantoms), the district is going to rename the school (and its mascot) to... something else, which hasn't been determined yet. So not only does this not exist yet, it never will in the manner presented in this article. As an aside, part of that consideration is that there's an existing Black Canyon High School in the state: an alternative education public high school in Emmett, Idaho, for which we don't currently have an article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - In a classic WP:NOTNOTBURO a drive by editor removed an uncontested prod that was just about ready to expire because a typically under prepared NPP volunteer had made an obviously good faith error and used the explanation NOTYET instead of TOOSOON. CRYSTAL per Squeamish Ossifrage; speedy because this shouldn't even be here at AFD and I can't see any way this should be kept. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say merge to school district if the article existed. There will be a high school, but its identity is still being worked out.[19] Not quite there for WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Article can be recreated if and when it becomes notable (i.e. exists). Safehaven86 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. I've known school projects like this to be shelved up to within 3 months of the scheduled start of construction It only needs a minor change in the constitution of city hall. A bit tongue in cheek too, putting a photo of the desert on the page. Whatever next! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 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) 08:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cashkaro.com[edit]

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

Highly promotional. Nothing significant but another startup company. Getting funded from A, funded from B, and list goes on where notable media covered merely as press release. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day and many get funded as well. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. seems like the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the sources are unconvincing to me either, even the nominal RSes appear to be writeups of promotional push, or just funding rounds - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this one for some time, it's all PR from the information and sources, which go to company specifics such as their funding, financing, business plans, interviewed information and other PR; this is the same with the article which entirely is formatted like a PR business listing, it's not surprising this has not changed in the nearly 1 year of existence, and chances are, like all of them, the company or its affiliates started this, and have not changed it in the thoughts of it actually being acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a company prospectus for potential investors in the form of a Wikipedia article, which WP is WP:NOT. No indications of notability or significance either. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 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) 08:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faceparty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by unreliable sources. startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. seems like the Except guardian no other sources. Writing style is questionable for wikipedia content. Light2021 (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete per nom - even if all the blatant PR and primary sourcing were to be stripped out, there's one RS substantially about the site, two others that are passing mentions at best - David Gerard (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising, with nothing to be salvaged there. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the 1st AfD was the pathetic excuse they once had for keeping articles that merely had any random number or tossed sources and information, none of that is substantiating now and it's nothing we would seriously consider accepting, because everything listed here is in fact trivial for trivial events and other triviality, and none of it actually forms substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my time here I've learned that there must be substantial WP:RS articles written about the site: mentions will not do. Delete on these grounds, as well as WP:PROMO. John G Masters (talk) 21:22, 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. MER-C 08:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gozoop.com[edit]

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

Highly promotional. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid. Covered once in a while. or covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. seems like the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment – This company was founded in 2010, so in my opinion it's not particularly a startup company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sources in the article provide rather routine coverage, and several searches have not provided coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: don't see anything substantial other than PR for this company. Fails WP:NCORP. Anup [Talk] 04:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hi Light2021, North America and Anup, Greetings, I’m Premkumar and I have been working with Gozoop for the past 6 years. I currently lead their Global Operations.Our objective to be on Wiki is not to garner publicity or VC attention, it is to give out information. Having said that, we have been facing some difficulty getting our content approved via moderation. The reason why it appears that our coverage is once in a while is because we don’t engage in active PR. The only time we did was when we acquired one of our competitors and a big name in the Indian Digital Industry, "Red Digital" (Please look this up). The other time was when we made it to the Great Places to Work in India list (we happen to be the only Advertising / Digital agency to feature on the list), alongside other giants like Google and American Express. Over the last 6 years we have set up offices in Dubai, Singapore, USA (NY) and 4 Indian Cities, acquired two firms (Red Digital and Ithink Infotech) and grown from a 10 member team to 175+ around the world. We are also the first agency in India to introduce the F-Commerce concept. ‘’’We have achieved all this without any external funding from anyone.’’’ Respected moderators, I firmly believe that while the Internet is open for all but it should be regulated to avoid misuse. However, I request you to relook this matter and not generalise us with spammers. We have been covered organically by all major publications in India and would be happy to share all the information needed to help an informed decision. Once again, I would like to mention that we are not a .com company; we are a full-fledged digital media agency and out to do serious work with humility. Please don’t delete the page Premkumariyer (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company member is requesting this page to keep just becauase of their profile. Nothing notable about this company. thousands of digital agrency in the world. All the convincing matter merely nothing but a request to keep. Not convincing for its notability. Speedy delete after such request from the company itself. Proof of creation of this page merely for promotions. Light2021 (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hi Light2021, Being Notable is a subjective term. How are you even judging, I made a Humble request and you are taking that in a very wrong sense. Wiki is open for all, there is not restrictions that a brand of x magnitude can only be part of it. I very explicitly wrote that being on Wiki is for Information sharing and nothing else. As a company dont we have a right to reason out? There are thousands of agencies in the world i agree, but then there is no Who Should be on WIKI policy as well. My request was very humble and positive, but your comment makes me feel you are not ready for a dialogue. Sorry i dont see a reason why this page should be deleted, A wiki page about a company will talk about the company how can you even say it is self promotional.Premkumariyer (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. The project should not be allowing WP:BOGOF articles, written by paid contributors. This wastes volunteer editors' time and results in articles on non notable subjects in the bargain. This only encourages spammers. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 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) 08:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tincta[edit]

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

May not meet the requirements for WP:Notability TJH2018 talk 15:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising for an unconvincing software article, it goes to specifics about what it is, yet there are no actual substantial sources, let alone convincing, and my searches unsurprisingly found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a basic WP:BEFORE shows a few mentions in category reviews, but not much more - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; a product brochure in the form of a Wiki article. Self-sourced with no indications of notability or significance; A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 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) 08:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaumo[edit]

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

I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources same as other stub articles created by the user. GSS (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no substantive coverage. A WP:BEFORE shows lots of passing mentions and "here's another dating app" - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- run of the mill dating app and no significant coverage in RS. A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 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 speedy delete - insufficient evidence of notability. The speedy tag was applied to a work in progress state of the article where an existing article about another artist was being used as a template. The creator of the article corrected this but did not add sufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Isaverdyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:Artist and lacks reliable sources. The first source does not mention the subject whatsoever, and the second source is simply "The subject." Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am actually somewhat confused here. The subject of the article is Isaverdyan, but then in the "Art" section it switches over to "Micallef." Are these the same people? Nowhere in the article does it explain this. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the article Antony Micallef was used to provide a structural framework for this article. The leftover Micallef material has now been deleted. AllyD (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a recent graduate with press coverage of his solo exhibition. These are no more than the normal coverage obtained by the typical working artist and my searches are finding just the usual social media, Saatchi Art storefront page, etc, none of which indicate notability. Fails WP:ARTIST, WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 15:45, 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. Sandstein 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Ambassador to Germany[edit]

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

I see no point in this article: part dictfef, part list of ambassadors, which would possibly be of merit were it not for tha fact that they are nearly all redlinks. TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this one is similar Bangladeshi Ambassador to Bhutan. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY; a list of red linked articles only. No indications that this subject has received attention from independent reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the doings of every representative of a subject of International law are worthwhile to be reported. The bengali Category:Ambassadors bn:বিষয়শ্রেণী:রাষ্ট্রদূত has one entry. The Category:Ambassadors of Bangladesh has the 55 subcategories. I guess its more likely that a list of Bangladeshi Ambassadors in the english wikipedia is feeded with articles than in the bengali.07:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Regesta (talk)
delete WP:NOTDIR. Better handled as a category. Creating lists like this is a precedent for endless ambassador lists in the 1000s. LibStar (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Lists of ambassadors of the United States has 204 entries.
The Category:Lists of ambassadors to the United States has 25 entries.
204x205/2=20.910 entries would describe the Diplomatic corps of 205 subjects of International law. Regesta (talk) 18:04, 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) 08:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Dash[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. One local newspaper article on her app does not make her notable. ubiquity (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Only other source I could find at all was a blog: [20]. Perhaps she will get more famous, but one non-local RS doesn't seem enough to me - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of anything approaching indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is also essentially a business listing the fact it goes to specific about business and career information (with that said, what's then listed trivial!), none of this comes close at all for actual substance, let alone actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creating an app is not, in and of itself, a reason why a person gets a WP:BLP on Wikipedia — it would count if she were getting quite a bit more coverage for it than has been shown here, but it's not an automatic notability freebie that entitles her to an article that's sourced this minimally. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she can be sourced much better than this, but Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which people are entitled to have an article just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sweeps of Canadian news didn't find anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:42, 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. Most arguments to delete are rooted in WP:NOTNEWS, which I find to have been thoroughly rebutted by the demonstrated lasting impact of the event. K.e.coffman points out that a similar incident involving a Western serviceman would be uncontroversially considered notable, but there's no need for hypotheticals here -- just look at Murder of Lee Rigby. Even if the article was a borderline case (and I don't believe it to be) we'd do well to err on the side of avoiding systemic bias in evaluating the English language coverage of the subject. A Train^talk 09:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beheading of Bhausaheb Maruti Talekar[edit]

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

Single event in one of the worlds many intractable disputes. I don't think its worth an article because I'm sure the information could be more usefully included elsewhere, porobably in Kashmir conflict. TheLongTone (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:If the information in the article is more usefully included elsewhere, the proper course of action would be a WP:MERGE suggestion and not a deletion request. But surely, that doesnt apply here. Nor does any of the other listed reasons for deletion (WP:DEL-REASON). A "single event in one of the worlds many interactable disputes" can have a standalone article if it meets WP:GNG and WP:N(E). The article meets the above criteria. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Looks like nominator didn't perform WP:BEFORE, otherwise he could have refrained from using terms like, "intraceable" and "1event notability". Substantial coverage of event after more than a decade by national mainstream sources easily establish WP:GNG and help topic meet WP:NEVENT. I've listed some coverage of the event below, which substantiates that the event has WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE, WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.

Indian Express, published in 2009

Times of India2, 2013

My Digital Lfc, 2016

There must be many more coverage than listed above. Anup [Talk] 18:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The accusations could be easily covered in Ilyas Kashmiri. Mar4d (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: What part of wp:notnews do you think this topic meets? It'd be helpful to understand your rationale if you cite one and possibly elaborate a bit. Anup [Talk] 21:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Ilyas Kashmiri is probably a more suitable article. The incident happened, but its only notability seems to be from the person said to have committed the attrocity. There is no evidence from the content, or (based on a quick glance) sources that something further happened after the act. Did anything change militarily, did notable politicians made statements, condemnations, etc., were international bodies approached? As an example of what would be needed for it to be kept, see the beheading of Kyaram Sloyan. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Pervez Musharraf awarded the terrorist who beheaded this Indian soldier. As the beheading took place 16 years ago, when internet age in India/Pakistan was still at early stage, it's difficult to find online sources. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC) -- This user is a sockpuppet.[reply]

*Delete WP:NOTNEWS TouristerMan (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Confirmed sock. Anup [Talk] 21:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUser:TouristerMan and User:Mar4d have cited WP:NOTNEWS as the reason why this article should be deleted. That needs discussion. In my opinion, the article doesnt meet any of the criteria in the policy. 1) It is not original reporting. 2) It is not routine news reporting. It is an event which meets the criteria under WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. 3) The article is about an event which has enduring notability. Not about the individual. So it does not match "Who's Who". 4) It is not a diary!!! The individual doesnt have notability. It is an article about the notable event. User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's argument that the content can be merged with Ilyas Kashmiri may have merit (I am reserving my opinion). But should that be a reason to delete this article either way? The proper thing to do would be to keep the article and then start a merger discussion in the talk page like usual!! Kyaram Sloyan is an article about an idividual who has notability. Here the article is about an event, so the parallel is not exact. The article can develop into one about the individual. --Drajay1976 (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for pointing out another article that probably does not meet WP:N. I have nominated it for deletion. Thanks. EricSerge (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The death of any soldier in conflict is a tragedy for his family, his unit, and his community. Most of these deaths do not rise to the level of encyclopedic inclusion. It is clear that WP:BIO1E precludes this article being a simple biography since this one does not pass the bar set by that policy and precedent. For inclusion as an event, this article has not demonstrated a lasting effect nor can it be said to have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. EricSerge (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see below // ~~Delete~~ Original comment: per WP:BIO1E; this event, however tragic, does not rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm to a great extent confused over deletion rationale provided in here. WP:BIO1E deals with biography of a person notable for a single event; here the topic under discussion is about an "event" not person. The relevant guidelines that could be cited for keep or delete are WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG & WP:NOT. BIO1E doesn't make sense. It happened in 2000, and its continued coverage since then upto this year 2016, if doesn't prove lasting effect I'm not sure what would. Anup [Talk] 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with EricSerge's assessment that the individual killed doesnt meet WP:BIO1E. Strongly disagree with his statement that the article has not demostrated a lasting effect. Anup has pointed out that the media interest in the incident has not died out even after 16 years. This was the first instance of beheading in LOC. This has spawned a lot of such incidents. In July 28 2011, Indian soldiers are alleged to have beheaded five Pakistani soldiers inside Pakistan. I am in the process of collecting information on that to write another article (or to be merged together to form an article about beheadings in the India-Pakistan LOC. Pakistan had also done a beheading. K.e.coffman has not explained why the article doesnt have encyclopedic notablity. It meets WP:GNG and WP:N(E)!!! What else is needed? An article cannot be expected to conform to policies that exists only in the minds of editors!!!! --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drajay1976: So there is a demonstrated link, that can be cited in reliable sources, that this beheading is linked to the other subsequent beheadings? I will agree that barbarism likely breeds further barbarism but we aren't being philosophical about about the horrors of war in this discussion. EricSerge (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EricSerge:, I have expanded the article to include a spate of decapitations which followed this incident with sources in the "Aftermath" section. This was the first known case of beheading of a soldier and taking the head as a trophy in Kashmir. This incident took place in 2000. Incidents/allegations of other tit-for-tat beheadings have been regular after that. 18 September 2003, 19 June 2008, 28 July 2011, 30 August 2011 and 8 January 2013!!! There are sources (added as references) which link all these cross border raids. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage; tragic, buut single, event with no long term consequences. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Have noticed the dates of news coverage? This event happened in 2000. Newspaper articles are written about it after a decade!! WP:PERSISTENCE is definitely there. Major news magazines such as Indian Express have given in depth coverage to the event, describing the assault in detail, discussing the fate of his family and discussing the inquiry against his commanding officer. So WP:DEPTH is definitely there. --Drajay1976 (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This matter was widely discussed in both countries and internationally and was covered by all major newspapers and books. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided -- The article has been improved but I'm still not sure whether this overcomes BIO1E or not. On the other hand, if an American or British soldier were beheaded in a similar incident, we would not have heard the last of it. So I don't want to create an impression that a soldier's life in another part of the world does not matter as much or did not generate sufficient widespread interest and impact on society. So I'm withdrawing my delete vote, but not voting "keep" just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to be an Asian to formulate an opinion on matter under discussion. Personal experiences, I believe, come under OR and are thus prohibited. I would suggest to take a look at available sources and check it against relevant policy and guidelines. It is just an opinion. (I'm not asking for keep, you can re-instate your delete !vote). Anup [Talk] 00:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good sources, and overall coverage. has indeed bene discussed widely in both countries and internationally. Book and newspaper sources are available. this covers WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE per the mentioned above reasons.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page is one of those hoaxes where one claims, the other denies, Wikipedia is not for hoaxes. The subject is not encyclopedic either. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is notability alone that justifies inclusion or exclusion of a topic. Your argument based on 'hoax' is totally flawed (We have many articles on 'notable' hoaxes as well). Please explain the 'unencyclopedic' thing, I see "substantial" coverage of topic in multiple reliable sources published over a decade. What do you see? Anup [Talk] 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'

Comment @Anupmehra:, SheriffIsInTown has rightly struck the vote of Bulletproof Batman as sock vote, but he didn't struck the vote of blocked sockpuppet TouristerMan. Because SheriffIsInTown was supporting the blocked editor in the SPI.

@Touristerman returns: You don't seem to be TouristerMan. You created an account just to leave here a message. Aren't you a WP:DUCK? Anup [Talk] 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How delete !votes based on WP:NOTNEWS are not applicable in present case:

WP:NOTNEWS says, 'Wikipedia is not a newspaper' and lists 4 criteria to exclude topics who may meet these. There are:

Original reporting. 'Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.' - Breaking news do not appear after a decade of an incident (click here).
News reports. 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.' - From 2000 to 2016; 16 years, if is not enduring, may be someone tell me what is.
Who's who. 'Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be.' - no one is arguing for a biography, but the "event".
A diary. 'Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are.' - it is about one single event (there are not many).

Those whose !vote is based on wp:notnews should come up with some applicable arguments (probably based on wp:nevent or wp:not or wp:iar). Anup [Talk] 00:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - obviously impactful, but it has too much crufty, undue, soapboxen. I removed a chunk of bunk. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It appears to be an event with a long lasting impact and aftermath. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event occurred in 2000. Recurrent analysis and interest related to it have lingered on for years and years. I think that this has clearly gone beyond being just a one-off news event, and retaining the article appears to be the right move. Yes, substantial improvement over what we have now is probably required. But AFD nominations aren't ways of cleaning things up. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant and sustained coverage in RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. on the basis of lack of impact beyond the two countries involved. cf. Saurabh Kalia which has at least some international press attention.I'f I've missed any here, please tell me. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an extra-judicial killing by soldiers of another nations soldier like this seems notable and impact seems fittingly lasting. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: To my knowledge, there is no policy which stipulates that the impact or press attention needs to be in more than 2 countries. Wiki policy only demands lasting/enduring attention, which the event has. It may have escaped your attention that even a book published by an international publishing house, authored by someone who is a citizen of neither India nor Pakistan has also discussed this event and is there as a reference. --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of judgment what criteria to use and how to interpret them, and reasonable people can differ. The general rule that I think we use in practice is outside the area directly concerned. In this case, in produces a reasonable result. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Ilyas Kashmiri, the perpetrator. The death of one soldier in an armed conflict, even if widely reported by the media, seems to be a routine occurrence. Sandstein 07:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G1 Patent nonsence, meaningless or incomprehensible) by RHaworth

Quantum protocol[edit]

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

A Google search for the term "Quantum protocol" comes up with any number of things that go by this nomenclature. The thing this page describes doesn't fall into any of those categories, and can only be considered to be something made up by the author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete complete incoherent gibberish Varun FEB2003 13:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1. Although this uses words that individually have meaning, the content as a whole most certainly does not. This editor's contributions have been uniformly similarly unhelpful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:52, 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) 05:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lee-Davies[edit]

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

promo The Banner talk 12:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable at this point; nothing done or stated in the article rising to the level of GNG. More of a vanity/promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity page of non-notable individual. Citobun (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist/filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 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) 08:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Mutard[edit]

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

Four sources in article, but they only show he's from Melbourne. Writer of non-notable books and articles for non-notable magazines. A google search for his name in quotes returned 5590 hits, mostly social media and retail links. No indication of notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands I think he might actually pass, but I don't have the sources to hand and we need them right there for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable comics actist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources merely confirms he exists. Creative professionals require extensive peer recognition or winning notable awards to be notable. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no claim of notability and no RS offered. Exists as WP:PROMO only at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 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. Per the low article quality and copyright and notability concerns. This one, if it is notable, will need to be redone from scratch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I were lord of Tartary[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, possible copyvio Kleuske (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some sort of inept homework assignment that ended up on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Walter de la Mare was a major English poet, but I don't see any evidence that this poem is particularly significant. I can't advocate for a redirect here, either, since the article title isn't even capitalized properly (should be "Lord"). It's not a copyright violation, for all that's worth, because its publication date (1902) puts the poem in the public domain. But there's still no reason to retain this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RDraftify and rewrite. This is a wiki; just press the "edit" button and make it encyclopedic. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that any article on this specific poem can meet inclusion standards. It is very widely reprinted (in part because it is in the public domain), but there's relatively little critical commentary or discussion of the poem itself. Where it is mentioned, such as this 1921 New Blackfriars article or this 1993 piece in Children's Literature, that analysis is pretty exclusively in the wider context of de la Mare's themes and work. I could certainly see these sources improving the quality of the article on the poet himself, but I just don't see any evidence that this poem has any independent notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly Merge with the poet's article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or delete & redirect to Walter de la Mare). Completely unreferenced essay; it reads like someone's school project. Even if the poem were notable, this should be deleted per WP:TNT and started from scratch. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Carucci[edit]

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

An autobiography of Carucci supported by a number of press releases, the only claim to notability is "4th best broker in Boston". Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong I am new to Wikipedia. I have seen this broker and his company all over greater Boston. I know of some other articles that discuss his large transactions and will try to add them as best as I can Any help would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C900:C900:34D0:C062:D640:299C (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete. Self-created (Michaelcarucci) promotional vanity advertisement of utterly non-encyclopedicly notable person. Softlavender (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and User:Softlavender, vanity and promotional article, nothing to meet WP:GNG and the recent addition of individual property sales by another new editor seems to suggest more of the same. Melcous (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamsin de Roemer[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The citation provided in this article are to mere mentions in passing or to "advertorials" for De Roemer's London fashion boutique. De Roemer's store appears to be currently trendy, but that does not equate to her being notable, and no evidence of significant independent coverage can be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - all the sources are passing mentions, promotional, self-sourced or not RSes, article creator name was Elladeroemer. This is blatant advertising to G11 levels - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benbansi[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~If not independently notable, merge to List of Rajput clans of Uttar Pradesh.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my !vote avbove. Neutral at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "list of clans" articles are gradually being pruned to those that meet WP:V and the spirit of WP:NLIST. Clan names often exist in more than one caste grouping and in more than one location, so accurate redirecting is impossible. Source checks suggest that this particular community does not appear to meet WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some hits on Gbooks but they are mostly inaccessible and available in snippet view; unable to figure out if it has passing mentions or some kind of substantial coverage. @Sitush: It seems to be related to some King Ben ([21], [22]). Anup [Talk] 17:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are Raj era sources. They are not reliable. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 08:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- same rationale as Bargaiyan; dubious. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL7. I insist on scholarly sources for ethnicity related articles. This one doesn't make the cut. I am aware that colonial era sources are not considered reliable and neither am I able to find contemporary academic sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:31, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bargaiyan[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~If not independently notable, merge to List of Rajput clans of Uttar Pradesh.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to my attention on my talk page by Sitush (discussion link) that some British Raj sources may be unreliable. I found this source, which appears to be a raj source, and other such raj-era sources exist. There is this book from 1977, which appears to be non-raj era source, and provides a passing mention. At any rate, striking my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "list of clans" articles are gradually being pruned to those that meet WP:V and the spirit of WP:NLIST. Clan names often exist in more than one caste grouping and in more than one location, so accurate redirecting is impossible. Source checks suggest that this particular community does not appear to meet WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 17:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one-sentence, unreferenced essay. No RS have been presented at the AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL7. I insist on scholarly sources for ethnicity related articles. This one doesn't make the cut. I am aware that colonial era sources are not considered reliable and neither am I able to find contemporary academic sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:42, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barhiya[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY. Possibly worth redirecting to Warya if they are the same, but not merging as this is unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~If not independently notable, merge to List of Rajput clans of Uttar Pradesh~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck above. No opinion at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "list of clans" articles are gradually being pruned to those that meet WP:V and the spirit of WP:NLIST. Clan names often exist in more than one caste grouping and in more than one location, so accurate redirecting is impossible. Source checks suggest that this particular community does not appear to meet WP:GNG. - Sitush (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, Sandstein 19:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be failing WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 23:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- same rationale as Bargaiyan. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 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. The only "keep" opinion is "GAA clubs are notable entities and deserve a page on Wikipedia", which is not an argument based in our inclusion rules or practices. Sandstein 07:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clonbony GAA[edit]

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

This hurling club does not meet ~~WP:SPORTCRIT~~ WP:GNG. Source searches have provided no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~Sources used in the article appear to be all primary~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- What is your definition of "primary sources", as both sources are independent and not related to the club at all. The Banner talk 09:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator accused me in the past of not doing WP:BEFORE. Seeing what he has nominated, I get the impression that he did not read the sources at all as he is wild of the mark. The Banner talk 23:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am objecting to the proposed deletion of this article. The Gaelic Athletic Association consists of hundreds of small clubs such as this. Each plays a valid part of the organization. You will Wikipedia articles of many such clubs. It does need more information, but this will be added over time. Pmunited (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Pmunited: Can you provide any sources to establish the topic's notability as per WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG? Just because a club exists does not make it automatically notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Struck part of my nomination above. Thus far, here's a source summary:

[23] – 2 short paragraphs consisting of one sentence each, (addendum: and 2 single name mentions)
[24] – single passing mention
[25] – ~~no mention~~ single passing mention
[26] – one single name mention

Where is the significant coverage? "Wild off the mark"? Hardly. Several searches have provided no significant coverage. For example, GNews provides no coverage, and not even any page results ("No results found for "Clonbony GAA"), and Gbooks provides no coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, first you have to chance your nomination because you failed to read the sources and now you start nitpicking. But again you fail to read the sources properly, as source three, where you find no mention, clearly states "Clonbony". To my opinion, this is a WP:POINT-nomination. The Banner talk 19:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All sources were read prior to nomination, and I also read the sources that were later added. Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and focus on content. Below is the text of this source I stated that has no mention, because there is indeed, no mention at all.

LADIES FOOTBALL COUNTY FINAL DAY IN COORACLARE
It's County final day in Cooraclare where the Senior and Junior A Shield finals are down for decision. First up at 3:30 is the Junior A Shield final.
West Clare neighbours Kilrush and West Clare Gaels B go head to head there.
That's followed by the Senior final clash of The Banner Ladies and Liscannor.
The Banner go into the game as favorites and are targeting a three in a row with victory today, but their North West Clare opponents know a win is not out of touch having beaten today’s finalists in the group stages of the championship.
Throw in for that game is at 5:45.
Meanwhile, as the Ladies Gaelic football association celebrates it's 40th Anniversary this year, todays final marks the 30th anniversary of the Clare Ladies Football senior championship.
LGFA President Pat Quill is in Cooraclare today as members of the winning 1983 -85 Clonboney teams are honored by the Clare Ladies Football Board in a presentation between today’s two finals.
Last night, the Mary Kenny Cup was won by Fergus Rovers in the Intermediate B championship final.
They beat Crusheen on a 1-09 to 1-05 scoreline.

You state that the source "clearly states "Clonbony"", but you are in error here. Where is it? Perhaps you confused this with another source? If you're going to cast aspersions, LOL and attempt to correct and scold people, stating that a user "fail to read the sources properly", at least get it right. Your criticism regarding reading sources only confers to yourself in this instance. Your ad hominem arguments have thus far provided nothing to counter the topic's lack of notability. From the sources presented and several searches, the topic has received no significant coverage at all. Also, the Hoganstand source came across as a bit primary in nature, but I struck this in my nomination in attempts to assume good faith. Perhaps you should also consider assuming good faith toward other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that you know how to throw accusations, but still fail to read properly.

You claim that source 4 ("Ladies Football County Final Day In Cooraclare") has no mention at all. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The article starts with Clonbony GAA (also spelled as Clonboney GAA) (...). The source reads: LGFA President Pat Quill is in Cooraclare today as members of the winning 1983 -85 Clonboney teams are honored by the Clare Ladies Football Board in a presentation between today’s two finals. (highlighted by me.
As argument for removal you use [[WP:SPORTCRIT]. When you read that, you see that SPORTCRIT is about players, not clubs.
When you persist in using rules and regulation about players to judge a club, at least use WP:NGAELIC, what is about Gaelic Sport players, including hurlers (and camogie players, the female variant)
When using WP:NGAELIC against a club, please note that the Clonbony GAA Ladies were county champions in the period 1983-1985. The means qualifying for the national All-Ireland competition.

Thank you for your attention. The Banner talk 22:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed part of the nomination to "does not meet WP:GNG" made a change to the source analysis above. WP:NGAELIC refers to players only, not clubs. The spelling of "Clonboney GAA" was added after my nomination for deletion (diff). I do admit that I did not see this minor addition to the article after the nomination. However, ad hom statements of not being able to read properly are unnecessary and hostile in nature, and provide nothing to qualify notability for the club, which is the basis of this nomination. No evidence of the club having received significant coverage has been presented, nor does any appear to exist, based upon source searches. This topic does not meet WP:GNG. As such, the article qualifies for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again you change your nomination rationale... Please, stop playing games (unless you start playing hurling). The Banner talk 10:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No game playing, just being accurate. I could have changed it to the simpler Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which states, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.", but eh. Anyway, so where's any significant coverage? None appears to exist at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a newspaper that is not yet scanned by Google (non-United States, surprisingly). But I guess that you dismiss those sources to suit your wishes. You have by now repeatedly changed your arguments when I proved them wrong. What guarantee do I have that you do that again when I have put in an extra effort and provide those sources? There are already reliable, independent sources available in the article, so what do you want more? (And no, I do not play hurling or are in anyway related to the club. I even have never seen them play.) The Banner talk 13:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some honours to the article, all based on articles published in the newspaper "Clare Champion". This newspaper is, as far as I know, not (yet) digitized but the paper version can be checked at the Clare County Library, Local History Centre, in Ennis. The Banner talk 21:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And where is your content-related edit? The Banner talk 16:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GAA clubs are notable entities and deserve a page on Wikipedia. This AFD would have catastrophic consequences for GAA related article if this deleted a terrible precedent would have been set. Finnegas (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I appreciate that you personally consider all GAA clubs to be notable, but this notion is not present in any Wikipedia guidelines. Could you provide any evidence that this club is notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a non-notable club in the GAA. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization doesn't appear notable. I'm fine with having whatever details are necessary about GAA clubs provided that they get substantive reliable source coverage. Here, we just have slight mentions and what appears to be run-of-the-mill reporting. It all doesn't really pass our encyclopedic guidelines. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete From the Clare GAA Clubs template, Clonbony seems to be a part of the "Junior Hurling Championship" - is that a league? Most articles in the various GAA hurling templates under "Junior Hurling Championship" do not have articles. With some clarity, I could see changing my !vote, but for now I don't see anything that clearly establishes notability for this club. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Margaret Thatcher. There seems to be a clear supermajority in favour of redirection, and Neve-selbert's policy-rooted arguments are persuasive and largely unrebutted. For the somewhat awkward tangle of pages associated with the AFD, I intend to do the following: The Iron Lady already exists and is a redirect to the Thatcher article; I'm going to make Iron Lady do just the same. There is already a link to Iron Lady (disambiguation) at the top of the Thatcher article, so I'm going to leave that be. I won't delete the article, so if anyone wants to delve into Iron Lady's history to do a selective merge, the data is there. A Train^talk 09:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents about the nickname's history have been abridged and merged into Margaret Thatcher#Iron Lady nickname. Some notable female politicians have been listed at the dab page. — JFG ^talk 14:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Lady[edit]

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

This is a rather dispensable article. Considering the fact that Thatcher is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for an "Iron Lady", having a section listing basically every single other female world leader (and other female diplomats) since her tenure is pretty trivial and unnecessary, and likely runs into WP:LC. I would propose a merge of half the article (i.e. parts of the lede, along with sections 1 and 2) to Margaret Thatcher in a new section (e.g. #The Iron Lady subsection, under a #Nicknames section), given that we already have #The Iron Duke (under #Nicknames) with Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. --Neve –selbert 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Changed vote, redirect to Margaret Thatcher as per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.--Nevé –selbert 17:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted or re-directed to the Margaret Thatcher article. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. The first two sections are a fork, in that they treat Thatcher and the origin of her nickname. The latter sections are, as Neve-selbert notes, just lists of women to whom the nickname, or similar nicknames may have been used. Cnilep (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (after "delete") to Margaret Thatcher as unnecessary content fork. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree any redirect is necessary. If Iron Duke does not re-direct to Arthur Wellesley, how can one objectively argue that Thatcher is deserving? Has she somehow done more than him? Hardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.117.77 (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly? I should take that as a sarcastic understatement. Anyway, this Afd is not requesting per se that Iron Lady be instead redirected Margaret Thatcher; the article-in-question could indeed become a disambiguation page in its own right, comparable to Iron Duke (a WP:DISAMBIG page without "(disambiguation)" at the end). Also, if you were to bother to read my rationale for this request instead of automatically reverting the tag on the article-in-question, I suggested above that we merge the initial 1/2 of the article to Margaret Thatcher in a new section named "Nicknames" (based on the #Nicknames section of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington). This seems really rather reasonable, and two other editors are in agreement that this article is a superfluous WP:CONTENTFORK. Besides, we don't have an article on the nickname "Iron Duke", in and of itself, do we?--Nevé –selbert 12:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is already a page for Iron Lady (disambiguation). If the first half of the page is merged to Margaret Thatcher, parts of the second half may be mergeable there... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning the newly-found Iron Lady (disambiguation) from above: I don't think disambiguation pages usually have a (disambiguation) added to them? They're just "Iron Lady", aren't they? ~~The disambiguation page should be deleted or redirected here and this made into a disambiguation page and the bits about Thatcher should be merged to her article in a section about the nickname.~~ I took a look and much of it isn't there. Gavrilov for example isn't mentioned at all. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Margaret Thatcher. I took a look into the (disambiguation) policy, and found out that it's used when one usage of the term far outranks others. The link to the disambiguation is then added as a hatnote. It seems like so in our case. However some bits about the nickname should be added to her article, likely in a subsection like the Iron Duke's. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Iron Lady to Margaret Thatcher and Rename our current article as Iron Lady (nickname) or Iron Lady (term) (rename before redirecting if there isn't some other maneuver). Another alternative as pointed out below is a Wiktionary article for the term. Even if this article for the term is kept, it should probably be renamed Iron Lady (nickname/term) and be added as a hatnote to Thatcher's article with Iron Lady redirecting there. Sources indicate with vast majority that the term is majorly just used of Thatcher. Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thatcher It's the only significant use of the term. There's nothign worth merging. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic garbage. This article drives a coach and horses through WP:NOR, WP:NOT and even WP:V (with its poorly sourced and unsourced material). It also has a strong stench of sexism to it; this is basically a list of almost all female world leaders, all of whom have been lazily compared by a male-dominated media with Margaret Thatcher, some, as the article says, retrospectively. Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. Per DGG, there is definitely nothing worth merging there. --John (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The potentially valuable part of this article may be the list of people to whom the epithet has been applied. If it is ill-sourced, the need is to tag it for that not delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It seems particularly useful for readers who see it applied to other women, as it now often is (as mentioned in the lead, at least until very recently, and now re-mentioned by me) and want to know more about it. In this respect it seems different from Iron Duke, as that nickname is seemingly not routinely applied to large numbers of other people. Incidentally, perhaps partly but seemingly not entirely as a result of recent amendments, it now at least appears unusually well-sourced compared to many Wikipedia articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The paragraph "Political usage" cannot be merged. This expression exists beyond Thatcher. The article probably needs improvement (sources, balancement) and other warnings but the redirect proposal is not the best option.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's just listing people the term's been used of. Perfect material for the disambiguation page. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page are string-based. They shouldn't contain content or act as de facto article. You loose all the sources for the use of the term, and they're crucial to avoid original research. And if you keep those sources you're not doing a disambiguation page, you're writing an article, in the end. So you're just stuffing material of an article in a disambiguation pages. A strategy I consider on the long-term confusing for both editors and readers. The most simple strategy IMHO is to keep the article about "iron lady" and let it grow over time like millions of other articles.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or Wiktionary is a perfect compromise, have a look at wikt:win one for the Gipper. The Gipper redirects to the George Gipp article, even though this is a pretty common nickname for Ronald Reagan. Other than Margaret Thatcher, who else is widely known as an "Iron Lady"? Golda Meir? First off, that nickname was used to describe her posthumously. And second, notice the "of Israeli politics" people add after when people use it to describe Meir. Pretty much nobody in general refers to Thatcher as "the Iron Lady of British politics", she is the "Iron Lady" full stop, period. Lastly I should note that this article has been around for a while. There is no indication this article has any realistic potential to improve in the future. What else is there to add, anyway? Wiktionary seems to be the best route forward, al a modus vivendi.--Nevé –selbert 12:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section for Political Usage doesn't really have content, just similar listings of usage as in the disambig. page for Iron Duke. Sure, the disambig. pages seem to disallow sources, but the articles for the people mentioned should carry that burden. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not from the practical point of view. I mean a "list" of related articles/concepts exist even if the sources and content are in another article. The rationale is not the fact that you can have a disambiguation, but if a list has a use per se. First of all, a disambiguation should not list all the minor and similar titles. Even for the "simple" "iron lady" you can have enough sources to cite a woman in a brief ns0 list but not to put it in a disambiguation page as it is clearly not the main use, and distracting. And for sure you can't put things such as "titan lady" there. And as a reader this minor occurrences are in any case useful and it's what I (and many other people) open wikipedia for... Secondly, "ns0 lists" and disambiguation pages are two distinct concept. The first one is to have a theme-based overview, the second one to find articles based on a similar string. It should be avoided to mix them because it looks "simpler". It's not. I go to the disambiguation page to find a book or film or place titled "iron lady", I read a list in ns0 when I want to know something more about a concept. The nickname is a concept. As a reader, I need the list here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit clearer, please? ns0 list? As in not in main space? Most of the variants in our current article are nicknames which seemingly have no relation like Steel Butterfly, "the only man in" and Attila the Hen. The article for this term could be feasibly kept either here or at Wiktionary, but Iron Lady should nonetheless redirect to Thatcher due to overwhelming amount of coverage using it as a synonym for her. Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must note that the three dissenting voices to this Afd make their cases pretty poorly. Firstly, I should like to turn to Peterkingiron's argument and his making the dubious case that the list of people to whom the epithet has been applied is "potentially valuable". This is faulty logic that has already been discredited hitherto. Cutting to the chase, Margaret Thatcher is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, take Google Books for credence: there are around 40,600 results that "Iron Lady" garners, of which all the results of the first page save just one pertain to the British stateswoman. Searching "Iron Lady" AND "Thatcher" garners 25,600 results and only loses around 15,000. Yet searching for "Iron Lady" -"Thatcher" loses around 10,000 results (with a negligible 15,600 garnered in total instead), and even this may be a slight exaggeration given how Thatcher is self-evidently alluded to in at least two of the results received on the first page. Having read WP:EVERYTHING, this pretty much nails it. Secondly, Tlhslobus's arguments: stating that "it [Iron Lady] now often is" used to apply to other women. This statement pretty much flies in the face of WP:WEIGHT without shame. He then goes on to say that In this respect it seems different from Iron Duke, as that nickname is seemingly not routinely applied to large numbers of other people. This "large numbers of other people" claim is (as I gladly concur with John) simply media-driven drivel and borderline sexism. Both Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba and Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias have been widely described by various reputable sources also as "Iron Dukes", yet this does not in any way negate the fact that Wellington is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (If you want Google Books statistics for Iron Duke, I will be happy to present you the facts.) You then go on to say, Incidentally, perhaps partly but seemingly not entirely as a result of recent amendments, it now at least appears unusually well-sourced compared to many Wikipedia articles. That is a woefully inadequate "Well, at least it's not as bad as that article" case-in-point, that does neither side any favours and fails WP:OTHERCONTENT. For Alexmar983 who stated that the paragraph "Political usage" cannot be merged without reasoning, I cannot help but retort: "Why ever not?" Just why not? Although I admit I am warming to the option of just redirecting the article to Margaret Thatcher saving the trouble of us merging, I just cannot understand at all why a merge would be impractical. I urge you to re-read my rationale per the precedent with Wellington. You then go on to state that This expression exists beyond Thatcher. Yup, as does The Iron Duke and a great many other nicknames of which I feel free to state, but as Mr. Magoo and McBarker correctly alludes, "if it [a term] has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" a topic is primary for that term. Rather simple and clearly straightforward, I should think. In conclusion, I would like to note Caeciliusinhorto's very constructive comment. If this page gets redirected? We certainly have the option of either (a) merging a proportion of the article's contents to Margaret Thatcher, (b) merging a proportion of the article's contents to Iron Lady (disambiguation) or (c) creating a new Wiktionary entry for Iron Lady to make up for this article's deletion. I would like to stress again that there is nothing unreasonable about this Afd proposal in terms of WP:NOHARM and WP:ADDSVALUE. In a nutshell, this request aims to be a wise housekeeping measure through removing indiscriminate and superfluous information that is already mostly included at Margaret Thatcher and elsewhere.--Nevé –selbert 23:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Reply:

Point partly conceded regarding Iron Duke. Although the cited couple of long-dead Dukes are not the same as about 20 (and counting) mostly living female political leaders, the Google Books stats are 26,700 for "Iron Duke" and Wellington, and 121,000 for "Iron Duke" without Wellington. I'm not clear how much weight is meant to be given to such stats.
I'm not clear how 15,000 out of 40,000, in other words 37.5%, is 'negligable' (for instance, David Cameron got 0.6% less than 37.5% of the vote when winning last year's general election, and about 12.9% less than 37.5% if you include those who didn't vote). (The figures I get for Google Books are 15,700 out of 40,500, which is actually slightly more than 37.5%.) And the 25,000 figure clearly includes items that briefly mention Thatcher but are actually about some other Iron Lady (and there are presumably far more of these than there are items about Thatcher that don't name her). And there are presumably plenty of foreign-language books mentioning Iron Ladies other than Thatcher in the language of those ladies, books which will not show up when googling Iron Lady in English, but which can reasonably be expected to omit Thatcher (or to mention her while actually being about some other Iron Lady) more often than books in English do. And so on.
I should perhaps have been less cautious in my expression of support for the unfairly criticized quality of the article's sourcing. Apart from one citation needed flag, I haven't noticed any statement that appears to lack a source, apart from one or two statements too self-evident to require sourcing per WP:V. Of course life is too short for me to check every single citation for things like reliability, but most of them are clearly reliable sources, and if one or two turn out not to be so upon closer inspection, those statements can either be tagged with a citation needed or removed, just as with every other Wikipedia article.
I should perhaps also have raised the matter of WP:BIAS, also known as WP:WORLDVIEW, as the proposal is arguably (in practice and presumably unintentionally) both anglocentric and sexist. This seems in effect a proposal to remove documented references to about 20 (and counting) leaders whose main characteristic seems to be that they are not British (hence anglocentrism) and female (hence sexism). Of course I'm male, and so presumably is John, who first brought up the issue of sexism here while arguing the opposite point of view to mine (see above), as seeminlgy also is the editor to whom I am replying (whose user page says he prefers to be referred to as 'he') and who seems to agree with John's version of the 'sexism' argument. I don't know where to go for 'expert' opinion on anglocentrism (I'm Irish, so perhaps unduly biased against anglocentrism; at any rate I'm no 'neutral expert' on the subject, always assuming any such persons exist). But as for sexism, I will shortly be leaving a request for comments on the matter at WP:GGTF (request now posted here). If I can be satisfied on these two issues, perhaps partly by people (especially females) from the GGTF telling me that I'm mistaken, then I would expect to switch to supporting a merge. This would presumably keep the 'Origins' stuff, but would presumably also reduce the 20 (and counting) non-British female leaders to at most perhaps 2 in at most a single sentence (or footnote?) along the lines of 'The term has since often been used to refer to other female leaders such as X(citation) and Y(citation)".
That said, I've spent more time on this issue than I reckon it's worth. So I hope not to be taking any further part in this discussion, apart from eventually saying something like that the GGTF people have persuaded me to switch my support to a merge, if and when they do in fact persuade me. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? If a standalone article is that egregious, merge or redirect it to Margaret Thatcher. — AjaxSmack 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. It overwhelmingly refers to her, and other uses are clearly linked to the original. It is not worthy of more than a one paragraph summary in the main Margaret article though, which can also mention any other people that the term may have later been applied to. — Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this AfD clicking on "iron lady" from another figure. Finding just Thatcher would be confusing, for me and for many other readers. Stuffing Thatcher's article with mentions of other people is not very elegant for the reader as well. And BTW even if it were "overwhelming referring" to Margaret Thatcher, that does not mean it has to be merged automatically. It would be a in-depth analysis of a concept that has its own dignity, a type of spin-off that it is very common and also appropriate for encyclopedic content. It looks to me like the typical situation where you ("generic editor") try to be "simple", but you're only simplistic. These merging operations look to me like the same difference there is between properly cleaning a floor and sweeping dust under the carpet. Not a great service to the reader.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, what figure? See WP:HATNOTE, this would circumvent any confusion. With regard to your last point, Alexmar983, see my above reply relating to WP:WIKT and how this would be a decent and rational option.--Nevé –selbert 12:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A redirect to Margaret Thatcher does not comply with the purposes of redirects as the Thatcher topic deals with her biography and "Iron Lady" is now a linguistic term. Nor does a merger work because doing so cuts out the sourced WP:NOTEWORTHY material about how the term is being used with other female political leaders. Now, if one could write an article about strong-willed female leaders, along the lines of "Steel baron", then a redirect to the re-written and re-titled article would be fine. For now, though, keeping the article IAW WP:PRESERVE is the best solution. – S. Rich (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the initial paragraph is about Mrs Thatcher, there is more to the article than that - the term has political meaning today which extends beyond Margaret Thatcher and the UK or even English speaking world. I agree that the article probably needs work especially around the Political Usage section but to redirect only would create confusion for those people looking only for the term, its origin and usage when not specifically considering the UK Prime Minister and deleting it would leave a gap in knowledge. Many strong women in politics become known as their countries Iron Lady and Wikipedia should provide the explanation and related uses and not merely in a disambiguation page. It needs the context and implications. For specific Wikipedia references to back this up, see WP:POFR, WP:PRESERVE, But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information and WP:ADDSVALUE. It needs work but a delete or merge would make the information less accessible than it currently is. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 04:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Srich32977 and Antiqueight: Your arguments have no strict encyclopaedic weight behind whatseover. Read WP:NOTDICTIONARY. What's wrong with merging parts of the article relating to her nickname into the Margaret Thatcher and Iron Lady (disambiguation) articles while at the same time creating a Wiktionary entry for Iron Lady to make up for your other arguments relating to the phrase being used to refer to other politicians? The fact of the matter is that this phrase overwhelmingly refers to Margaret Thatcher. Per WP:WEIGHT alone, this article is unjustified as a part of this encyclopedia and is much better suited to Wiktionary. Just go and have a look at Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington#The Iron Duke. Yes, there are several known generals and the like known as an "Iron Duke", but the nickname almost exclusively refers to him alone, and hence why The Iron Duke redirects to the Duke and Iron Duke is a disambiguation page in its own right. I previously proposed having Iron Lady redirect to the WP:DAB page, but this argument had indeed been rejected by most with the argument that the DAB page almost exclusively referenced more to Thatcher than any other female leader. Moreover, searching for "Iron Lady" in Google Images shows nothing but Thatcher (albeit with the Meryl Streep portrayal of her). The overbearing background to this Afd proposal is sound, Thatcher is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. But alas, I understand your concerns. Hence why I have proposed the following three options that are infinitely better in my opinion than keeping this article the way it stands today. Note: I personally prefer the third option.

Merge any useful or beneficial information to Margaret Thatcher in a new section dedicated to Nicknames as per the example with Wellington. This new section can include explanations of such epithets as Milk snatcher or Attilla the Hen as well as a couple of others perhaps, so the section wouldn't exactly be neither too spacious nor too crowded.
Create a Wiktionary entry for Iron Lady. This seems entirely reasonable. Why waste an entry on Wikipedia on such meaningless drivel on so-called "Iron Ladies" that almost certainly goes on to fail WP:FALSEBALANCE. So what if there other famous politicians around the world known as an "Iron Lady"? Let's be honest here, just how frequently are such women politicians referred to as such once their careers have been fully established and respected by most commentators? How often are the likes of say Angela Merkel or Hillary Clinton referred to as "Iron Ladies" in this day and age? Simply put, referring to a female politician as an "Iron Lady" is usually used by journalists to point out rising females in politics that display a certain "steel" or "toughness" about them. Thatcher was referred to as "the Iron Lady" by a Soviet newspaper and was in-fact meant to be a snide criticism, hence a total contrast in context. On the other hand, Bill Clinton of course was once referred to as "The first Black President". Doesn't make that so important or encyclopedic, does it? It's undue weight, pure and simple.
Just redirect the article to Margaret Thatcher with the following hatnote:No problem. If an average Joe genuinely came across "Iron Lady" looking for another person? (Unlikely.) They should have no trouble in clicking the hatnote to suppress any confusion.

Once again, I cannot help but regard these arguments in favour of keeping this borderline-WP:STUB page as an article as extremely petty. Most of the information related to how Margaret Thatcher had got her nickname in the first place is at Margaret Thatcher#Leader of the Opposition: 1975–79. The rest of this article just rambles on too list media-noticed female politicians that have just happened to be called an "Iron Lady" by some odd journalist in the media. This includes Theresa May, for that matter. So just about any female politician. To be entirely frank, this article is absolutely superfluous for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The very least we can go about is implementing of the above three alternative options. The status quo is just an embarrassment.--Nevé –selbert 12:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worthy to note that Iron Lady had been originally a redirect. There is clear precedent to this proposal.--Nevé –selbert 13:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Neve-selbert: A dictionary defines the words and gives the origin. An encyclopedia defines the words, give the origin, some context and details as well as the other people for whom the phrase applies and again, some context around why. A dictionary would focus on the meaning of the words - the current article is focused on the origin and implication of the name (and should cover why so many women simply by being women are thus titled). It does need to be cleaned up - improved, especially to make it more encyclopedic but deleting it or redirecting it to another article makes the encyclopedia poorer not richer for the experience. I would much prefer your proposals to purely a redirect or deletion. But I think the article could be improved which should be the aim. I think there is historical and socio-political value to the existence of the article but it needs work. I may be biased by time of course - in my lifetime the phrase Iron Lady holds far greater impact than Iron Duke (who I tended to think of as a horse). ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 19:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely baffles and bewilders me as to how Wikipedia would be "poorer not richer for the experience" of having Iron Lady deleted. Nevertheless, I of course accept that you take the opposite view. But with that being said, I remain entirely confident that giving note to the "historical and socio-political value to the existence of the article" can be transferred to Margaret Thatcher or a Wiktionary entry with untethered success. She is, as I repeat, the irrepressible primary topic for the term "Iron Lady". For other "Iron Ladies" (or the lack thereof) they can simply be listed at Iron Lady (disambiguation) in the same fashion as Iron Duke lists the other "Iron Dukes". For the historical context? Let's go about splitting the transferal of information between the Thatcher article and a new Wiktionary entry. As for the potential future? I frankly think that this article has had a good run. What more can we add to the article? Why each and every single female politician listed has been referred to as yet another "Iron Lady", as well as how and when and in what context? This would inevitably result in undue weight. As much as one may be optimistic, I cannot fathom as to how the article can be any "better". The article as it stands really is as good as it gets, we've had it for around a decade now as some sort of semi-stub article. That aside, redirecting Iron Lady as a section redirect would also not be a problem. I personally happen to believe a section redirect unnecessary since the term "Iron Lady" is already mentioned in the lede section in the very first paragraph at the Thatcher article. Your statement that Iron Lady holds far greater impact than Iron Duke is merely your own personal viewpoint. Here, a Google Books analysis: "Iron Duke" renders about 183,000 results while "Iron Lady" renders 40,600. That is less than 100,000 for "Iron Lady". Another point, "Iron Duke" has been used to refer to male generals and the like more often in a historical (and encyclopedic) context than "Iron Lady" has with female politicians and the like. The mainstream media perpetuates this myth of an "Iron Lady" female politician purely based on the outstanding example set by Thatcher (and her alone). Could you name any so-called "Iron Lady" wannabees following in the "Iron Lady" footsteps of anybody else for that matter? She was the indisputable progenitor that made the nickname possible. It's time we all realised this, and went about rectifying this real predicament there is with the status quo.--Nevé –selbert 20:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who asked Wiktionary for an entry. Next time maybe you could that before the Afd... :D Still, an entry of Wiktionary would not list all the examples, so it's not the same thing. I've already told you why putting it in the disambiguation is not the same. When I use "iron lady" in another women biography I cannot link to a disambiguation page. It wrong for the DRDI and it's not the correct use of a disambiguation page (that it's mainly string based). A sociopolitical analysis is possible. It's not my field and I certainly don't have the sources from a Chemistry Department in China but it is an established sociopolitical term. Also I showed it to other female users of different nationalities during the last days. Those who replied to me they all agree that its use is implicitly sexist, that's why in many countries noone would never use it anymore (Scandinavian politician are no "iron ladies", and part of my family is Swedish, I know there's some truth in here :D), but it is historical and it's actually a perfect example of how societies reacted to a female politician, who has to be implicitly "strong as a man or even more" (or similar). See for example the use in the title Iron Ladies of Liberia, or this use used by Joshua Keating. In many countries now it is different, in other ones it is not and the term is still used, but it is a fact. One of these female friend said in her opinion there are here some echoes of the gender-gap activism of the anglophone world where often instead of focusing on the sociological aspect of a situation, people sometimes just try to "remove it" acting on the language. Maybe she's right or maybe she's not, I am not expert. Of course now you're going to discuss how poor and self referential this statement is, but I'll live with it. I mean, with the limited access I had to the sources I did what I could to avoid this deletion, which in any case does not baffles and bewilders me, it's quite common. It's the strategy of "revolving door" content that I saw so many time, where there's always someone who try to split stuff everywhere and than we have to recompose it again after some years.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you honestly name me another "Iron Lady" with the same WP:WEIGHT that Thatcher holds? The likelihood is simply that you can't. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Thatcher certainly satisfies this criteria. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with a disambiguation page listing other "Iron Ladies" or the lack thereof in similar fashion to Iron Duke. There is absolutely precedent for this, as I say. I have suggested either a Wiktionary entry and/or a new #Nicknames section at the Thatcher article that can make up for article deletion. As John accurately stated above, this article is mainly media-driven. Can you bring up any Google Books or newspaper articles referring to every single female politician on that page as an "Iron Lady"? She is by far the primary topic for this term, and hence the term should and must redirect to her page or at least a section of her page. A Wiktionary entry can make up for information that cannot be merged to Margaret Thatcher, and other "Iron Ladies" that have been referred to as such in a historical rather than mass-media context can be listed at the WP:DAB page. This is plain rational thinking, and housekeeping at its best. I remain in full agreement with Cnilep and K.e.coffman that this article is merely an unnecessary WP:FORK. The majority of its information derives only from the origins of how Thatcher got her nickname (which is already included mostly at her article) and other female politicians randomly called an "Iron Lady" by the media without any historical context at all. I'm sorry, but the inclusion of this article is not sufficiently merited as to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Thatcher or rather the film based on her life is the primary topic for this term. That, is just a fact.--Nevé –selbert 13:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: Your argument would have more merit if you (or anyone other than a Finn) had created a Wiktionary article for "Iron lady", but no one has. (Suggestion – proactive editors can start at Iron lady.) Even so, another factor to consider is how helpful this article has been to WP users. We see in the page visits link that 122,699 users (267/day) have looked at it in the last 15 months alone. (And I am jealous – this number is 5 times greater than the visits I've seen on the two Good Articles I worked on!) The closer of this AfD should consider – projecting back over the last 13 years, perhaps ≤1 million users have viewed the article with the intent of finding out more about the Iron Lady. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and if they had though about a merge, there will be statistically much more comments in Talk:Iron Lady about that. We actually risk that some of the next million reader in the following years, dissatisfied with a "forced" redirect, will try to write it again. I suspect it also from that fact that I found this Afd by pure chance, by the presence on other language editions and by the reactions of all third parties I'm showing this discussion during these days. That's why a "revolving door content" scenario is highly probable. This will generate lots of wikicentric discussions full of links to help pages and even some nasty comments, but no real improvement. So I still think that the best option for a generic reader is to find an article with a warning and tag with a request for improvement.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also updated the instance of wikidata here. I have never used the phrase "winged word" in English but the Swedish and Italian definition sounds appropriate to me. It is a neologism that can be associated to a specific creator. It is possible that the English label may be changed, but the instance represented by the item is correct.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The chances of a "revolving door scenario" are slim and even so, see Harambe for example. The primary topic for the term is the late gorilla and there can be no doubt about that. Yet there is a hatnote at the top of the page to suppress any confusion if somebody happens to be looking for something different related to "Harambe" given the link given to Harambe (disambiguation). There will certainly be a hatnote at the Thatcher article. And since Thatcher is evidently the primary topic for the term (and I have given more than a fair share of evidence in my replies above), most people searching for "Iron Lady" are probably looking for the film based on her life rather than the woman herself for that matter. They most likely just landed on this article by mere accident. "Iron Lady" is the most popular name for Thatcher, "Milk Snatcher" (which redirects to a section, by the way) is second. Most searches related to "Iron Lady" or "The Iron Lady" are beyond reasonable doubt related to Thatcher, and I can certainly supply you all the statistics the Internet can offer if you like. The same goes for "Iron Duke" with Wellington. The rationale for redirecting this article is clear and sound. I can assure you that there will be no indiscriminate loss of information at all. I have thusly prepared contingency plans to prevent such a scenario from happening.--Nevé –selbert 13:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A contingency plan that does not imply a wikictionary entry before the Afd wasn't probably the best version.

In any case Harambe does not exist in many language editions and does not receive so many visits, "revolving door scenario" chances are therefore high. The hatnote does not solve the mistaken links to the Thatcher article from other articles when it has a generic meaning (the way I ended up here). In another scenario you're forcing to redirect to a disambiguation page with no source, and that's also wrong per se, as disambiguation pages should not act as a de facto article (or a portion of an article). Even if part of the people came here because of the movie, they didn't complain about the article as it is, and they were a lot; this tells you something about what readers mainly perceive as correct (I had another proof just asking around offwiki). In any case, noone has ever doubted that "Iron Lady" is the most popular name for Thatcher or that the majority of the use is referring to her, but I am (we are, probably) aware that there is now a consistent use as a generic sociopolitical term, that goes beyond her. The fact that it has been retroactively referred to leaders emerged before her is also a spy of that. This aspect has its own dignity, it is worth an article alone because of its worldwide use and stuffing it in a redirect is excessive. It's good sense IMHO to "let it be". There is also a potential loss: as every work in progress, the article when present is ready to include other sources. Splitting it makes this process of improvement much complicated. The improvement to the whole wiki come from someone who wants the article alone (a new source, a better cat, a new instance on wikidata)... I've also realized that we don't have a category and an article for "winged word". That's what the presence of an article makes 99% of the time when it is appropriate, it fits in the workflow of the wiki. An article in the right place is a constant push for improvement of the whole wikipedia. I saw the "revolving door scenario" so many times and I spent so much time fixing the effects of these "neutral" and "complete" redirets in different languages that I cannot but feel the duty to oppose.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just cannot understand why Iron Lady can't just be merged into Margaret Thatcher. We can create a new section at the article relating to the nickname, and how it has been used retrospectively to describe other people. Therefore Iron Lady redirects to something like Margaret Thatcher#Iron Lady. A hatnote can be added above that section like so: It's like Nixon redirecting to Richard Nixon. I mean, sure there are plenty of other Nixons, but the 37th President is the primary topic for the term and hence Nixon rightfully redirects. We face a similar dilemma with "Iron Lady". Dividing the information across Wikipedia through a disambiguation page and a merge along with the Wiktionary proposal seems to be the best compromise. Having had a look at Pages that link to "Iron Lady", there aren't too many pages linking to this article. I am sure most readers would be satisfied if they were transferred to Wiktionary to read about the term and how it came about. Yes I regret not creating an entry before opening up this Afd. I only came up with the idea soon after I opened this discussion. That was a mistake, I realise that. If you like, I can create the entry for Wiktionary:Iron Lady now. Would you find this helpful, Alexmar983?--Nevé –selbert 15:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it helpful for Wiktionary, it might change someone else's position here. It does not change mine. Connectivity for me is a subtle topic, it goes beyond explaining how the link to a disambiguation page works. It's also about an overall perspective on how article and language editions interact, in my experience 66% sources and 33% good sense. I bet you here a coffee than if redirected in less than 5 years somone willa sk to or will recreate this article. And it will look to me like a fragmented distribution of information in the meantime. I link "iron lady" from another article to a paragraph of Thatcher and than I have to scroll up to the link to a disambiguation pages to try to have a overview of other uses, so many people won't do it at all. It's not like Nixon, if you end right there the disambiguation hat is at the same level of your eyes. To me it is a decent article with its dignity of a sociopolitical term with explanation and examples, it deserves to be found under the right category and linked to wikidata, just there, waiting for some better sources like millions of peers. In any case, I'm here by chance... I know what it is to correct this "forced" redirects, and I kinda feel sorry for whoever will try to do it later.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I link "iron lady" from another article to a paragraph of Thatcher and than I have to scroll up to the link to a disambiguation pages to try to have a overview of other uses, I'm sorry, what? This is nonsense. A hatnote would appear right below the heading, as is convention. Just like Nixon. There shouldn't be any "surprise redirects" at all. Iron Lady is, as I must repeat, a media-driven nickname and not a sobriquet adopted by most historians to describe other female leaders. Per Criteria for inclusion at Wiktionary, I am confident that Iron Lady satisfies the criteria. I would also recommend adding {{Copy to Wiktionary}} to the article in the meantime. Furthermore, I would note the fact that we already have Iron Chancellor redirecting to Otto von Bismarck despite a number of media sources ([27][28][29] [30]) indeed describing Angela Merkel as another. Yet Bismarck is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term and hence a redirect is justified without mentioning Merkel. Having a disambiguation page for "Iron Lady" meets that situation half-way. I'm pretty sure that if President Obama or Putin were women they would be described as "Iron Ladies" too, for that matter. Most journalists picking out "Iron Ladies" are most likely male, and it really is a lazy description used without weight for posterity. Has the nickname "Iron Lady" stuck to Hillary Clinton or Merkel or even Rousseff? No. Has it stuck to Thatcher? Absolutely. Even Meir has to be described as "the Iron Lady of Israeli politics" to disambiguate her if you will. Who refers to Thatcher as the "Iron Lady of British politics"? Nobody dares to disambiguate her from the pack, she is the Iron Lady without further ado. You go on to say that you'll "kinda feel sorry" for those who have to correct these "'forced' redirects". This can be easily rectified in my view. Per WP:ASTONISH, I would myself be astonished if users were shocked, surprised or overwhelmingly confused by landing at Margaret Thatcher. This was her nickname above all before anybody else, for crying out loud. Just like there are plenty of John Tylers and Andrew Johnsons, there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in sight here. Any contemporary "Iron Lady" today is always seen as a latter-day emulation, imitation of Mrs Thatcher, rather than their own person in their own right. I must stress that a hatnote would satisfactorily suppress any confusion. For just one example, take a reader misspelling "Barrack" without the extra "r" in the search bar ending up at Barack Obama. That person (however dazzled beyond belief) can easily click on Barack (disambiguation) and land at the See also section to enter Barrack. Your concerns may be understandable, but I believe that they can be sufficiently managed. There is even an option of getting a bot to go around to fix links to the article-in-question, if the idea of a reader landing at Margaret Thatcher is so unthinkable and outrageous.--Nevé –selbert 19:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't it time this discussion was closed per WP:SNOW, as it seems clear there is no prospect of consensus for deletion, but it is wasting the time and efforts of several Wikipedians who could be using their time more productively? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tlhslobus: You are correct in saying that there is no prospect of consensus for this article's deletion per se, but neither is there a consensus to keep the article the way it currently is. Per the Afd stats, almost double the amount of those wanting to keep this article would like the article merged/redirected to Margaret Thatcher.--Nevé –selbert 14:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Votes are currently 5 Keep, 3 Merge, 5 Redirect (Incidentally redirect seems in practice to be the same as deletion). So no consensus for any course of action. My understanding is that in the absence of consensus for change, no change takes place (in effect the status quo is assumed to be the 'old consensus', which stays in force unless and until a new consensus emerges to replace it). In other words there doesn't have to be consensus for Keep. (It may or may not also be slightly relevant that most of the recent votes have seemingly been for Keep, arguably suggesting a drift towards Keep). However I don't want to waste my time or anybody else's on debating this question. As an involved party, I won't be flagging the discussion as closed myself, as I understand that is normally best done by an uninvolved party. (Right now I would tend to expect that an uninvolved party would conclude that it should be closed, mainly because there currently seems to be only one person trying to keep the debate alive, but my expectations are somewhat irrelevant, at least in the sense that an uninvolved party can and should ignore them). So having said my bit on the subject of closure I will now happily leave that question for others to decide.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, do you think it would be a good idea to have this article tagged accordingly and renamed to Iron Lady (nickname), with Iron Lady redirecting to Mrs Thatcher with a hatnote? I confess that I opened a move discussion about this before, but that time I suggested redirecting this page to Iron Lady (disambiguation) (not Thatcher's article). This could be one way forward, perhaps.--Nevé –selbert 00:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be an unnecessary complication. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 00:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Complication? I beg to differ. If anything, it would certainly de-complicate matters beyond reasonable doubt. Take a look at Iron Chancellor redirecting to Otto Bismarck for precedent. Merkel is frequently referred to as an "Iron Chancellor" in the press, yet this does not automatically merit encyclopedic weight. The #Political usage section should be removed, if this article is indeed kept through lack of consensus. Personally, I happen to believe that a move would make perfect sense, and would render as an amicable compromise indeed for this article to be disambiguated with "(nickname)" at the end of it. She is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this cannot be clearer. Other female politicians are called "Iron Ladies" consistently in sole comparison with Thatcher. She is the Iron Lady, just as Bismarck was the Iron Chancellor. I could go on and on (but I already have, see my replies above) Frankly, the status quo is a blatant disregard for WP:WEIGHT, and just cannot afford to stand in the long term.--Nevé –selbert 01:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. Yes, the title has been applied to other female leaders, but almost always in a sort of throwaway way to compare them to Thatcher herself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Thatcher as a clear case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Other entries should be merged to Iron Lady (disambiguation) or pruned. Only keep those where the target article actually mentions a notable attribution of the nickname to the subject. Not all female political leaders are routinely called "iron ladies"; I even suspect that very few are. — JFG ^talk 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Compromise: Rename the article "Iron Lady (political term)" (or something similar), eventually along with appropriate minor modifications to the article, especially in the lead, plus a suitable 'About' template at the top, and have a link to it from 'Iron Lady (disambiguation)', and probably also from the Margaret Thatcher article (as is currently the case). And then let "Iron Lady" redirect to Margaret Thatcher per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (as "The Iron Lady" already does). Otherwise we will have a situation in which rules like "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" are being misused to prevent the existence of a well-sourced article about a topic which has been viewed relatively recently by over 100,000 readers, is found in over 40,000 Google Books (at least 15,000 of which make no mention of the so-called primary topic (Thatcher), and quite a lot more probably briefly mention her without being about her), not counting non-English books (as well as 435,000 general Google references in English that don't mention Thatcher), and is relevant (sometimes arguably, sometimes unarguably) to thoroughly encyclopedic areas as diverse as Political Science, History, Media Studies, the evolution of Language and/or Culture, and Feminism. Besides in practice violating WP:BIAS through having sexist and anglocentric effects as already mentioned, such a result would be a very bad case of Wikilawyering and a serious violation of WP:IAR ('Ignore all rules that prevent you improving the encyclopedia'), one of our most fundamental rules, as it gives effect to the the 5th of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia ('Wikipedia has no firm rules'). It would presumably also be setting a pretty terrible precedent for similar future disimprovements of the encyclopedia. With so many books dealing with the topic, there should be plenty of scope for subsequently improving the article. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if somebody has the technical skills (which I don't), it might be simplest to just be BOLD, rename the article as "Iron Lady (political term)" (or something similar), create the two suggested links to it, create the new 'Iron Lady' as a redirect to Thatcher, remove the Article-for-Deletion notice from the renamed article, and leave a note here saying this has been done, and that anyone who wishes to do so can always create a new Article-for-Deletion request for the renamed article. The point is that an awful lot of the argument here (about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) seems to be the unfortunate result of the article currently having an inappropriate name. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, a better new name for the article would be "Iron Lady (expression)", since, as the article already indicates (somewhat inadequately at present, but that is easily fixed), the term is also used for non-political figures such as the Hungarian swimmer Hosszu, and this use may (or may not) increase over time. (I also considered "Iron Lady (neologism)", but rejected it, as we are quite likely to eventually discover much earlier uses of it, and also the 1970s is not all that 'new', and gets less and less 'new' as time passes).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do broadly agree with this proposal; thanks, Tlhslobus, for your admirable effort at striking a happy medium here. If this Afd does close as "no consensus"? I will certainly attempt to implement this proposal thereafter. I just think this Afd should be closed first (you could go ask WP:ANRFC, that is if you want such a closure to occur sooner). Also (as a side note), I think The Iron Lady probably should be retargeted to Iron Lady (disambiguation), as most searching with the definite article are probably looking for the film rather than the woman herself.--Nevé –selbert 20:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Neve-selbert. Thanks to your very valuable and much appreciated support, the proposed compromise now has support from both sides of the dispute, so I expect it will have a very good chance of succeeding. So I'm happy to wait a little longer (too long might be a mistake, but that is not yet the case). It's probably best not to complicate things here with a distracting discussion here of the entirely separate question of where 'The Iron Lady' should redirect, but please feel free to raise that interesting question in some other forum.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lot on line so I used my time to more "productive things" (no offense). I don't read all what's new here but if the final idea, as far as I understand, is to use "iron lady" as a redirect but keep the content in an article with another title such as Iron Lady (nickname) or similar, of course I support. The title per se has never been an issue from my perspective, I just cared about the presence of a "junction article" (which is not the same of a disambiguation page).--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Alexmar983. It seems to me that we probably now have consensus on this compromise proposal - it's been there for 3 days now, has received support from key figures on both sides of the dispute, and has received no dissent. But I'm no expert on precisely when consensus is deemed to be reached. So I'm now going to try to take up Neve-selbert's above suggestion about asking for closure at WP:ANRFC - I assume the admins there are fairly expert on deciding whether or not it should be closed now on the basis of the compromise proposal, or whether we should wait a little longer. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having now taken a closer look at WP:ANRFC, I came across this:

'Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.'

It doesn't say how long we need to wait for consensus to be 'reasonably clear'. So rather than waste the time of admins, I propose to wait another 48 hours (until 8am (UTC) on Saturday 15 October 2016), and if there have been no objections to the compromise by then, and no requests for more time, I intend to close it myself as soon as possible thereafter, on the assumption that the compromise has consensus (always assuming somebody else hasn't already closed it on that basis). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tlhslobus fine with me... I suppose you're going to move the page, than create the redirect from the old title.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose compromise – I chanced upon this page again and read the "potential compromise" discussion. I for one disagree that the purported compromise is valuable. Yes, this article would be better titled Iron Lady (nickname), however this is AfD, not RM, so we are here to debate whether this article should exist at all. In its current incarnation, the article still looks like a WP:SYNTH of every time any political leader has been called "Iron Lady of X" by some bored journalist, plus a WP:COATRACK of similar nicknames, so it should be deleted with any salvageable contents merged. Let me repeat my proposal: keep only the mentions of "Iron Lady" where the subject has been repeatedly and consistently called such (that covers fewer cases than currently listed), then merge those mentions to the existing Iron Lady (disambiguation). Let the Iron Lady title redirect to Margaret Thatcher, and redirect Iron Lady (nickname) to Iron Lady (disambiguation). — JFG ^talk 12:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I honestly don't care which route is eventually taken. As long as Iron Lady redirects to Margaret Thatcher, I'm satisfied. But yes JFG, I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, and your proposal is certainly my preferred (albeit not only) option.--Nevé –selbert 15:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Synth says. 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.'

But the sources do state it, notably the Collins dictionary and International Museum of Women sources. Therefore it is not a WP:Synth. Similarly most of the other nicknames are explicitly described as 'Iron Lady'-like by the International Museum of Women source. (I expect there are more such sources too, given that Google shows over 15,000 books and over 400,000 articles that mention Iron Lady without mentioning Thatcher, as I already mentioned above in the context of the argument about it being encyclopedic, and involving WP:Bias, WP:IAR, WP:Wikilawyering, etc)

WP:coatrack says that 'A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely.' But once the name is changed to Iron Lady (expression) it will be entirely focussed on its nominal subject, so it will in no sense be a coatrack. I have already pointed out above why the subject is thoroughly encyclopedic, and why deleting it would violate WP:Bias, and WP:IAR, and would be a very bad case of WP:Wikilawyering.

I called coatracking the mention of "metallic" and "the only man in…" nicknames. This is barely trivia. Again, only the section mentioning various Iron Ladies should be kept (and pruned to notable and persistent nicks), and they would fit perfectly in the dab page. — JFG ^talk 21:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:SNOW, it is also quite clear from this Afd that there is not going to be a consensus for deletion, but that there can indeed be a consensus for a name change plus redirect of the original name. But if people refuse to accept the compromise, the Afd will presumably be closed without consensus, and a great deal of time will have been wasted for no productive purpose.

However if objection(s) to the proposed compromise are not withdrawn by the objector(s) in the reasonably near future (or if it/they are not vastly outnumbered by expressions of support for the compromise, which I don't expect), and no alternative acceptable compromise is suggested, it will presumably eventually be time to ask for closure via WP:ANRFC. But I guess I should wait at least 72 hours (3 days) before even considering whether or not to submit such a request (or alternatively to perhaps attempt the WP:Bold option already mentioned above; or maybe I'll just leave it all to somebody else on grounds that I have better things to do with my time).

Tlhslobus (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tlhslobus: You have made your point at length, and it's not up to you or me to assess consensus or lack thereof. Let an admin handle closure. — JFG ^talk 21:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect back over to Margaret Thatcher or else just delete this article. It, frankly, appears to be a mess. As has been pointed out by several people now, we have a clear-cut primary target situation where Thatcher is "The Iron Lady". A lot of information here about how such and such is seen as "the only real man in X" or whatever is merely trivia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Margaret Thatcher, not seeing much cause for controversy on that. Artw (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certes Networks[edit]

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

Lacks notability. The article is a little spammy, and I can't find any nontrivial coverage of the company (nor is any cited). --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means and I'm surprised this has not been restarted before, but that seems to answer itself in that it was existing for years and years as it is, but it ends here now, all of the information and sources are simply PR and there's literally no non-PR information, since every single thing mentioned advertises the company's services only how the company exactly would itself. SwisterTwister talk 01:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO and "corporate spam". If it were to be removed, there would be nothing left. Who accepts these articles? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody. It was created in 2010, which I think might be before that was a widespread practice, without review. FalconK (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then all the more reason to delete it with fire :-) .K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 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) 08:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catbird Networks[edit]

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

Lacks notability. There is basically no reliable, nontrivial third-party coverage of this company, and the article reads like a pitch. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are several give-aways here, one is that the company information was copy and pasted here, the second is the one-time-used account and then the next is the fact the current contents listed are still trivial and unconvincing, from the PR information to the thin and barebone sources that actually never say anything significant. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing any significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:07, 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CoSoSys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability. Negligible coverage by 3rd party sources. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are very unconvincing - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the performance of the 1st AfD is pathetic in that it was closed as Keep with the mere showing of trivial sources and none of it was actually substantial or convincing, the current contents and sources are the same in that it's simply trivial company information such as its business plans, activities and other financial matters, none of it matters and none of it is significant. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there are several significant, reliable, sources with wide coverage. That is what counts. Contribute23 (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two of those sources are incidental coverage (mentioning the company while quoting its CEO); the third is essentially incidental (are they really notable for outsourcing development to Romania?). Only the cnet article can really be considered coverage of this company at all, and that's pretty tenuous as I see it. FalconK (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; 'nuff said. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 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) 08:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudbric[edit]

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

No notability. Virtually no 3rd party coverage; also, there's an unresolved notability cleanup tag from 14 months ago. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a bit confusing at first. Its actually about one of Penta Security's products called Cloudbric (and not a company by itself), but half of the article is about Penta Security itself. Penta Security may be notable but not this product. There is only very little coverage of it in reliable sources, and when there is then its only a short mentioning in a press release or something similar. Penta Security is a Korean company, but the coverage there seem to be the same: short mentions of this product in passing while speaking about Penta Security. It therefore fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. The article itself is also currently written like an advertisment and has been created by a single purpose account, so WP:PROMO applies. It therefore should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the contents themselves had actually been copy and pasted, the account was not noticeably used again and the current information and sources themselves are all trivial and unconvincing because there are ghost-sentences, never actually listing something significantly convincing and the information the speaks for itself, it only advertises the company's information and services, there's no non-PR information here. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; nothing to be salvaged here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 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. MER-C 08:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BullGuard[edit]

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

Borderline spam. The advertisement tag is unresolved since 2014, and there is very little written about this company by 3rd party sources. Little to no evidence of notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With so little apparent notability, and lack of reputable secondary and tertiary sources, the article should be deleted. --Egroeg5 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced by the sources either, never mind the promotional tone - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an article on a business, it's necessary to show a bit more towards notability than the facts they simply exist and carry on their business. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this company is known, but the article is not actually convincing, since the listed sources are simply trivial information and unconvincing PR, the sources are never actually substantial to suggest there would be meaningful improvements, and everything information-wise is simply stating what the company says about itself, there's no actually non-business-listing information, and that's because this only serves for PR. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't know the company so I turned to wikipedia. A quick search yields: av-test august 2015 Consumentenbond mei 2016 toptenreviews They apparently use Bitdefender's anti-virus engine: techradar Are non of these reputable sources? Awards NicoLaan (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage in TechRadar doesn't provide a lot of depth; the rest of the sources are almost certainly not WP:RS. The endorsements of the company's products are little more than proof of existence in that industry. FalconK (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - and proof that by these organisations at that time they were considered best. When is an organisation that tests (anti-virus) software considered a reputable source? Do I need to ask this for each source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? NicoLaan (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since we don't seem to have consensus over there on whether these types of awards are meaningful, it certainly couldn't hurt. My position is that most of those awards are a cheap marketing gimmick, and so I'd say they are not WP:RS, but of course I don't speak for everyone. FalconK (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; this is a product brochure in the form of a Wiki article. Sources listed above are not convincing and do not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing to salvage here; strictly corporate spam. PS -- Extensively edited by a user with no other contributions, so paid editing is highly likely: Special:Contributions/Alexandrunistor. Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lance[edit]

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

Lacking notability. There's virtually no significant coverage of this company anywhere. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable corporation. Not much to say, they are a small it security company. They fail WP:NCORP and especially WP:CORPDEPTH in all points. There are not really any reliable sources out there which gave them significant coverage. There are a few short news blurbs and press releases here and there, but nothing of significance which could satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. There is a little bit on their LT Auditor+ product in older computer mags, but its again just some routine release mentions/overviews which would not warrant an article for the company. Dead Mary (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bad sourcing in article, couldn't find convincing sourcing elsewhere - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources offered are literally simply PR and republished PR, none of it lists information that actually matters for an article, and it's certainly not substantial; it's clear this article was only existing to showcase what there was to say about the company, and that's not what's acceptable at all. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 material and the only purpose for this article to exist is to promote the company and its products. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bloombase[edit]

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

Lacks notability. There is basically nothing written about this company but press releases. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as largely PR, from the specific information about its services to then the specific information about the overall business and what it wants to say about itself, which goes to the sources too, containing this. This is PR and is not coming close at all for actual substance, let alone a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a client prospectus in the form of a Wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

আধ্যাত্মিক[edit]

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

Article is in Bengali language and hence unsuitable for en.wp. May be hosted instead on bn.wp. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 10:14, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 17:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THUNDER BOLD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, may be a hoax Kleuske (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a single source on this, other than the Wikipedia article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is basically a copy of the same content from the speedy deleted article at ZUKE TROY, only with a different name (google cache still has it). Seems to be a hoax. Maybe again Speedy Delete like the last article according to CSD G4? See the other discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZUKE TROY Dead Mary (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I believe this is "speedy delete" material; completely unreferenced and possibly a hoax. No sources are available to substantiate any of this. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 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. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walk-in[edit]

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

No evidence that this is anything but WP:OR No evidence of any notability and no references are provided. Searches yield nothing of value. Fails WP:GNG. Previous PROD removed by IP editor without any given reason Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:FRINGE concept which gained a lot of traction from Ruth Montgomery's 1979 book Strangers Among Us. Somewhat harder to find citations since the phrase to "walk in" is widely used in the normal sense, but making it plural might help in finding sources, also adding the phrase ruth montgomery to the search is helpful. Also, the nominator's statement "Previous PROD removed by IP editor without any given reason" is false; the IP said "but some other references do include the term, and it needs explanation on wikipedia, i came here looking for it. if you can improve the article go ahead, but don't delete it". Anyway, I've just added six scholarly citations from notable new-religion scholars. Softlavender (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice one! Keep per new refs - David Gerard (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per new sources and referenced added to the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 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 speedy delete. spam Jimfbleak (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Math Education[edit]

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST, Prodded several times. Kleuske (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the nom. Seems beyond debate! Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this is eligible for a speedy delete, we shouldn't even be discussing this. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 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 procedural close. Article already deleted.. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chathamangalam(Kannur)[edit]

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

duplicate wrongly created Evergreen Chathamangalam (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC) 100% duplicate...please delete. Creating deletion discussion for Chathamangalam(Kannur)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Professors in the United States#Visiting professor. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished visiting professor[edit]

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

No sources added since May 2007 (when {{unreferenced}} was added) and fails WP:GNG. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Professors in the United States, which already makes mention of the term in its discussion of American use of "visiting professor". There's really nothing more to say than what that article already says. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Professors in the United States per Squeamish Ossifrage. A plausible search terms best explained in the broader context of an article about professorial titles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Professors_in_the_United_States#Visiting_professor where the topic is discussed; nothing in the article suggests individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article is currently a pure dictionary definition and there's no sign that it can be expanded enough to rise above that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Visiting scholar article is available, similarly visiting professor is required as this designation is common in asian countries. It should not be be redirected to Professors_in_the_United_States#Visiting_professor. Jessie1979 (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
- Perhaps we should redirect it to visiting scholar instead of Professors in the United States § Visiting professor then. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:10, 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 redirect to Mark Rae. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ordered from the Catalogue[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete per nom~~ - nice album (I'm playing it now), but I'm having trouble finding even unreliable sources about it - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mark Rae is probably best - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: well, there's a review on AllMusic and another one in Muzik magazine (page 74), so there are at least two RS reviews of the album, and I would be willing to bet that there are more reviews to be found in the print versions of other UK dance magazines at the time, such as Mixmag, DJ Mag, Ministry and Jockey Slut. Whether these reviews are enough to keep the article, given that you can probably find two or more reviews for any other dance mix/compilation released over the last twenty-five years despite the fact that virtually none of them have ever charted, I don't know. Richard3120 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, they're short reviews saying "nice compilation", which it is, but nothing that seems significant to me. Maybe I'm asking too much ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I am guarded in my "keep" vote, because there must be literally hundreds, if not thousands, of mix compilations that would meet point 1 of WP:NALBUM and therefore "pass" notability... but I don't necessarily consider them all to be worthy of a Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Rae as a compromise solution. The album does not appear to be independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 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.

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chathamangalam(Kannur)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaanga[edit]

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

I couldn't establish its notability Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be failing WP:GNG. Didn't find even a single reference for this topic. Anup [Talk] 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more commentary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unreferenced one-line essay; as at similar AfDs the reality of this subject is dubious. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete What is even there to discuss ?Light2021 (talk) 20:36, 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 keep. Article meets SCHOOLOUTCOMES & GNG so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Dasmesh Academy[edit]

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

The educational institute with no significance at the state or national level. The article is full of primary sources. I had CSD-ed it but got declined with the reason that educational institutes are of significance. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source mentioned in the "two-liner" article suggest the creditability of the institute. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the appropriate test notability rather than credibility though, Vivvt? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are still awaiting for the creator (or any other editor, for that matter) to establish the notability through article content. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is established by the coverage in major newspapers, cited in the article, no? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Generally educational institutes are considered notable if they are degree-awarding or affiliated with some education board. Means in Indian context if they are a school or college or university (private or deemed or government or govt-funded or such). What is this institute? Is it some coaching class? Then it is not notable unless it passes GNG. Article prose is not clear as to what it exactly is. Creator @Harnoors:, can you elaborate? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. @Dharmadhyaksha: It is a higher secondary school affiliated to C.B.S.E (source). Anup [Talk] 15:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:GNG as well. Sources are cited in the article. Anup [Talk] 15:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:30, 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 merge to TV.com. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tome[edit]

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

Someone added {{notability}} in May, and I agree: I can't actually find any coverage of TV Tome other than passing mentions. And even if there is coverage over the acquisition by CNET, that doesn't make TV Tome itself notable enough for an article (per WP:SPIP). Prof. Squirrel (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TV.com. The lead can be merged to TV.com, but the rest of it is basically just fansite cruft. It gets trivial mentions throughout Google Books, but there doesn't seem to be anything about it. [31] from The A.V. Club and [32] from New York summarize [33] from Geek.com, an article about how some kid trolled the internet into thinking his fan fiction was real. Apparently, he added a bunch of fake characters and episodes from some obscure 1990s cartoon to TV Tome, the IMDb, and Wikipedia. These article are more about the unreliability of user-generated content than they are about TV Tome itself. The site seems to have been popular enough for a bunch of trivial mentions throughout the internet, so a merge (or redirect, at least) is probably warranted. And maybe we can mention the trolling of TV Tome in TV.com, too, if people think it's relevant enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agreed with NinjaRobotPirate. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Waltz Recording Co.[edit]

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

Being previously de-PRODed (especially a decade ago) is no reason to de-PROD. This is a non-notable recording studio. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost no coverage at all, and at that, the only mentions I can find at all are related only to Gwen Stefani. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is literally no actual substance, simply explaining the basic words about the company, but there's especially no actual convincing, no convincing information or sources, nothing to suggest an acceptable article therefore otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 01:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uncited corporate essay on a non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 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 List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Sa–Schr). (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Schneider (SS officer)[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Preiß (2nd nomination)

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

Un unremarkable SS captain; significant RS coverage cannot be found. What comes are trivial mentions and a few paragraphs in a heavily POV & non RS work by Franz Kurowski; here's the link, whereupon the subject "libertates" the city of Kovel.

The article was created in late 2008 using non WP:RS & fringe sources, such as frontjkemper.info and aforementioned Kurowski: 2008 version. The article was one of about 500 pages created around that timeframe by editor Jim Sweeney (now retired). The only reliable citation that can be found is Veit Scherzer's Knight's Cross Holders book; this is insufficient to overcome WP:BIO1E and lack of reliable sources.

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

Available sources on KC winners were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer), with an insightful contribution from editor Assayer, who provided historiographic perspective on the sources (Thomas & Wegmann; Krätschmer; others) that were mentioned in related discussions. Per available information, such sources, even if available on the subject (which is not certain), are non-RS for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the further reading here seems to be different than the previously discussed sources? Do we know if any of it includes non-trivial coverage of the subject? TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never mind, reread the previous AfDs and see they were all discussed before. Nothing seems to be distinct about this soldier. No reliable sources and is not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Further reading and References sections have been indiscriminately added to this and similar articles. Kurowski's Panzer Aces is not RS; and Mitcham is unlikely to mention the subject. Compare with Karl Heinz Lichte, for example; these reference sections are the same. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further clarification. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IMO, there doesn't seem to be enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand alone article, but given that the award appears to be verified, I think a redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Sa–Schr) seems like a valid option. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a possible solution. I think deletion would be better because I doubt there will be much searching going on for individual KC recipients given how many there are, and I don't see the need to preserve the edit history of pages made up of unreliable sources. All that being said, if there develops a broader consensus to redirect for verified KC recepients, it wouldn't cause me heartburn. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to list article where mentioned. Otherwise, at this point, not seeing notability for stand alone article. If it is kept in the end, then it would help if someone could expand the article with more in depth information. Because it is not present at this time. Kierzek (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the approach that editor AustralianRupert mentions at Lichte AfD ("Potentially a redirect (...) applied more broadly to the other stub-like KC articles?") has been proposed at the discussion that I linked to above. Please see the summary in this subsection (Part 3) (search for "Ok, here's a stab at a set of suggestion" to go directly to the details of the proposal). However, this has been objected to by editor Peacemaker ("There is nothing approaching a consensus for such action here"), so it did not look like a compromise solution was possible, hence the AfDs.

What has changed since then is that the source that was mentioned on the linked thread (Thomas & Wegmann) has been deem insufficient and/or unreliable, even if it were to be produced, and that essentially no reliable historiography exists on the bulk of KC winners, either in English or German, unless they were notable for other things:

"...Though it might be possible to reconstruct the military careers of each and every Knight's Cross recipients, these biographies present a distorted picture of the actual events (i.e., if the provision "played an important role in a significant military event" in WP:Soldier, is to be based on historical fact instead of Nazi propaganda). Veteran's organizations, particularly of the Waffen-SS, have based their image as an elite on their Knight's Cross Recipients. Collectors of militaria have an interest in such biographies (which is the reason, why Thomas & Wegmann reproduce bestowals documents). But on the whole, individual Knight's Cross recipients like Debus did never reveive any WP:SIGCOV by historiography, let alone in the broader public" (from Debus AfD).

Thus, most of the KC winner articles that have been brought to AfD recently were deleted (with a couple of redirects); none were closed as keep or no consensus. So perhaps this could be revisited, although I'm not confident that a consensus on this matter can be achieved with the editor.

In this particular case, like editor TonyBallioni, I believe that preserving the article history that contains inaccurate and/or biased information is not in the best interest of the project. Delete & redirect may be a better approach, or simply delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that if the intention is to take them all to AfD, that it will consume a lot of bandwidth for many editors (whose efforts might be best focused on content improvement) when potentially there is a quicker, more constructive and common sense approach that might resolve the issue with less angst. The problem I see with "delete and redirect" IMO is that it has the potential to undermine a potential compromise due to the difficulties (both real and perceived) it creates for non admins to recreate an article if significant coverage is found at a later date. The point of the redirect approach is to create a solution that the majority of parties can support due to the flexibility it provides (hence it is not seen as a "zero sum" solution). Anyway, my suggestion is that redirects could be the initial bold adjust for the articles that seem non controversially to be lacking sufficient coverage (which would arguably be a lot, IMO), with a confirmatory serial of AfDs where there were any objections. In the interests of transparency, potentially the changes could be tracked on a sub page somewhere, which would allow potentially more of a consolidated and process driven approach that would allow interested editors to see what articles were being redirect or deleted. It would also potentially facilitate a more consolidated approach to discussing the contentious articles. The important thing that I hope all parties will take on board in regards to the current issues surrounding the KC recipient articles is that rigidly holding to an opinion and advocating and "all or none approach" isn't going to resolve the issue. There needs to be some compromise on all sides, otherwise it will just become intractable and have wider implications than just the topic of KC recipients. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the merit of this approach for verified KC recipients (I believe this soldier is one because of the lack of notation about the German Federal Archives like seen at Karl Heinz Lichte and other articles in this series.) I very much oppose redirecting for unverified awards like the Lichte article. I would generally prefer the delete/delete and redirect approach, but I do agree that the contentious AfDs are becoming a bit old. If we can develop community consensus here for a compromise of not opposing redirects for confirmed KC recipients to keep the AfD's down, while still taking unverified awards to AfD/PROD, I would support that. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. What is being proposed by editor AustralianRupert & TonyBallioni (...not opposing redirects for confirmed KC recipients to keep the AfD's down...) is very similar to what was put forth at the link above by editor HydroniumHydroxide. I supported the proposal (link). But it could not be implemented at that time, as it was strenuously opposed by editor Peacemaker. Since no other MilHist coordinators participated in the discussion, it appeared that the editor represented the voice of MilHist coordinators, and that further discussions were pointless: "I can't see any likelihood that a consensus will be reached that we (...) give carte blanche to anyone to turn them into redirects to the alphabetical lists, so there seems to be little point in continuing the back and forth".

This opposition is what essentially forced this and other AfDs to happen. The same editor also opposed the deletions (AfD:Beck and AfD:Debus, for example), along with other MilHist coordinators.

However, if the proposal can be made to stick, I would be fine with proceeding this way. (In the case of this particular nomination, I believe the article should be deleted since it already reached the AfD stage).

Still, I have two concerns associated with the proposal:

The lists themselves (sample). The articles are not neutral (i.e. using Nazi era terminology; being based to a large extent on a non-independent source by the former head of the Association of KC Holders; obfuscating the validity of this source by referring to the AKC's order commission as a blue ribbon commission, while Further reading sections include books that have been described as "neo-Nazi publications", and so forth).
Similar to TonyBallioni, I would not support a redirect to the lists for the disputed recipients, and I believe their names should be removed from the lists as this information has not been confirmed by reliable sources. As discussed at these AfDs (i.e. Debus), the information on unconfirmed recipients borders on fancruft, while Wikipedia caters to the general public.

I opened a thread on these topics at the MilHist Talk page, (link to discussion, but that went nowhere fast. I also attempted to improve the lists themselves, but this was summarily reverted link. Editor HH referred to these lists as "alphabetical monstrosities" in the linked discussion and I believe he was right. :-)

Perhaps AR's proposal represents a new consensus among MilHist coordinators and this can be addressed more amicably? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:, I share your opinions on this article (and these series of articles in general), but I think if we could develop a broader compromise consensus on the KC, it'd be a sign of good faith to agree for a redirect to this article. If there isn't a broader consensus, my general thoughts are for delete on a case-by-case basis through AfD or PROD, but I think @AustralianRupert:'s is worth trying (with my concerns about unverified recipients being taken to AfD instead still standing here.) Just a thought to try to decrease the workload at AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day again. Addressing K.e. Coffman's comment about "new consensus among MilHist coordinators" and "it appeared that the editor represented the voice of MilHist coordinators": Regardless of whether an editor is a Milhist coordinator or not, they speak only for themselves. I don't believe that @Peacemaker67: would have said otherwise, as such I am concerned that potentially you misunderstand the role. So, please be clear, I am providing my opinion only, and it holds equal weight to anyone else. Other editors no doubt hold a variety of different opinions. That is their right. Regarding using AfD or PROD for the articles on the unverified recipients: I could support this for the stub like articles that have no significant coverage, so long as there is consensus not to mention the unverified recipients by name on the consolidated lists. If this consensus is established, then I think largely PROD would be fine for the individual articles where a PROD hadn't previously been declined, so long as the process is transparent, i.e. an announcement for each PROD is made on the main Milhist page and other relevant talk pages (Biography and Germany etc) to ensure interested editors know about them so they have a chance to object. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarifications. Editor Peacemaker makes frequent references to "MilHist Community" and "we" in communications with me / about me. For example:
"these deletions are not in consensus in the Milhist community"

"That is not how we do military biographies on en WP".

I suggest all coordinators keep a weather eye out for this behaviour"

~~Also note that the quote above contains the same "we". So perhaps I misunderstood. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance of these diffs to this debate and think that you are placing a little bit too much emphasis on comments taken out of context. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Sa–Schr). As a verified KC recipient it seems a valid search term to me; however, it does seem to lack the significant coverage req'd for a standalone article. On the wider topic of how to handle these entries I'd say that all the verified recipients lacking SIGCOV could be redirected to the parent article in a similar fashion. Perhaps also for the unverified recipients too. The fact that they appear in a number of widely available sources (even if unreliable) which state that they may or may not have received the award indicates to me that someone somewhere is likely at some point to be interested in finding out more about them and that at the very least they are valid search terms also. I'm not even convinced that they should be removed from the parent articles either to be honest. Why can't we retain the information about these unverified awards but just make it clear that they are unverified (and the reasons why)? That would make Wikipedia more comprehensive and is better than just blowing them up and salting the earth so they never grow again. I don't see why we need to delete them wholesale and think that that would be a bad outcome. Anotherclown (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm convinced by AustralianRupert and Anotherclown's comments. I don't think the edit history here is particularly valuble given the unreliable sources, but if reliable sources could be found for verified recipients, I can see how the past edit history of the page could be of value. Unverified are a different matter, but I agree with AustralianRupert's suggestion on the Lichte AfD that a narrowly construed RFC is the best way to deal with that issue going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AustralianRupert. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:47, 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 List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L). (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Heinz Lichte[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Preiß (2nd nomination)

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

An unremarkable SS captain; significant RS coverage cannot be found; no evidence of the award can be found in the archives. What comes are trivial mentions in heavily POV works: Willi Fey's Armor Battles of the Waffen-SS and Peter Strassner's European Volunteers.

The article was created in late 2008 using non WP:RS & fringe sources, such as frontjkemper.info and ritterkreuztraeger.de: 2008 version. The latter web site is black listed at WikiProject Spam: link to report. The article was one of about 500 pages created around that timeframe by editor Jim Sweeney (now retired). The only reliable citations that can be found is Veit Scherzer's Knight's Cross Holders book which disputes the award; this is insufficient to overcome WP:BIO1E and lack of reliable sources.

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

Available sources on KC winners were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Debus (SS officer), with an insightful contribution from editor Assayer, who provided historiographic perspective on the sources (Thomas & Wegmann; Krätschmer; others) that were mentioned in related discussions. Per available information, such sources, even if available on the subject (which is not certain), are non-RS for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the lack of reliable sources, the one source that exists is unsure whether the award was made. Doesn't meet the notability guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree, there definitely doesn't seem enough coverage to warrant a stand alone article here. Potentially a redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L) might be sustainable, though, or if it has been decided to treat the disputed/unconfirmed recipients separately to whatever solution is agreed upon in that manner. Thoughts on this approach? Could this be applied more broadly to the other stub-like KC articles that do not seem to have sufficient coverage to write a full length bio? (The benefit I see is that it would allow re-creation if, at a later date, more in depth coverage was located, while at the same time allowing readers to find the information that is currently known without supporting a large number of perma-stubs). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to redirect on confirmed awards (though I have !voted delete on them in general because I think that is a better option since I suspect search is unlikely and I don't see the need to preserve the edit history for articles based entirely on unreliable sources.) For unverified awards, I don't see need for a redirect at all. These very well could have been people who made up their claim to the award for which they are supposedly noteworthy. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to list article where mentioned. Otherwise, at this point, not seeing notability for stand alone article. If it is kept in the end, then it would help if someone could expand it with more in depth information. Because it is not there at present. Kierzek (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the approach that editor AustralianRupert mentions ("Potentially a redirect (...) applied more broadly to the other stub-like KC articles?") has been proposed at the discussion that I linked to above. Please see the summary in this subsection (Part 3) (search for "Ok, here's a stab at a set of suggestion" to go directly to the details of the proposal). However, this has been objected to by editor Peacemaker ("There is nothing approaching a consensus for such action here"), so it did not look like a compromise solution was possible, hence the AfDs.

What has changed since then is that the source that was mentioned on the linked thread (Thomas & Wegmann) has been deem insufficient and/or unreliable, even if it were to be produced, and that essentially no reliable historiography exists on the bulk of KC winners, either in English or German, unless they were notable for other things:

"...Though it might be possible to reconstruct the military careers of each and every Knight's Cross recipients, these biographies present a distorted picture of the actual events (i.e., if the provision "played an important role in a significant military event" in WP:Soldier, is to be based on historical fact instead of Nazi propaganda). Veteran's organizations, particularly of the Waffen-SS, have based their image as an elite on their Knight's Cross Recipients. Collectors of militaria have an interest in such biographies (which is the reason, why Thomas & Wegmann reproduce bestowals documents). But on the whole, individual Knight's Cross recipients like Debus did never reveive any WP:SIGCOV by historiography, let alone in the broader public" (from Debus AfD).

Thus, most of the KC winner articles that have been brought to AfD recently were deleted (with a couple of redirects); none were closed as keep or no consensus. So perhaps this could be revisited, although I'm not confident that a consensus on this matter can be achieved with the editor.

In this particular case, like editor TonyBallioni, I believe that preserving the article history that contains inaccurate and/or biased information is not in the best interest of the project. Delete & redirect may be a better approach, or simply delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less open to redirects for articles where the status of the award is unclear. I think just deleting makes more sense and there isn't really a need for recreating the article as a redirect. Delete and redirect makes much more sense for the ones where the award is verified but notability isn't established. This particular article just makes sense to delete to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, no worries, seems fair enough. I think the question about the listing of the unverified recipients on the parent lists needs to be resolved before wholesale AfDs and PRODs, though. My suggestion in this regard is a narrowly focused RFC that asks a very specific question. The exact question would need to be carefully thought out so that it was neutrally worded, but once that was determined I think that would offer the way forward. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think a narrow RFC on the topic seems the best way to proceed. I'm striking my delete !vote for this AfD and changing to redirect in the interim. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L). Does seem to lack SIGCOV for standalone article, but still potentially a valid search term even if the award is unverified. Someone interested in the KC might well turn to Wikipedia to find out more about this issue. Deleting and not leaving a redirect, or evening deleting and then redirecting seems overly cautious and unnecessary. Just because we have a redirect doesn't imply anything about whether the award was actually made so it doesn't cost us anything. Equally if the topic receives further coverage at a later date the article can be recreated (if there is consensus to do so). Anotherclown (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I still think unverified stub-like articles probably should be deleted, but think redirecting the existing AfD's is a good compromise until such an RFC can be concluded. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a non-notable SS officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Air[edit]

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

Not to be confused with Trump Shuttle, this page simply describes the "air assets" owned by Trump, with no indication of notability. This is no more relevant than a list of the man's ties or combs. If there were a page listing Trump's assets, the content could be deposited there. TheBlueCanoe 03:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Redirect to Trump Shuttle/Trump Airlines rather than to any assets page. Lourdes 03:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trump Shuttle is a different topic than this, and I think the redirect could be confusing is someone was searching for the current air assets. Best move would be to delete for lack of notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i think this page should be added to The trump organization page and make it shorter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.163.199 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this itself actually contains nothing different than the other articles, therefore there's no actual necessary information if it's simply repeated. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trump Shuttle, this is clearly a misleading title, in addition to the notability issues described above. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. I advocate deletion as a redirect would be confusing. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per listcruft and redundancy of listed info. Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 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) 08:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kongo Beats (Record Producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Highly promotional article about a beats producer with no evidence of any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spammy and lacking evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find any evidence of notability either. FalconK (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as social-media-like information and then trivial and unconvincing sources, nothing here amounts to an actually substantial article to suggest we would benefit from improving. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 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. Minus the sock(s), only one editor is for "keep". Sandstein 12:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Wild[edit]

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

This is a WP:BLP of a biomedical scientist who is on the borderline of notability, and who may well become clearly notable in the future. He is a physician who does research on Huntington's disease. He has done public outreach and been interviewed a few times within programs about the disease, but does not quite meet WP:GNG. WP:ACADEMIC indicates that working closely with a notable person does not confer notability, and that publication impact should be assessed in the context of the field of scholarship. Wild is a researcher in the laboratory group of Sarah Tabrizi, who is certainly notable. His most recent professional award is an MRC Scientist Fellowship [34], which is described as being for scientists at the career stage of "transition to independence". Thus, he is not an independent researcher conducting his own research program, but rather is at the stage of beginning to move towards such a position. The page draws attention to his winning of a 2015 "Insight of the Year" award, but an examination of the sources indicates that the citation in Nature Reviews Neurology is about the Tabrizi group as a whole, and the 2015 award is given by a small study group that focuses on Huntington's and was given to multiple people of whom Wild is just one [35]. By general standards, his publications have been cited very highly, in a manner that would typically pass WP:ACADEMIC quite easily. However, in the context of the area of study, it is worth comparing the citations for Wild, [36], with those of Tabrizi, [37], because it is a field where papers get very large citation numbers, and in context, Wild is cited far less than Tabrizi. Wild's most cited work is a chapter in a book co-written by Tabrizi, and all of his other top publications are as a member of the Tabrizi lab. Furthermore, most of his cited works are multi-author studies involving large research teams, and he is listed as neither the lead nor senior member of the team – Tabrizi is. Consequently, his citation numbers are only as a member of Tabrizi's large research team, and he is not yet quite at the level of attaining recognition independently of her. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although apparently I accepted this at AfC in April (I can't remember it at all, must be losing my marbles) on balance I would say it's WP:TOOSOON for Dr Wild. I think it's fair to say he hasn't made a significant impact in his field independently of his very large research group, and none of the other WP:PROF criteria seem to apply. There's the odd mention in the media, but not enough to satisfy the GNG. So my !vote is to delete while acknowledging the strong possibility that he will be considered notable in a few year's time. Joe Roe (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither his academic activites or his public outreach have risen to the level of notability. They may someday, but they have not yet at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is based on a highly selective representation of Dr Wild's position and an over-stringent reading of WP:PROF:

WP:PROF does not call for the parsing of author lists for seniority -- simply being "an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" is sufficient per se for notability. He clearly qualifies on this criterion: Dr Wild has 53 such publications, many highly cited.
The article could do a better job of setting out the three "significant new concept[s], technique[s] or ideas" (WP:PROF again) with which Dr Wild is identified: "He described a novel pathogenic pathway of immune activation in Huntington’s"; "he published the first successful detection and quantification of mutant huntingtin protein (the known cause of Huntington’s) in human cerebrospinal fluid"; and "He has also published novel genetic causes of 'phenocopy' syndromes that mimic Huntington's disease." He is first author on the publications relating to these discoveries.
The nomination's analysis of the 'Huntington's Disease' book chapter is misleading - Prof Tabrizi is one of three co-editors of the book (the book is not "authored" by her) but Dr Wild was first author of a 2-author chapter. This is the most widely cited book in the field and being a chapter author is clear evidence of prominence in that field. 13 of its 17 chapters have more than one author.
The notability comparison with Prof Tabrizi is artificial and unnecessary. Not all notable people are equally notable. He can be less notable than Prof Tabrizi but still notable. He simply has to meet one or more of the criteria in WP:PROF. The nomination wrongly paints Dr Wild as just one member of a large research group - in fact he is one of only two principal researchers in that group, leading at least one multinational study as chief investigator. Thus, he clearly is "an independent researcher conducting his own research program" as the nomination suggests is necessary.
The nomination dismisses the Huntington Study Group, which awarded Dr Wild its 2015 'Insight of the Year' prize, as "small" - it is in fact the largest network of Huntington's disease researchers in North America, representing over 400 researchers and 100 study sites. The nomination suggests a problem with the fact that such awards may be given to "multiple people" but in fact there is just one winner in each of four categories. It's not hard to think of other prestigious awards given to one winner in each of several categories. Again, the nomination sets a higher bar than WP:PROF or WP:GNG require.
The nomination omits consideration of Dr Wild's 2014 'Researcher of the Year' award from the Huntington's Disease Society of America - an international award by the largest HD patient organisation in the world. Bear in mind that WP:PROF only requires one such award, and Dr Wild has two.
Finally, the nomination's dismissal of Dr Wild's MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship is based on another misreading of WP:PROF, which says "significant academic awards and honors may include, for example ... highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships)". The MRC website makes it very clear that a Clinician Scientist Fellowship is senior to the postdoctoral level, as required by the guideline.

I ask only that editors use the actual criteria in WP:PROF, and Dr Wild's actual achievements, not on one very selective reading of them, in considering this proposal. Apologies that the lengthy nomination required such a lengthy rebuttal. Thanks. Braydonowen (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that Braydonowen is the creator of the page. I think that you misunderstand some things about the guideline:

Where you quote "an author" as opposed to "the author", you are quoting that from a note that expands on the main criterion, which is clearly not saying that any author counts. There are very high-impact studies in particle physics and gene sequencing, that have over a hundred authors. We would certainly have a page about the main leaders of the research teams, but we would not have one hundred pages covering every co-author.
We assess the importance or impact of new concepts based on secondary sources. In this case, the awards are consistent with a very accomplished member of a research team, as opposed to the leader of the team, and those papers are all written with Tabrizi.
Yes, there were co-editors of the book; I understand that. But it is the book as a whole that is highly cited, and not only for Wild's chapter within it. Wild is, as you indicate, just one of many contributors to the book. Is there really independent sourcing to indicate that this is the most widely cited book in the field, and how narrowly is the field defined for that characterization?
You provide two sources to indicate that Wild is not just another member of the Tabrizi group, but no one has argued that that is the case. The first source presents it like Tabrizi is the full-professor-equivalent investigator whereas Wild is the assistant-professor-equivalent investigator. The second source, the "multinational study", is like being the PI (principal investigator) on a grant. It does not support the contention that he is an investigator who is independent of the Tabrizi group.
The Society for Neuroscience has well over 30,000 members, so it's not like the Huntington's Study Group award really measures up to what WP:PROF calls "a highly prestigious award"; it's really an award from within a specialized field. The link showing winners does not support what you said about four winners in four separate categories. There are all kinds of awards for promising new scientists at early stages of their careers, but those do not satisfy the notability guideline.
The link you show for the American Disease Society's award shows him as a co-winner. And again, this isn't really at the level that WP:PROF is talking about.
Nowhere in the nomination did I argue that Wild is a post-doc. But he is not really an independent investigator either. He is senior to a post-doc, but junior to an investigator who is recognized for contributions that are independent of those of his doctoral advisor. When universities evaluate junior faculty for tenure, they generally disregard publications co-authored with the PhD and post-doc advisors, and look only at the candidate's publications after becoming completely independent.

I think everyone in the discussion here so far agrees that Wild is likely to become notable, so nobody is really "dismissing" his credentials. It's just that Wikipedia requires more for notability, and this is a case of WP:Too soon. WP:PROF says that it is what is sometimes called the "Average Professor Test" (not the "average lab member test"): does the page subject "stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than [other Professor-level researchers] in the field?" He simply isn't at that stage just yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I'm quoting from the guideline. It could have said sole author, or senior author, or first author, but it doesn't. Scientists' publication records are not limited to first or senior author positions. Let's stick to the guideline.
OK, in this case, secondary sources would be the articles citing Dr Wild's work on these discoveries. They have 278 citations; 74 citations; 21 citations in 1 year. Dr Wild was first (i.e. "lead" author of these), satisfying even an overreading of the guideline per point 1.
The book has over a thousand citations and Dr Wild is an author, as the guideline requires.
WP:PROF has multiple criteria to indicate that being full Professor is not the only requirement. Your citation says "Wild is a researcher in the laboratory group of Sarah Tabrizi... he is not an independent researcher conducting his own research program". I am pointing out it would have been more correct to say "Wild is one of two senior researchers in one of the world's biggest Huntington's disease research groups, and is an independent researcher conducting his own research program."
Once again this is false equivalance. An award does not need to be from SfN or an organisation of any particular size in order to be a significant honour in a field. Moreover you've misread the page I cited; HSG's Insights Awards are for 1 author in each of 4 categories and are not specifically for junior researchers.
It is not relevant that Wild was one of two researchers awarded HDSA's researcher of the year. To coin an illustrative example, Nobel prizes are often co-awarded and that does not diminish their impact.
Again, Dr Wild is an independent investigator - and the guideline specifically has multiple criteria to indicate that tenure is not necessary for notability, but specifically enumerates that publication record, significant discoveries and awards count for notability. I ask only that editors follow the actual guideline. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 13:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick points: At this point, the discussion is past being tl;dr, so I will just say that a correct reading of the guideline is that it is ultimately the "Average Professor Test". Second, I see that you messaged one editor about this AfD, who spoke favorably of this page at the guideline talk page, without messaging the other editors in that discussion. That's a violation of WP:Canvas, so please do not do that again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete i struggle with very fine readings of sub-guidelines like PROF when somebody just fails GNG. Wild is marginally notable right now at best. I don't understand the urgency and passion to "keep". It is WP:TOOSOON now; delete this and we can recreate the article when (and if) Wild is solidly notable. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that marginal notability is sufficient to keep. Braydonowen (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor said "at best". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Braydonowen and WP:OUTCOMES. We have certainly kept scientists with a similar h-score of 25. We also tend to keep non-criminal adults with borderline notability. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. And WP:PROF says that h-scores are unreliable and that publications need to be considered in the context of the specific scientific field. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting response, as your nomination is largely based on an invalid comparison with another neuroscientist, i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFF. Braydonowen (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you think, then you misunderstand what OTHERSTUFF is about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both sides have cited policy. More eyes on this discussion might help. MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Given that the top publication listed in his Google scholar profile is a book whose editors do not include him, I find it difficult to take his citation counts there at face value. And if one looks only at the first-authored papers (which by the way we frequently do at those academic deletion debates where author precedence has come into question) his citation counts are 85, 74, 72, 45, 43, 30, 22, 18, 17, 13, 11, for an unimpressive first-author-h-index of 11. The research accomplishments listed in the article, when they have no external validation, are of the form "he did this particular thing first" which is true (or should be true) of every research paper ever published. So the only things in the article which rise above all that are the "Insight of the Year" award (one of four that year) and his online and film advocacy work. I don't think that's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great caution is needed here, as WP:PROF specifically advises against the use of H-indices and certainly doesn't support self-calculated indices of this kind. Even if they have been used in other discussions, per WP:OTHERSTUFF that is not a reason to use them here against the advice in the notability guideline. As noted above, the guideline specifically doesn't require consideration of first or senior author publications, saying instead that the person should be "an author" of widely cited publications. However, if we are going to look at this metric, let's at least do it properly and include J Exp Med 2008 (281 citations), J Proteome Res 2007 (138), Mov dis 2009 (44) and Neuron 2009 (25) where he is named as equal first author in the full-text article. (Equal first-author publications count as first author for the purpose of awarding tenure, per WP:PROF.) This gives a first-author H-index of 13 (going on 14), not 11. Note also that as the head of his own research group he is now producing publications as senior author (5 so far in 2016). Braydonowen (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not 11, but 13-going-on? You're trying way too hard. E Eng 15:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF actually advises that h-indexes be "approached with caution", and that they are of limited usefulness. I think this case is one of those where they are useful, because the main point of contention is whether Wild's publication record shows significant impact on his discipline, independently of his research group. WP:PROF's two specific objections to h-indexes don't apply because a) you have shown yourself that including/excluding extra papers does not significantly change his h-index (and I for one fully trust David Eppstein to calculate it!) and b) in a high-citation field like medical research there's no dispute (?) that a h-index of 11–13 is unremarkable. Joe Roe (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. My concern is that without a formal, agreed policy on what the threshold for a first-author H-index should be in a discipline - given they will always be substantially lower than the raw value, in a very collaborative field - there is a risk that this approach could be used to dismiss many academics who do meet one or more of the explicitly stated criteria in WP:PROF. That is why I think it is best avoided altogether and his notability assessed according to WP:PROF per my responses to Tryptofish above. Braydonowen (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as well. I've been looking this over now for some time, and had come to the same conclusion as David Eppstein except that I lack the skill for a detailed analysis of his citation counts, so was going to ask someone to do that. But D.E.'s supplied that, so I have all I need. Like I said, delete (if weak). E Eng 23:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDBuzz (re an online news platform founded by Wild) and the accusations of promotional behavior on that AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiight, that certainly explains why this AfD has been so deluged with editors favouring keeping the article...Braydonowen (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion about possible canvassing

Concern about canvassing. This talk-page interaction between User:EEng and User:Tryptofish appears amount to canvassing between two experienced editors that led to one weighing in on this discussion. Tryptofish refers to a previous discussion about this page but initially tries to avoid linking here, saying "it deals with a related kind of discussion, and a related kind of discussion was also discussed by me, and commented on by you, higher up on the same guideline talk page not too long ago. An administrator is asking for more eyes, in order to get a clearer consensus". After much insinuation, and discussion about what can be said without it amounting to canvassing, Tryptofish then links to this AfD page, fully knowing what EEng's position will be, since it is on record in the previous discussion - and despite EEng warning it is canvassing if Tryptofish directs him here, knowing his view in advance. EEng came here anyway and first chimed in about 2 hours after the exchange. To my inexpert eye, this appears to amount to canvassing to influence consensus towards delete. I don't mind at all if the page is deleted according to policy and fair play, but this feels very underhanded. Braydonowen (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your eye is indeed inexpert, since what I very clearly said at the discussion you link is that Tfish's invitation was NOT canvassing, he and I having a long history of divergent views on sundry things, and he cannot possibly have known what my opinion would be. That experienced editors are largely in agreement that this is a delete should tell you something. E Eng 10:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Tryptofish knew exactly what your view would be, since you expressed it clearly in the other discussion he initiated. That is clearly why he raised the issue on your page. Lo and behold, he was right about your opinion! Even if you don't feel canvassed, you were. I might add that it seems suspicious to me -- though I lack the wiki skills or time to prove anything not supported by an incoming link -- that several delete-favouring editors from that highly partial discussion suddenly turned up shortly after the AfD, lacking consensus, was relisted by MelanieN. Braydonowen (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that Tfish is a neuroscientist, but I was unaware that his research into mind-reading had progressed to the point of efficacy. Good work Tryptofish! E Eng 17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have conflicted feelings about this. After EEng had asked me to comment in an unrelated discussion, I made what was at the time an offhand comment about whether he might want to return the favor, without specifying anything about it. What I failed to anticipate was that our discussion ended up becoming extended, because EEng kept asking me for more details about what I meant, and I had ambivalent feelings about what might indeed come across as me canvassing. I apologize for the nature of the comments I left on EEng's talk, and I accept full responsibility for them; it's not the kind of thing I would normally do.

However, EEng stated very clearly in his initial comment here that he had already been watching this discussion, and considering how he would weigh in. And that was clearly before any communication from me. So at most, I speeded up a comment in this AfD that would have come soon after anyway. There was no mass-messaging, just some banter between EEng and me that got away from me. I never communicated in any way with David Epstein or with anyone else. Braydonowen is trying to make this sound like a lot more than what it really is, in a WP:BATTLEGROUND-y way. If you really think that there is an ongoing issue here, then WP:ANI is that-a-way.

And something else. I noted above that Dubbin had explicitly canvassed the one editor in the WT:PROF discussion who believed that this page should be kept. Here's the diff; compare the specificity, considering that multiple editors took part in the previous discussion, but only one was contacted: [38]. I made a brief comment to cut it out, but I did not make a big display of it, as Braydonowen did here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too much time wasted defending, Tfish. We're both respected editors (well, you are at least) and no one's going to believe this canvassing nonsense. E Eng 00:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Dubbin and Braydonowen have been found by a checkuser to be the same person. Dubbin has been blocked for one month, and Braydonowen has been blocked indefinitely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, off-topic

Surprise! E Eng 23:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is so sad. Really. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I take no pleasure in this. This is the kind of stuff that makes me feel discouraged about Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you think there are pricks here just like anywhere else? What confounds me is that they think we're dumb enough that they can get away with it. E Eng 00:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After having watched this AfD debate for some time I have come to the conclusion that notability is not yet established. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown Security Studies Review[edit]

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

Biased author who clearly has a WP:COI when creating this article... TJH2018 talk 00:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relevant standard here is WP:JOURNALCRIT. This doesn't seem to meet it - not even Web of Science indexes this. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources, and no other evidence of notability, and also promotional in character. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:09, 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.

[1] "Felicidades a Swift File Transfer, Guudjob y zeek! Las mejores apps Android de la Connect & Enrich App Challenge 2014". AppCircus (in Spanish).

[2] "2015 Red Herring Europe: Finalists". Red Herring.

[Bream-3] Ruthven, Hunter (2005-11-05). "Sajid Javid: "Israel has made business bloom in the barren desert"". Real Business. Archived from the original on 2016-02-09. Retrieved 2015-06-10.

[4] "Blumberg Capital & Qualcomm Invest $3 Million in Israeli Startup Zeek Mobile". Blumberg Capital. 20 May 2015.

[5] "Fintech Fundings: 25 Companies Raise $450 Million Week Ending May 22". Finovate. 21 May 2015.

[6] "UK sees $1.4B in unused gift vouchers each year". CNBC. 24 December 2015.

[7] "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". techcrunch. 27 July 2016.

[8] ttp://jewishbusinessnews.com/2016/07/06/top-10-israeli-undiscovered-startups/

[9] ttps://www.marketingweek.com/100-disruptive-brands/

[10] ttp://www.forbes.com/sites/yoavvilner/2016/01/18/16-london-based-startups-ready-to-take-on-2016/#5ff8a3546973

[11] ttps://www.marketingweek.com/disruptive-brands/zeek/

[12] "TAU Innovation Day". Telecom News (in Hebrew).

[13] "2015 Red Herring Europe: Finalists". Red Herring.

[Bream-14] Ruthven, Hunter (2005-11-05). "Sajid Javid: "Israel has made business bloom in the barren desert"". Real Business. Archived from the original on 2016-02-09. Retrieved 2015-06-10.

[15] ttps://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/14/overdraft-money-transfer-christmas-banks-credit-cards

[16] ttp://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000469149

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]