Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 August	21 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Seems like there are too many unreliable/overly short sources for this article to establish notability Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Iordanidis[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a footballer. No signs of notability, only trivial mentions about him on some websites. Probably article created and expanded by subject himself using information from his own Linkedin profile in a purpose of self-promotion Oleola (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently user Oleola is related with Wisla Krakow SA somehow because he removed this page from the coaching staff of the team's Wikipedia article (written documents about notability of employment as player, manager, scout and coach can be provided on request). The article is fully cited when it comes down to his career as a footballer, coach, manager and scout with the use of appropriate web articles according to the rules of Wikipedia. There is no sense of use of the term 'trivial mentions' because the page is referenced with many valid ways, such as individual quotes, newspaper quotes and web articles (documents can be provided from professional clubs i.e. Gornik Leczna verification of job status given by the club). The statements above are inaccurate as opposing user accuses valid references which adhere the rules of Wikipedia. Therefore, I consider this deletion proposal as a page attack and I ask protection for this page by Wikipedia. I have been an editor of Wikipedia for eight years and I have always respected the rules, I expect the same from Wikipedia. Skycraper (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a member of coaching stuff in Wisła Kraków, official club website does not confirm this.

Coming back to the bottom your biography is definitely not fully sourced, there are a lot of Wikipedia:No original research. References are not covering all claims in the article. There are also WP:NOTRELIABLE sources used like own Linkedin or FootballMercato also user generated profile or interview with yourself. The rest sources only trivially mentions you as a coach of amateur amputee football without wider context(not confirming the dates you used). This is not enough for WP:GNG. Most claims you put in the article can't be verfied because there is not significant coverage about yourself in reliable sources.--Oleola (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFOOTBALL per nom. Nom's points on self-promotion also valid. Maybe if there was more about the amputee team role, he could pass GNG, but I'm not seeing it there now and I'm assuming it would have been there already if it existed. If someone can add it, I will change my viewpoint, though. South Nashua (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well I am a member of Wisla Krakow coaching staff and I hold official documents of my employability. Second of all learn how to write properly, it's staff and not 'stuff'. Also, it's Amputee Football Greece and it is an EAFF (under the aegis of UEFA) recognised national football team, not some kind of an amateur club, give some respect. Likewise, you or other members of Wikipedia cannot read supported articles in Greek which is a problem but not mine, full dates and job status are mentioned there. To sum up, delete this article simply because you are incapable to understand the way Wikipedia acts, it is exactly the same as Linkedin, Transfermarkt or any other self generated profile platform. So they say, 'never reference wikipedia in your bibliography as it is not academically accepted'. Bye.Skycraper (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Einstein[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:MUSICBIO. Sources cited are PR blurbs, i.e. not WP:RS. Kleuske (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC) I went back and cited a couple of better references. I just hate to see this get deleted. It's not much but I worked hard on it. The Newbie06[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and cited a couple of better references. I just hate to see this get deleted. It's not much but I worked hard on it.

Better references? Where? Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — we're an encyclopedia, not a free public relations or social networking platform. The article cites no reliable source coverage about him in media, and makes no claim that he's accomplished anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC. So at best it's WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he can be properly sourced as passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, but nothing here already satisfies the requirements today. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was FAKE NEWS. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames of Donald Trump[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States, WP:UNDUE. Also seems like a case of WP:RECENTISM (most of these nicknames won't be relevant in some years). NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the article not because of WP:POVFORK but because of the substantial number of nicknames in use. Claiming WP:UNDUE is in itself a judgement, if there are an equal number of nicknames that are non-perjorative, they belong here too, however I am unable to find them. (much praise for the President does not use nicknames, but generic e.g. "Best President ever". While I see some point for the argument of WP:RECENT, that is more a function of Trump having recently become President.Keizers (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:UNDUE. Lack of notability. --72.24.204.166 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:UNDUE. One could also argue it violates WP:NPOV. Jdcomix (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are only a few of any lasting power, and List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States#Donald Trump is the place for them. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 01:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 01:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources that discuss such a list, which would be needed to pass WP:LISTN. A few of the more notable nicknames could be added to the biography Donald Trump.- Mr X 02:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MrX, the list doesn't have to be sourced, but the nicknames do as nicknames. I don't know that this has happened (but nice try), and at any rate the topic is really ridiculous and not notable. So no, delete. Yes, NPOV may apply as well since this is a BLP and the list is almost 100% negative. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The specific list doesn't need to be sourced, but notability of lists is based on the group. List articles are sometimes made by listing notable subjects that already have Wikipedia articles. Simply compiling a list of sourced items does not satisfy notability.- Mr X 02:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was saying. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not encyclopedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Attack page. — JFG ^talk 08:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks POVFORKish. It’s highly negative, and likely to get worse. In the end, it will look like a polemic. Nip it in the budding stage. Objective3000 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should really be SNOW closed as delete, other than the nom, the !vote is unanimously delete. Jdcomix (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We could ask Ritchie333 to snap his fingers. Drmies (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite a lot of discussion there is a surprisingly clear consensus to delete these articles because of notability and promotionalism concerns. I assume, though, that a neutrally written single article about the group might be acceptable to many, and might be a basis for userfying some of this content in order to integrate what is relevant into the recreated main article. Sandstein 19:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Entertainment Group[edit]

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

This is a series of related articles created by what appears to be the same group of SPA editors (sockpuppets were confirmed for some recent edits but most of the suspicious ones are too old to check). All of these articles share the same poor sourcing and promotional language issues. In lieu of deletion, conversion to a redirect to Emperor Group might be a good alternative option.

Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Media Group Holdings Limited, which is related. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. Deb (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. There doesn't need to be any 'adspeak' for these to be recognised as a purely promotonal exercise put up by the group's PR people. New Media Group Holdings has already been speedied. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these awful promotional pieces masquerading as articles. Rentier (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and is not an extension of this company's web platforms, WP:PROMO. All fail GNG, CORP, and CORPDEPTH. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Summary

Any promotional issues can be handled through editing per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. The articles in general are neutrally written. Emperor Entertainment Group is the most promotional article but there are more neutral versions like this 2010 version to revert to.

Here is my summary for each article nominated for deletion:

Emperor Entertainment Group was called "one of the biggest record and entertainment companies in Hong Kong" by Financial Times. Billboard called it "the city's premier entertainment conglomerate" and "Hong Kong's biggest stable of local artists". Its major singers and groups include Twins, Nicholas Tse, Joey Yung, David Tao, and Wang Chieh.
Emperor Motion Pictures was called "one of the largest and most influential entertainment media investment companies in Hong Kong" by Xinhua News Agency. Variety said Emperor Motion Pictures "has well-established film production, investment and distribution operations". EMP has produced or distributed Let the Bullets Fly, The Sun Also Rises, To the Fore, Twins Mission, Ming Ming, The Drummer, The Viral Factor, CZ12, and The Great Magician. EMP brought the The Hunger Game films to Hong Kong.
Emperor Capital Group Limited was founded in 1993 and started trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2007. It received a lengthy profile in Bloomberg Businessweek titled "Every Stock Was a Buy to This Analyst Team, Then Shares Tanked". Its market value in 2016 was HK$3.9 billion.
Emperor Watch & Jewellery was founded in 1942 and listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2008. In 2007, the company had revenue of HK$1.56 billion and net profit of HK$159 million. It has received analysis from analysts from Cash Asset Management, Altruist Financial Group, and Fulbright Securities.
Emperor International Holdings in 2007 had a property portfolio with a total value of roughly HK$10 billion. In 1994, former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke was appointed as a non-executive director. In 1994, Simon Yeung, an analyst with Daiwa Institute of Research, said Emperor "had not commanded investor attention because its performance had been nothing special in recent years" but that "he was now impressed by the company's investment and development property portfolio in Hong Kong and by its strong financial position".
Emperor Entertainment Hotel is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and was renamed from "Emperor (China Concept) Investments" in 2004. In 2004, it had a market value of $426 million. In 1994, it developed a HK$1.1 billion Shanghai commercial complex, Emperor Star City, in which it held a 90% stake with the rest held by a group of artists including Jackie Chan, Anita Mui, and Alan Tam.

50 sources for the six companies

Sources

1. Emperor Entertainment Group

王静雅, ed. (2015-01-30). "英皇集团2月1日举办盛典谢霆锋容祖儿将出席" (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
英皇娱乐集团于1999年正式成立，主要业务包括本地及海外唱片制作及发行、音乐出版、艺人管理及演唱会制作。除音乐之外，还从事舞台剧、电影和电视制作，以及多媒体、商品特许经营和零售等业务。自成立后，英皇娱乐即成为孕育当红艺人的摇篮。当今艺坛红人如谢霆锋、容祖儿、古巨基、Twins、林峯、黄秋生、陈伟霆、泳儿、洪卓立、罗力威、钟舒漫、洪卓立、关智斌、张致恒、冯允谦、郑希怡等，皆为英皇娱乐旗下艺人。历年来，旗下歌手于各地颁奬礼上勇夺过千奬项，英皇娱乐更曾三度夺得雷霆乐坛班霸大奖，创下辉煌战绩，今天的英皇娱乐，已是亚太区内其中一个最成功的音乐品牌。
...
自1999年成立之际，英皇娱乐已走过十五年的光景。一直都是以标杆形象树立于整个娱乐圈的英皇娱乐，能够屹立15年依旧如此辉煌，相信这不是偶然，而是其背后每一步的脚踏实地，才会有今天的荣耀。即将在2月1日“2015英皇集团年度盛典”暨“英皇娱乐·英皇电影15周年”盛大庆祝活动日前已成媒体热议的焦点，一场精彩的视听盛宴将拉开大幕！
Lau, Justine (2003-07-18). "Corruption Probe: Entertainment group shares are suspended". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes (my bolding):
Trading in shares of Emperor Entertainment Group (EEG) was suspended yesterday after its biggest shareholder was detained by Hong Kong's corruption watchdog over alleged bribery for pushing artists' recordings up a billboard chart.
EEG, one of the biggest record and entertainment companies in Hong Kong, and which boasts the popular martial arts actor Jacky Chan as a non-executive director, said trading had ceased pending an announcement.
Albert Yeung, a substantial shareholder of EEG and chairman of the umbrella Emperor Group, was among 22 people arrested on Wednesday by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). It is alleged they colluded to give certain singers preferential treatment.
...
Jacky Chan has been a non-executive director of EEG since 2000. He is not one of the directors being investigated.
It was alleged that those arrested from EEG and Universal Music might have offered advantages to senior executives at TVB to ensure that certain singers could secure musical awards and their hits would be given favourable positions on the billboard.
Lee, Min (2007-10-02). "South Korean actor Lee Jun-gi signs Greater China management rights to Hong Kong company, AS". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
EEG, a division of Hong Kong-based Emperor Group, manages some of Chinese pop's biggest acts like Joey Yung and the female pop duo Twins.
Tsui, Clarence (2003-08-09). "Hong Kong Biz Hit By Corruption Scandal". Billboard. p. 71. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes (my bolding):
Those arrested include the president of Universal Music's Hong Kong branch; the owner of the Emperor Entertainment Group (EEC), the city's premier entertainment conglomerate; and three top producers from Hong Kong's largest TV station, Television Broadcasts (TVB).
...
Universal Music Hong Kong president Alex Chan Siu-po, EEG chairman Albert Yeung Sau-sing and TVB program controllers Ho Lai-tsuen and Chan Ka-lun—who are in charge of the channel's weekly "Solid Gold" music show—were reportedly among those arrested July 16 by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). EEG CEO Ng Sui-wan was reportedly arrested July 18.
...
Twenty-eight others—including top EEG artists Nicholas Tse Ting-fung, Yumiko Cheng and Eason Chan—were interviewed by the commission.
Chung, Winnie (2000-02-26). "The New Contenders". Billboard. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
The Emperor Entertainment Group is part of the Emperor Group, presided over by chairman Albert Yeung Sau-shing. The Group—which now has four public-listed companies—started its business as a watch-and-clock retail shop in 1942. Business has expanded to include everything from investment and real estate to restaurant franchises.
The group branched out into entertainment when it bought Fitto Entertainment, a karaoke and music company. EEG was formed in January 1999, with involvement in four main areas of show business: music, films, concert production/promotion and artist management. Although EEG is part of the group, it is not one of the listed companies and is funded by Yeung and private investors. At the moment, EEG's local roster compromises Nicholas Tse, Lillian Ho, Joey Yung, Grace Yip, David Tao and Wang Chieh.
Tsui, Clarence (2003-02-08). "Sponsorships And Media Drive Artist Growth In Hong Kong Market". Billboard. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
In contrast to artists at other labels, the majority of EEG acts—including Twins—are managed by a sister company under the Emperor Entertainment Group.
Chung, Winnie (2001-06-23). "Emperor's Frankie Lee Departs CEO Post". Billboard. p. 4. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Frankie Lee, CEO/director of Emperor Entertainment Group (EEG), will leave his position at the end of June, after building the label into Hong Kong's biggest stable of local artists.
...
Lee joined Emperor in January 1999 and took over its existing Fitto Records label, reinventing it as EEG with artists [Nicholas] Tse, Bondi Chiu, and Grace Yip. Last October, he launched a spinoff label, Music Plus, with Eason Chan and Roman Tam as artists. At last count, EEG had 18 artists, making it the largest local label in Hong Kong.
Last December, EEG became the first record label to be listed on the Growth Enterprise Market, a secondary exchange for start-up companies on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. At that time, Lee was allocated stock options of 4.62 million shares. By leaving before the options mature, Lee stands to lose about $4 million Hong Kong ($500,000).
Ng, Eric (2001-07-21). "Emperor makes rare shift in strategy". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Entertainment Group has drastically altered its business plan and use of listing proceeds only seven months after listing on the Growth Enterprise Market.
The music producer and distributor said yesterday it had revised the business plan stated in the prospectus to reflect the planned acquisition of movies and television programme producer EMG from a firm controlled by its chairman.
Such drastic changes are uncommon among listed firms.
Emperor plans to cut listing proceeds dedicated to music production and distribution to HK$12 million from HK$60 million, but it will increase those for general working capital to HK$39 million from HK$7 million.
Pao, Jeff; Lee, Georgina (2006-07-21). "Emperor to spin off brokerage subsidiary". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Entertainment Group (EEG), in which Emperor International has a 34.7 per cent stake, saw turnover drop 19.67 per cent to $196.91 million, with the firm posting a loss of $32.54 million. Last year, it had profit of $10.68 million.
The opening of the Grand Emperor Hotel, a casino hotel in Macau with gaming tables and slot machines, had an impact on earnings.
EEG chief executive Ng Yu said the company hoped to gain 15 per cent to 20 per cent of total revenue from content delivered on new media such as mobile ringtones and music video downloads.
The firm yesterday announced an agreement to provide music content to Hutchison's 3G subscribers, who can pay up to $9 to download popular songs from EEG. The agreement ends EEG's partnership with New World Mobile, whose contract expires in September. New World Mobile was acquired by CSL this year.
Leung, Loretta (2002-06-21). "Emperor unit posts $27m loss". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Record company Emperor Entertainment Group slumped to a net loss of HK$27.39 million in the year to March 31.
The company, which includes Canto-pop star Nicholas Tse Ting-fung among its roster of artists, posted a net profit of HK$8.68 million the previous year.
Shares in the Growth Enterprise Market-listed company fell 6.25 per cent yesterday to close at 75 HK cents.
Turnover rose to HK$154.71 million last year from HK$122.39 million but the company had an additional expense of HK$31.17 million to produce film and television programmes.
Music production and distribution was its core business, with album sales contributing HK$66.65 million, or 43 per cent, of turnover, and licence income making up 10 per cent, or HK$15.98 million.
Yeung, Frederick (2005-06-21). "Pirates cut Emperor earnings". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Entertainment Group is under siege from illegal downloads and piracy of its films.
The film and television production division was the worst performing in the group, reporting a loss of $20 million for the year to March, compared with a loss of $2.9 million a year earlier.
It helped to contribute to an overall 48 per cent drop in profit to $10.68 million, while revenue fell 35 per cent to $245.13 million.
Despite the drop, the company declared a dividend of 2.8 cents per share, its first since listing in 2000. Earnings were 4.11 cents per share.
"Emperor abandons gambling deal". South China Morning Post. 2010-04-02. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Albert Yeung Sau-shing's Emperor Entertainment Group has dropped a HK$75 million deal to break into the mainland's growing but fractious market for legal gambling on overseas soccer and basketball games.
EEG had planned to rename itself Dragonlott Entertainment Group after buying a stake in Dragonlott Group, a firm registered in Jersey in the Channel Islands that planned to invest in 51 state-owned Sports Lottery betting shops in Hubei province.
Kwong, Vicki; Yuk-min, Hui (2000-12-02). "Music distributor Emperor seeks $100m from GEM". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Entertainment Group (EEG) is set to be listed on the Growth Enterprise Market (GEM) this month, according to sources.
The company, primarily engaged in music production and distribution, is to offer 100 million shares at HK$1 each, sources say.
The listing plan is said to have been approved by the GEM listing committee on Tuesday. BNP Peregrine is to act as the sponsor for the flotation.
...
EEG, a member of Albert Yeung Sau-shing's Emperor Group, has a 15 to 20 per cent share in the local record industry, based on sales and air play.
Zhen, Ping (2001-08-17). "HK tycoon Yeung no stranger to scandal". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
A television report claimed that Yeung bore Tsang a deep grudge after Star East - an entertainment company in which the comedian had substantial shares - spurned an offer to collaborate with Yeung's Emperor Entertainment Group (EEG) on several projects.
A self-made businessman, Yeung's colourful life and career have been lived out as much in the gossip columns as on the business pages.
He heads the Emperor group of companies, a massive empire which owns more than 300 subsidiaries and associated companies, including hotels, magazines and restaurants, and deals in investment and property.
The group rose to prominence in showbusiness circles in 1999 when it established the EEG, which groomed rising stars such as Yung and Nicholas Tse.

2. Emperor Motion Pictures

曾繁娟 (2013-03-13). "香港英皇电影与UA院线携手进军内地首家影院落户佛山" (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
　英皇电影是香港最具规模及影响力的娱乐媒体投资公司之一，主要业务包括电影制作、电影和影碟发行、广告制作等。ＵＡ院线是香港主要院线之一，１９８５年率先将美式综合影院引入香港，目前已在广东开设三家影院。双方此前的合作主要为电影发行。
From Google Translate:
Emperor Motion Pictures is one of the largest and most influential entertainment media investment companies in Hong Kong. Its main business includes film production, film and film distribution, and advertising production. UA cinema is one of the major cinemas in Hong Kong. In 1985, the first American cinema was introduced into Hong Kong. Three cinemas have been opened in Guangdong. The previous cooperation between the two sides mainly for the film distribution.
Sito, Peggy (2016-09-15). "Hong Kong's Emperor Group confirms the opening of its first cinema in Central". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Founded in 2000, Emperor Motion Pictures is involved in movie production and distribution. It started operating cinemas in 2014. The group has five cinemas in mainland cities such as Shanghai, Hefei, Zhuhai and Foshan.
Yu, Sophie (2013-04-15). "Emperor, UA make China move. Film company, cinema chain partner to tap market as movie house investment booms". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Movies are big business on the mainland, and to tap into the growing demand, Hong Kong film company Emperor Motion Pictures and UA Cinemas have announced a tie-up to invest in and operate cinemas there.
The deal has raised some eyebrows, and Gao Jun, a veteran in the film industry who was formerly a deputy general manager of Beijing-based cinema management company New Film Association, said it remained to be seen if the Emperor-UA project - aimed at mid-market to high-end filmgoers - would be a success.
Frater, Patrick (2015-03-23). "HK FilMart: Emperor Sets 15 Titles for 2015 Slate". Variety. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Motion Pictures used FilMart in its Hong Kong home town to launch a bumper production and distribution slate of 15 film titles – marking 2015 and the company’s 15th year.
The lineup spans mainstream features to be co-produced with mainland Chinese partners, arthouse titles and more indie-style pictures aimed at narrower Hong Kong audiences.
...
Other pictures in earlier stages of production include Hong Kong gangster film “The Mobfathers,” starring Chapman To, and “Drink Drank Drunk,” a courtroom comedy to be directed by Takkie Yeung.
Further off is a trio of untitled projects with big-name directors: a martial arts comedy by Yuen Wo-ping (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”); a thriller from Alan Mak and Felix Chong (“Infernal Affairs”); and another by Benny Chan (“The White Storm”).
Frater, Patrick (2016-10-26). "Hong Kong's Emperor Motion Pictures to Expand Exhibition Role in China". Variety. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Hong Kong’s Emperor Motion Pictures is to pursue the expansion of its theatrical cinema operations in China despite the dramatic recent slowdown in the mainland Chinese box office.
The company will next year open Emperor Cinemas in megacities Chengdu and Chongqing, both housed within Shin Kong Mitsukoshi department stores. In a statement EMP said that “Emperor Cinemas is poised for rapid expansion across China in coming years.”
EMP, which has well-established film production, investment and distribution operations, was a relative late-comer to exhibition. It opened its first wholly-owned mainland cinema in Hefei in 2015 and expects to open its flagship Chinese site next year at the Emperor Group Center in Beijing.
Frater, Patrick (2014-01-22). "Emperor Boss Yeung Doubles Bet on China Theater Sector". Variety. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
UA and EMP already collaborate in film distribution in Hong Kong. EMP produced 2012 hit “The Viral Factor,” financed “The Great Magician,” and was the HK distributor of “Personal Tailor” and “Chinese Zodiac.”
Borromeo, EL (2015-03-26). "Emperor Motion Pictures Launches 15 Film Titles to Mark 15th Anniversary". Yibada. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Motion Pictures (EMP) has recently revealed that it will produce and distribute 15 film titles this year in commemoration of its 15th-year anniversary.
During the Hong Kong FilMart, the filmmaker has launched a bumper featuring the titles that moviegoers and enthusiasts could anticipate.
...
The line-up will include mainstream movie co-productions with partners from Chinese mainland and some arthouse titles. The roster of the movie titles will also cover indie films targeting a narrower Hong Kong audience.
One of the films to be released is "To the Fore," which will be directed by EMP regular, Dante Lam. The awaited cycling sports drama will star Eddie Peng and Asian superstar Siwon Choi.
Chie, Kyrie (2011-03-23). "Emperor Motion Pictures reveals new films at the Entertainment Expo Hong Kong". Asia Pacific Arts. University of Southern California. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
Murphy, Scott (2007-03-21). "Emperor Group unveils film slate aimed at China". The Hollywood Reporter. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Hong Kong-based Emperor Group Pictures has unveiled a new slate of a dozen films, with budgets of $1 million-$10 million, geared toward penetrating the emerging Chinese market.
...
The new slate at EMP, formerly best known for its in-house productions, combines a mixture of distribution, investment and equity deals and is toplined by the $10 million drama "The Sun Also Rises," directed by Jiang Wen and starring Joan Chen, Jaycee Chan and Anthony Wong.
Tsui, Clarence (2013-03-13). "Hong Kong's UA, Emperor Strike Deal to Build Cinemas in China". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Motion Pictures and UA Cinemas have announced a strategic alliance to construct and operate cinemas in the mainland China, with the first site in Foshan slated for an opening in early 2014.
...
It will be Emperor Motion Pictures’ first attempt in branching out beyond its core businesses of film production -- known for hits such as Let the Bullets Fly -- and distribution, for which it has collaborated successfully with UA Cinemas for years, bringing big ticket titles like The Hunger Games to Hong Kong.
Symonds, Saul (2007-04-24). "Emperor crowns Ng distribution boss". The Hollywood Reporter. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor's 2007 lineup includes Jiang Wen's "The Sun Also Rises," "Twins Mission," Susie Au's "Ming Ming" and Kenneth Bi's "The Drummer."
Emperor will be presenting "The Sun Also Rises" for the first time in a major market at the upcoming Festival de Cannes. It also will unveil a number of upcoming projects, both from their own production team and other producers.
"英皇电影发了 11 部新片计划，还是要拿演员来说事". QDaily (in Chinese). 2016-03-18. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
我们常说的英皇电影，一般指的就是英皇娱乐集团有限公司，它属于英皇集团旗下的子公司之一，成立于 2000 年，主要从事事音乐制作及经销、电影制作及发行、艺人管理及表演项目制作业务。此前，他们参与投资制作的影片包括《破风》、《盲探》、《私人定制》、《一九四二》等，参与发行过的影片有《饥饿游戏 3》、《边境杀手》、《爆裂鼓手》、《王的盛宴》等。
英皇比较擅用的核心资产还是他们旗下已有的明星和合作导演，像谢霆锋、容祖儿、林峰、Twins 组合、张家辉、陈伟霆等演员，关锦鹏、陈果等导演。但内地观众已经有了更多不一样的审美和明星消费需求，一些相对老牌的明星或许能唤起一部分人的观影热情，但大部分年轻的观众喜闻乐见的恐怕已经不再是他们了。既然英皇电影已经打算将内地作为将来的主战场了，那么也就应该多花点心思来研究下内地观众的口味变化。

3. Emperor Capital Group Limited

Kuntz, Phil; Hu, Fox (2016-05-29). "Every Stock Was a Buy to This Analyst Team, Then Shares Tanked". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Companies probably love getting attention from analysts at Emperor Securities Ltd. in Hong Kong. Investors who followed their advice for the past year, not so much.
The unit of Emperor Capital Group Ltd. issued buy recommendations on every one of the 173 companies it reported covering from April 2015 through May 16. Its target prices, which the company says forecast trading levels within weeks, predicted gains of 25 percent on average. They are frequently the most bullish among analysts who cover the same stocks and list their calls with Bloomberg, including those based on the standard 12-month horizon.
The picks ended up being so wrong during the past year’s rout of Chinese and Hong Kong stocks that shorting every one would have resulted in gains of about 6 percent after just four weeks and almost 13 percent if all were held through last week.
...
Emperor Capital Group, the parent company, provides financial services from 11 offices in Hong Kong and three in mainland China.
Founded in 1993, it began trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2007 and has gained more than 270 percent since then, compared to the Hang Seng Index’s 0.1 percent increase. In the past year, the stock has fallen 59 percent, more than twice the benchmark’s decline. Its market value is HK$3.9 billion ($503 million). The companies it recommended, all but one listed in Hong Kong, have a median market value of $7.7 billion.
Yuk-kei, Lee (2007-04-11). "Emperor Capital plans share sale". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Capital Group, a brokerage unit of Hong Kong-listed Emperor International, is launching an up to HK$120 million initial public offering despite an ongoing inquiry by the Securities and Futures Commission into its securities and futures units.
The SFC has proposed a public reprimand and pecuniary penalty against Emperor Securities but it is yet to conclude the investigation into the cold-calling activities by the securities and futures units, according to the company's listing document.
Emperor Capital, which engages in a wide range of financial services including brokerage services for securities and futures as well as margin financing, is offering a combined 318 million new shares at 38 HK cents each, its listing document says.
He, Sophie (2016-04-29). "Emperor puts capital in safe hands". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Capital Group looks forward to becoming a greater draw for mainland investors with its one-stop solutions, CEO Daisy Yeung tells Sophie He.
Daisy Yeung hopes more investors from the mainland will become customers of Emperor Capital Group, which she heads.
The company's chief executive officer is the daughter of Albert Yeung Sau-shing, Hong Kong entertainment mogul and Emperor Group chairman. She voiced her hopes in recalling how Emperor Capital Group was founded in 1993 and listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in April 2007.
In 2003, the company began restructuring and expanding its business, branching out into wealth management, asset management, financing and corporate finance. The company has gone from being a traditional brokerage to a financial institution that can provide one-stop investment services to its customers, Yeung told China Daily.
"英皇證券稱未有計劃賣盤". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2016-12-09. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
英皇證券（717）昨公佈全年業績，集團繼與中國華融（2799）簽訂配售協議後，再引入中國太平保險（966）成為策略性股東，令大股東持股量由43.54%減至39.58%，行政總裁楊玳詩於業績會上表示，攤薄大股東持股量並非重要因素，指出兩間國有金融機構均有良好的基礎及業務，料可為集團帶來新價值，加上引入新股東亦為集團帶來資金以拓展其他業務，暫未有賣盤計劃。

4. Emperor Watch & Jewellery

Pao, Jeff; Wang, Jasmine (2008-06-28). "Emperor Watch touts dividend in share sale". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-05. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Watch & Jewellery, a unit of Hong Kong-listed Emperor Group, plans to raise about HK$500 million through an initial public offering next month despite poor market sentiment, sources say.
...
Emperor Watch & Jewellery's first watch and clock retail shop was founded by Mr Yeung's father, Yeung Shing, and opened in Hong Kong under the name Shing On Kee during the 1940s.
Later, they opened another watch retail shop named Observatory Watch & Jewellery in Nathan Road in 1964.
The company has seven retail outlets and one boutique shop in Hong Kong, all of which are located in prime shopping areas including Causeway Bay, Tsim Sha Tsui, Central and Wan Chai.
In 2006, the company expanded its retail business to Macau and established an outlet at Grand Emperor Hotel.
The total area of the company's stores is 32,000 square feet, up from 17,500 sq ft in 2005.
...
Emperor Watch & Jewellery is the non-exclusive authorised retailer for 29 international brands of luxury watches, including Rolex, Cartier and Piaget.
The article also lists analysis from analysts:
1. Lei Yu, research analyst, Cash Asset Management
  Pros: The Emperor brand is well recognised in the city
  Cons: The company's core markets are Hong Kong and Macau, where competition is keen and the chance for aggressive sales network expansion is slim
2. Yiu Chin, director of financial analysis, Altruist Financial Group
  Pros: Two of Emperor Group's spin-offs had good performance on their trading debuts, which can attract speculators
  Cons: Tourist numbers are expected to drop because of the global economic slowdown, which will affect the company's outlook
3. Francis Lun Sheung-nim, general manager, Fulbright Securities
  Pros: The offer size is small, which means it is easy to manipulate the stock price
  Cons: The market sentiment is so bad nobody is buying anything
Lam, Amy (2008-06-28). "Emperor Watch counting down to HK$581m IPO". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Watch and Jewellry, a unit of tycoon Albert Yeung Sau-shing's conglomerate Emperor Group, plans to raise up to HK$581 million in a Hong Kong initial public offering (IPO).
The retail chain joins other companies rushing to launch their IPOs before the end of the first half.
Emperor Watch's offer will comprise 1.35 billion shares priced between HK$0.30 and HK$0.43, or 30 percent of the total capital after the IPO. Sources say each board lot contains 10,000 shares.
...
Emperor Watch was formed in 1942. In addition to luxury-watch sales, it designs and sells jewelry in nine locations in Hong Kong and Macao.
From 2005 to 2007, the company's revenue increased from HK$645 million to HK$1.56 billion, its net profits rose from HK$26.1 million to HK$159 million, and its gross profit margin jumped from 14.4 percent to 22.4 percent.
Over 80 percent of the company's revenue in 2007 came from watch sales, and 12 percent came from jewelry sales in Hong Kong.
Lo, Jennifer (2017-03-17). "Hong Kong luxury retailer flags turnaround signs". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Spring might have come for Emperor Watch and Jewellery, as the Hong Kong-based luxury retailer reported a surprise turnaround in second-half profits following steep rental cuts and the return of mainland Chinese tourists to the territory.
Majority controlled by the family of Hong Kong entertainment mogul Albert Yeung Sau-shing, Emperor is a retailer of European-made watches and jewelry with operations at home, in mainland China and Singapore.
Emperor posted Thursday a modest net profit of 3.8 million Hong Kong dollars ($490,000) in the second half of last year, narrowing its full-year loss to HK$64.8 million from HK$120.1 million a year ago.
...
In Hong Kong, most of the group's 22 stores are in tourist districts such as Causeway Bay and Tsim Sha Tsui. It will open two or three branches this year in areas close to the Chinese border, such as Tuen Mun and Sheung Shui, to take advantage of lower rents and growing traffic there.

5. Emperor International Holdings

Goplan, Nisha (1997-07-13). "Emperor aims to conquer new territory". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
EMPEROR International Holdings, the locally listed property, securities and retailing company, has moved into corporate finance.
Through its arm Emperor Financial Services, which has brokerage, futures and gold and silver dealings, the group set up Emperor Capital on May 1.
Vanessa Fan Man-seung, managing director of the Emperor Group, said: "Previously, all we had was a brokerage arm, servicing mainly local customers. The addition of this corporate finance arm means we can move from pure agency to advisory."
Emperor Capital is one of five companies within Emperor Financial Services, in turn one of the companies within Emperor International Holdings, which counts listed companies Emperor (China Concept) Investment and Hong Kong Daily News Holdings among its subsidiaries.
Evans, Mark (1994-01-31). "Emperor out to woo with new image; Former deal-maker focuses on property development". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
ONE of Emperor International Holdings' biggest challenges is to convince investors that it has shed its image as a deal-maker more intent on making money than building a solid financial base.
The management concedes this is a problem that has overshadowed its strategic moves to become a property development and investment company with an attractive land bank.
...
The appointment of former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke as a non-executive director last month was a savvy move to boost Emperor's profile and its already tight connections with China.
Simon Yeung, an analyst with Daiwa Institute of Research, said Emperor had not commanded investor attention because its performance had been nothing special in recent years.
Previously sceptical and biased by the speculation surrounding Emperor in the marketplace, Mr Yeung said he was now impressed by the company's investment and development property portfolio in Hong Kong and by its strong financial position.
Li, Sandy (2016-10-20). "How small can a Hong Kong apartment get? Emperor takes the crown with Happy Valley project. Developer plans to convert commercial building into 68 apartments as small as 61.4 square feet". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor International Holdings will have the dubious honour as developer of the tiniest apartment in Hong Kong, with its plan to launch a project where each unit measures 61.4 square feet (5.7 square meters), according to filings with the Building Department.
Sito, Peggy (2007-12-27). "Emperor buys Macau property for HK$430m". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes (my bolding):
Emperor International Holdings has stepped up its investments in Macau with the purchase of a commercial-residential property for HK$430 million.
...
The company also owns a number of shops in Macau.
Emperor said its property portfolio, spread across Hong Kong, Macau and the mainland, had a total value of about HK$10 billion at the end of September.
Chen, Frank (2016-07-28). "Why HK properties aren't created equal: one city, many tenures". EJ Insight. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
“999-year lease.”
Realty developer Emperor International Holdings, owned by entertainment mogul Albert Yeung Sau-shing, has been putting up ads like this one for Upton (維港峰), an upmarket waterfront residential development in Sai Wan.
...
Among other properties, Emperor also owns Wincome Centre at Des Voeux Road Central and a mixed-use tower on Russell Street in Causeway Bay, both of which also have 999-year tenures.
Wong, Samantha (2017-06-23). "Emperor International steps up developments". The Standard. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor International Holdings (0163) will launch in the third quarter this year a residential project in Tuen Mun which will provide 14 detached and semi- detached houses.
It will also undertake an urban redevelopment project in Sham Shui Po which will provide over 130 flats.
...
Emperor International currently runs two hotels and a serviced apartment in Hong Kong, as well as two hotels in Macau.
...
Among its acquisitions were Ampersand Building on Oxford Street in London, retail shops at Fairview Height in Mid-Levels and commercial and car park premises at Sui Wo Court in Sha Tin.
...
Emperor International said yesterday that net profit for the first quarter this year amounted to HK$3.48 billion although revenue dropped by 27 percent to HK$4.07 billion. The board has recommended a final dividend of 58 HK cents per share.
林樂謙 (2017-06-22). "【業績解畫】英皇國際扭虧為盈酒店盈利升35%". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
英皇系兩公司昨日公佈全年業績，英皇國際（163）轉虧為盈，截至3月底賺34.83億元，末期息每股5.8仙。公司指盈利主要來自新落成的北京英皇集團中心之物業重估收益，佔整體盈利86%。
公司總收入下跌27%至40.7億元，英皇國際董事總經理兼英皇娛樂酒店執行董事范敏嫦解釋，收入大減由於本年度未有推出新樓盤，而佔地106萬呎的北京英皇集團中心出租率已達八成，未計入本年度租金收益。

6. Emperor Entertainment Hotel

Li, Sandy (2005-02-17). "Emperor tightens grip on associate". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Group, chaired by Albert Yeung Shau-shing, is raising its stake in listed Emperor International Holdings to 69.08 per cent through a share-swap deal worth $164.96 million.
...
Last November, Emperor Entertainment Hotel, formerly known as Emperor (China Concept) Investments, agreed to acquire the Golden Princess, a 38-year-old vessel with a casino, from Mr Yeung for US$17 million by way of an issue of new shares. In return, Emperor Group received the 11.24 per cent stake in Emperor Entertainment Hotel.
"Mass-market plays overtake VIP sales at Emperor". South China Morning Post. 2009-06-26. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
A plunge in high-stakes play appears to have turned the tables at Macau casino investor Albert Yeung Sau-shing's Emperor Entertainment Hotel.
For the first time, gaming revenue from the mass-market tables at the Grand Emperor Hotel overtook revenue from its previously dominant VIP baccarat tables for the year to March.
...
Emperor Entertainment recently restructured its revenue-sharing agreement with Stanley Ho Hung-sun's SJM Holdings, the licensed casino operator, to include a performance-based bonus on top of Emperor's traditional 40 per cent cut of gross gaming revenue.
Sallay, Alvin; Wan, Freda (2004-11-20). "Madness, sadness as Macau gears up for grand prix". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Meanwhile, Hong Kong-listed property developer Emperor (China Concept) Investments said it would change its name to Emperor Entertainment Hotel and convert its vacant commercial properties into a hotel/casino.
The company was rewarded with a 176 per cent rise in its share price from $7.80 when its shares were suspended early this month, to $21.55 at yesterday's close.
Yeung, Frederick (2005-07-12). "Emperor sees casino payoff in three years - Jackie Chan factor looms large in profit forecast as performance dives 79.6pc". Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Entertainment Hotel plans to soft-launch its 45 per cent owned Macau hotel-casino in September and expects to make its money back in three years with the help of actor Jackie Chan, who has a stake in the project.
The upbeat prediction from the gaming flagship of Emperor International came as the company announced full-year results to March 31 that showed net profit had fallen 79.6 per cent from a year earlier to $17.59 million on turnover of $18.23 million. Earnings per share was 5 cents. The company declared no dividend.
...
Emperor Entertainment Hotel also has a joint venture agreement with Shenzhen Lianhe Jinhoa Investment Development to develop Emperor Star City in the Yu Yuan district of Shanghai.
...
The six-storey shopping arcade and entertainment complex with a gross floor area of 114,000 square metres broke ground last month and is due to open in 2007.
Li, Sandy (2005-02-04). "Casino to keep Emperor afloat - Golden Princess will be the group's key income source until Macau hotel opens". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Entertainment Hotel, formerly known as Emperor (China Concept) Investments, expects its recently acquired vessel with a casino will contribute annual turnover of more than $108 million.
Bryan Wong Chi-fai, an executive director at Emperor Entertainment, said the 38-year-old Golden Princess, which will be leased, would be the group's major source of income until its 45 per cent-owned Emperor Casino Hotel in Macau goes online. It is due for a soft launch in September.
Yesterday, shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting approved the company's US$17 million acquisition of Golden Princess from Albert Yeung Shau-shing, the chairman of ultimate parent Emperor Group.
Li, Sandy (2005-06-13). "Emperor eyes site for hotel-casino in Russia". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor Entertainment Hotel has identified a property in Vladivostok with the potential to become one of Russia's top hotel-casinos.
...
In 1994, the company, then called Emperor (China Concept) Investments, signed a contract to develop the $1 billion Shanghai project, in which it had a 90 per cent stake, with the balance held by a group of artists including Jackie Chan, Anita Mui and Alan Tam.
After an 11-year delay, the company now owns the land outright. It plans to revive the Star City project with its joint venture partner.
...
Emperor Star City, due to be completed in 2007, comprises a hotel, 150 serviced apartments, a seven-storey shopping mall and 600 car parking spaces.
Sito, Peggy (1995-07-14). "Star City to open next year". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
EMPEROR (China Concept) Investments will launch its HK$1.1 billion Shanghai commercial complex, Emperor Star City, on the market by the end of 1996, provided construction work is on schedule.
The 763,135 square foot project is the group's first major property development in Shanghai.
...
Emperor Group is the holding company of two listed companies Emperor International and Emperor (China Concept).
Evans, Mark (1994-03-22). "Takeover rejection sees Emperor dive". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
A DECISION by the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong to reject the $1 billion takeover of Emperor (China Concept) Investments by a mainland-led consortium saw the stock tumble by 43 per cent yesterday.
Emperor (China Concept) fell $2.15 to $2.85 on turnover of $15.6 million, making it the market's worst performer. The stock is now trading 66.6 per cent below the high of $8.55 reached just after the deal was completed on January 4.
...
Emperor International and Emperor (China Concept) issued a joint announcement on Sunday that the sale of a 70.9 per cent stake to the consortium, which included Centre Regent Investments and Cheung Kong, had been withdrawn.
Kwok, Ben (2004-11-23). "Lai See". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Emperor's new close highlights mad concept stock boom
It took Emperor (China Concept) Investments only two days to become the best-performing Hong Kong stock this year.
Shares of the Albert Yeung Yau-shing-controlled firm almost doubled yesterday to $42, having soared 176 per cent on Friday after it agreed to buy a casino and hotel project from its chairman for $540 million.
Yet even after this mighty rise from a year's low of $4.40 a share Emperor (China Concept) remains a small player with a market value of just $426 million.
...
Last week's Macau deal came on the same day that Emperor (China Concept) launched a $22 million rights issue, underwritten by China Everbright Securities. That stock has quickly become worth $70 million, but has a way to run if research by the brokerage is taken seriously. Last week it tipped the stock to trade at a whooping $176, representing a 20 times increase in value.
Chan, Christine (1998-08-06). "Emperor tumbles 62pc after provisions for loans on margin financing operations". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-05.
The article notes:
Property developer and investor Emperor International Holdings yesterday said profit fell 62 per cent to $43 million for the year to March after making provisions for loans advanced by its margin financing operations.
The company's property development and investment arm in the mainland, Emperor (China Concept) Investments, said losses improved slightly to $92 million from $94 million a year earlier.
...
Emperor (China Concept) is expected to complete the share sale of Hong Kong Daily News to holding-company Emperor International by November this year.
During the year, Emperor International's turnover fell 24 per cent to $1.11 billion, Emperor (China Concept)'s with a slight decline to $485 million, and Hong Kong Daily News to $418 million, up 0.43 per cent.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Emperor Entertainment Group, Emperor Motion Pictures, Emperor Capital Group Limited, Emperor Watch & Jewellery, Emperor International Holdings, and Emperor Entertainment Hotel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as blatantly promotional and excluded by WP:NOT. The question of whether or not they meet the general notability guideline does not matter in this case as it is not the sole factor as to whether or not we keep an article. Cunard's sourcing does not demonstrate that these are essential articles to the encyclopedia, and WP:N, the overarching guideline that the general notability guideline is of but one part, makes it abundantly clear that passage of the GNG alone is not enough for inclusion: the articles also must pass the policy of WP:NOT. In this case you have lovely descriptors such as Dedicated to nurturing young talents, EEG is the cradle of many of the hottest artistes in the Hong Kong music industry. Artistes under EEG management are frequent award winners of the territories' various annual music award ceremonies. throughout the text of all the articles.
In deciding what to do in blatant cases of failing NOT, WP:WHATISTOBEDONE lists deletion as an option among others: my test for this is whether or not the Wikipedia article would likely be the most significant coverage a subject would have received, in which case promotional language with promotional intent would be a clear violation of our most fundamental principle Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform. Having reviewed all of Cunard's sourcing, it fails this test for me, and the correct way to deal with this based on the principles of Wikipedia is deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional wording was added to Emperor Entertainment Group by the new user Leoje 0192 (talk · contribs) in 2011. The article has existed since 2004, and in between 2004 and 2011 there are many neutral versions that can be reverted to. I have removed the promotional addition.
The article has negative coverage of the subject, so it does not fail WP:NOT:
In 2003, Albert Yeung was again under investigation by the ICAC, along with Hong Kong singer Juno Mak, for allegedly bribing TVB for the Jade solid gold awards. As many as 30 people were arrested in connection with corrupt allegations with preferential treatment of singers and controlling the music billboards.
I do not see promotion in the other articles, but I would be grateful if you would point any out so I can fix them.
Cunard (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing that wording. Valoem below also removed some, which is also appreciated. On the point of negative coverage: negative coverage alone does not prevent an article from being promotional. Its relatively common to see minor criticisms included in spam pieces so as to avoid G11 deletion by those who know who the process works, so the mere inclusion of this does not exempt an article from compliance with NOT. The ultimate question I ask in all these cases is whether or not simply having a Wikipedia article would be more prominent coverage than the subject has ever seen before, and if the article clearly exists with the intent of promotion. That is the case in all of these articles. It is therefore excluded both on notability grounds and on NOT grounds. The sourcing you provided does not comply with our standards for corporations under WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. Deletion is the optimal outcome based on both the notability guideline and our exclusion policy as found in NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all -- product of a sock farm (some CU confirmed). If this is indeed a notable company (of which I'm not convinced), then a volunteer editor would turn up to create it. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. Wikipedia is not harmed by not having an article on a subject, so this is best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and Allow recreation if the promotional materials have been removed then Keep, currently there are promotional undertones, however Cunard has proved the subject pass GNG, there should be no reason to not allow a clean up and recreation. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some additional promotional tones. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the wording of the article does not determine notability and suitability for inclusion. It is the available sources that determine whether or not an article is kept. As has been shown, the available sources are seriously lacking and demonstrate subjectivism and promotionalism - the exact opposite of significant third party coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and it is not an extension of a company's website. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording can be a factor, but so can clear promotional intent. As I said above, the Wikipedia articles on these companies would be the most significant coverage they ever received. That sounds like both promotion and lack of notability to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: You make some good points. I didn't think about the fact that promotional wording in an article equals promotional intent. Thanks. And, oh yeah, the Wikipedia articles are the most significant coverage these companies have ever received - I am chuckling at that one - because it is true. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. They might need to be purged of promotional material, but this company is definitely notable.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion on the notability of the subjects and the sources provided and the fact that the promotional content was only added later to some of the articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It had significant coverage in Chinese but not in English, if possible (if they all were subsidiaries), merge to Emperor Group is a solution. Matthew_hk t c 11:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, COI material is another thing. Some of the company such as Emperor Entertainment Group and Emperor Motion Pictures were notable and pass GNG as major music and movie label of Hong Kong. Matthew_hk t c 12:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for film studio & music label, merge others into Emperor Group. This discussion needs to be divided into two parts: the media firms and the rest.

EEG & EMP are a major Hong Kong film studio & music label and should definitely be kept. Not only has Cunard shown comprehensively that they pass WP:GNG, but they have been a significant force in Hong Kong culture in the the last 30 years. The sourcing in our article is terribly weak now, but they are discussed in many SCMP articles; the difficulty is that "Emperor" is a word that comes up rather a lot in Chinese newspapers. In particular, there are many entries in the famous Lai See gossip column that assume Hong Kongers already know these firms. In addition, EEG is the only local label discussed in Ho's working paper on HK popular music, subsequently published in the journal Popular Music. I've also no doubt that there would have been far, far more articles in Hong Kong's thriving Cantonese press (which is national press coverage for this purpose). I tried looking for a Cantonese article covering the group as a whole but it was like looking for a needle in a haystack because of the vast amount of (non-significant) mentions in countless articles about various singers, films, and hotel projects. While Chinese Wikipedia does not carry any authority under our policies, I think it's interesting to note that EEG has its own template there and is the first in the domestic list of the record labels template.

The idea that WP would be the most significant coverage those two firms have achieved is very far off the mark. TonyBallioni has cited WP:NOT in good faith, but needs to explain what part he is referring to, because for these two subsidiaries, the only relevant part I can see is WP:NOTPAPER. ;-) The mentions of WP:PROMO must be referring to some earlier revision; the one I see now is fine and the EEG article discusses an ICAC investigation, which is about as far from self-promotion as you can possibly get!

AFAIK the other (non-media) subsidiaries don't have anything like this cultural impact and the articles about them can safely be folded into the main Emperor Group article with redirects. Matt's talk 08:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the citation was of NOTSPAM alone because Cunard's wall of text that does not satisfy the GNG is so hard to argue against because it's overwhelming. My view now is that it still fails WP:N/PROMK, the sourcing Cunard provides is trivial or promotional:there's a lot of it, but a Wikipedia article would still be the most significant coverage these subjects have ever received: that's enough in my mind to fail the GNG and NOTSPAM since there was clear promotional intent. I'd also like to note for the next closer that there was a clear consensus to delete before the relist, and that the relisting comment here borders on a !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments made and work done by Cunard, and plus many news hits. I appreciate the comments made by TonyBallioni and others, but ultimately if paid editors create articles on notable topics, that regular editors then clean up, what's the problem? Does anyone rag on Linus Torvalds for getting paid a comfortable living for writing a free operating system? Of course not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ritchie333: its a credibility problem for the encyclopedia that also deals with our ethical obligations given the role of the English Wikipedia in the current world. The case here is that we have a company that had very minor coverage or promotional coverage in the press, as Cunard's sourcing demonstrates. By having this article we are giving the subject more coverage than it has ever had before: that's both the definition of being non-notable and the definition of promotion in my mind. In cases where the notability is in question, promotion should be a very important consideration in deletion: no one is talking about deleting The Coca-Cola Company here, but a group that has had some success but likely not enough to warrant an article.
  On the ethical front, part of the reasons that our resolve to not be an advertising platform is so important is because by giving companies that are not notable coverage, we actually increase their odds of success unfairly over their competition. This is the major problem with paid editing: it causes Citogenesis, and allows non-noteworthy companies to raise their profile unfairly over others. Allowing it is both clearly against Wikipedia policy (NOTSPAM), and in my a disservice to our readers, which is always the first thing we need to keep in mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The magazines of deleted New Media Group Holdings Limited was somewhat a household name in Hong Kong (which write Chinese, so you 99% can't build an article with English only source), it just not quite notable to knew they were sold and have the new owner "New Media Group Holdings". Mixing COI deletion and GNG deletion look awful BTW. Promotional material should be cleaned, COI should not be allowed, but if people keen on building pass GNG article but low importance, instead of creating high-importance one first, not sure it will "promote" the company or not even the editor was not a paid editor. Matthew_hk t c 17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If COI was involved. The best way was delete and restart a new one. Matthew_hk t c 15:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources referred to by Cunard are invariably relying on material originating with the company or company sources. I do not have the time nor inclination to check all 50 sources produced by Cunard since every other time Cunard produces these lists, 99% of the time the references fail the criteria for establishing notability including WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. If Cunard can't be bothered checking the sources then I don't see why the onus should be on the rest of us to identify the needle in the haystack. From the sources in the articles, they are press releases, company announcements, routine business announcements and information that can also be found on their own web pages. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I also agree that the article fails WP:SPIP and WP:NOT. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Emperor Group; do not delete. Emperor Group is a well-known conglomerate in Hong Kong and Cunard has already shown the notability of the companies beyond doubt. The main Emperor Group article currently has limited detail about each sub-business and the articles about the subsidiaries are limited in length, so merging all of them to create a comprehensive article about the whole group is a reasonable solution. Deletion would get rid of promotional material but would also leave us devoid of any coverage of these articles, which isn't a good way out. Deryck C. 14:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is little to none usable material that is not already present in the main article. Merge does not seem appropriate. Rentier (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I were to close this today, it would be defensible to close it as delete. But, I think it would be valuable to hear from @Deb, Kudpung, Rentier, Steve Quinn, and Yunshui:, all of whom commented early in the discussion, whether the sources, presented after they commented, change their opinion or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion remains unchanged since it's been motivated by the violation of the policy WP:NOT, which TonyBallioni eloquently explained above. Whether or not some of the articles pass the notability guideline is a secondary concern but the very fact that we are discussing it suggests that the notability is borderline at best. Rentier (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Rentier, thank you for the ping, and I think you hit home on a very good point: we are not dealing with a company that is unambigiously notable. There's a reason this company is at AfD but The Coca-Cola Company isn't. Its at best regionally significant to Hong Kong, but we haven't had an unambiguous demonstration that the sourcing dictates that these companies are significant enough in the way that they are viewed by non-connected sources to warrant inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. When notability is ambiguous the concerns raised by NOT tip the balance in favour of deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Tony's well reasoned arguments above, the above sources are marginal at best and enforcing our terms of use are what tips this over to delete in my view. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of them fail CORPDEPTH, GNG, SPAM. Barely any refs in there, what is in there is self-promotional. South Nashua (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this negative article about Emperor Capital Group Limited from Bloomberg Businessweek titled "Every Stock Was a Buy to This Analyst Team, Then Shares Tanked" fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Cunard (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one source. Most of the articles up for deletion had around one or two, if that. At least a couple are needed to satisfy CORPDEPTH. South Nashua (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your conclusion that one source is insufficient to establish notability. I provided more sources above and would be grateful to hear your thoughts about those sources.
Cunard (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "If Cunard can't be bothered checking the sources then I don't see why the onus should be on the rest of us to identify the needle in the haystack." – I spent many hours finding and analyzing these 50 sources. I believe every source I posted contributes to establishing notability. It is clear you disagree. To reflexively dismiss all the sources because it is I who posted them is disheartening.
Emperor Entertainment Group was called "one of the biggest record and entertainment companies in Hong Kong" by Financial Times. Billboard called it "the city's premier entertainment conglomerate" and "Hong Kong's biggest stable of local artists". Emperor Motion Pictures was called "one of the largest and most influential entertainment media investment companies in Hong Kong" by Xinhua News Agency.
To say that "the Wikipedia articles on these companies would be the most significant coverage they ever received" is false.
To say that "we haven't had an unambiguous demonstration that the sourcing dictates that these companies are significant enough in the way that they are viewed by non-connected sources to warrant inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia" is false.
It is clear that Financial Times, Billboard, and Xinhua News Agency consider these to be major companies.
Cunard (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about merging: Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) merged material from these articles to Emperor Group here, here, and here, so it would be a violation of the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy to delete the articles. There is plenty of encyclopedic content in the articles that could be used to expand Emperor Group as Deryck Chan (talk · contribs) suggested.
Cunard (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is irrelevant. Matthew_hk t c 04:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is relevant. The authors of the merged material must be attributed. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusing text within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright, which says, "If material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it has been provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikipedia's copyrights policy." Attribution for these three edits is not possible with the article histories deleted.

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely procedural note, keeping the edit history for the source material is just one way to meet the attribution requirement (albeit, the easiest and most common). As described in WP:MAD#Record_authorship_and_delete_history, other acceptable ways are citations in the edit summaries, or on the destination article's talk page. 00:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Keeping the edit history is the easiest and most common way to meet the attribution requirement. The only sensible reason to delete the history and do the other methods is if the edit history contains BLP violations or copyright violations so cannot be preserved.

Cunard (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith and Cunard:As a reply to the procedural note only here: I believe that I should have fixed the attribution problem: because so little of the articles were actually copied, it was very easy to identify the copyright holder behind the specific sentence or clause that was copied. I've done edit summary attributions (seen immediately below). Since the authors of any part of an article own their contributions in whole and are licensing them to us under CC-BY-SA 3.0, this should be enough to satisfy our licensing criteria since the parts copied went unchanged after they were initially inserted into the articles, there are actually only one or two copyright holders to the material copied. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, thank you for pointing this out: I've fixed the attributions in the edit history per WP:RUD with the following three edits: [1] [2] [3]. If there are any other potential CC-BY-SA issues before deletion of these articles, please let me know so I can make the necessary attribution in history for copyright purposes. Luckily with Wikiblame it is very easy to identify the original author of every word so attribution shouldn't pose a problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Northamerica1000 merged some of the material in the articles to Emperor Group demonstrates that there is information in the articles worth preserving and merging to Emperor Group. It would not help the encyclopedia to delete this content.

Cunard (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NA1000 added short 2.5 sentences that barely meet the standards for unique creative expression, and that anyone could have easily created on their own. The neccesary attribution has been provided for copyright purposes. As described above, keeping these articles does hurt the encyclopedia. I don't think we'll ever agree on that, but I did want to clarify how little content was copied for the closer or any other editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is more material from the six articles that can be merged to Emperor Group. Deletion would prevent that from happening so deletion would not help the encyclopedia.

For example, this content in Emperor Entertainment Group:

EEG was founded by Albert Yeung, a businessman in Hong Kong. The music label was originally called Fitto Record, until 1999. During the Fitto era, artist signed under the label includes Julian Cheung, Bondy Chiu, and the late Roman Tam. The label is affected by 1997 Asian financial crisis, which has caused the label, to be acquired by EEG in 1999. During the EEG's acquisition of Fitto, Nicholas Tse has become one of the artist rosters.

is neutrally written and can be merged to Emperor Group.

Cunard (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding Emperor Motion Pictures, the primary source (their website) listed a lot of Hong Kong movie, not sure it is possible to rebuild it by a list of film, with citation of secondary source (i am quite sure it has many Chinese language source but not much in English). But the current state of the article is quite poor. The HKTDC was merely a directory and those content may be written by the company itself. Matthew_hk t c 04:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, it is fine for articles to be works in progress. The article has plenty of reusable content that can be copyedited and sourced to the sources I found.
Cunard (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: per reply above, I have fixed the attribution issues that might have posed a problem for deletion. If there are any more that are needed, I can fix them. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still say delete, if for no other reason than the COI, obviusly paid promo exploiting the free volunteer work of the people who genuinely create ad maintain the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni's coments are nevertheless also extremely convincing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say my sentiments have not changed. I have not found anything in sources that show these articles are not efforts to simply promote these entities. And, again, Wikipedia is the best coverage they have received. Pretty good promotional campaign that saves zillions of dollars. Fails CORPDEPTH, GNG, ORG, and so on. Routine coverage is trivial coverage. Aso, TonyBallioni has presented some fine arguments for not keeping these articles. Thanks Toni ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge all to the parent organization, Emperor Multimedia Group . The individual subsidiaries are not sufficiently important ot be worth separate coverage. According to WP:GNG, merely meeting the GNG is not sufficient in this sort of information-a single article is the way to handle it. The argument that English sources are not available, but only Chinese, is irrelevant. The question of whether the entire complex should be removed for promotional is a reasonable question .Normally I would agree with Kudpung, except that I think one simple article is probably the most helpful to the readers. There is no one automatic solution. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The parent organization for the six companies is Emperor Group, not Emperor Multimedia Group. The main article already contains (in my opinion sufficient) information about each of the subsidiaries. Rentier (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LeanXcale database[edit]

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

Technically about the product and not the identically named company that makes it, so taking it here rather than nominating for A7. Not really much to say here: the sourcing that exists is run of the mill coverage that confirms its existence but not much more. You have a Forbes contributor piece that turns up and mentions it, but for those unfamiliar with Forbes contributors, they are not actually on the staff and are independent from editorial oversight, which means that we typically don't count such pieces towards meeting the general guideline in WP:N. Otherwise, this is a pretty boring database. The article reads a bit like a brochure too, but not enough for G11, so the concerns with promotionalism also weigh on our considerations for deletion per WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for deletion: the parent company that I discovered after making the nomination. All of the reasons above apply to it as well:

LeanXcale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above review is totally biased for an unknown reason. Only refers to the mention from Forbes and questions its independence. But it does not mention that LeanXcale is a multi-award company for its database product. The awards have been given by very different independent organizations with a very high reputation in the startup world: EIT Digital and Red Herring. The database has also been included in a market analyst report, total data from 451 research one of the main market analysts on the database arena together with Gartner and Forrester. The database has also been included in the main database ranking, dbengines.com. + I am also nominating the following article for deletion: the parent company that I discovered after making the nomination. All of the reasons above apply to it as well: − What is more LeanXcale is one of the few databases based on a granted patent that demonstrates its novelty. +

LeanXcale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

− More validation also comes from the startup world. First, one of the most important European startup accelerators, EIT Digital, has coached LeanXcale during 2016. Second, Bullnet Capital has invested in the company due to the high novelty of the database. + TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC) − LeanXcale database is simply quite notable by all standards.[reply]

− Now, I do not understand why a reviewer makes "subjective" insulting comments towards our database telling that is "pretty boring". LeanXcale is the only database able to scale to millions of transactions per second. I have been professor and researcher in this area for over 20 years. I am one of the most relevant researchers in the area of scalable databases with papers published at the top conferences such as ACM SIGMOD and the top journals such as ACM Transactions on Database Systems, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, etc. I have over 2500 citations from my papers. What is the authority of the reviewer to tell that LeanXcale database is pretty boring?

− Talking about promotionalism, it is stated that it looks like a brochure. Really? The article simply discusses technical features. Just compare it with any other of other operational databases such as Clustrix. What is the difference?

− Ricardojimenezperis (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2017 (CET)

Ricardojimenezperis, I only mentioned Forbes because it was the only thing resembling a reliable source that came up. It isn't because it came from a contributor and not the magazine staff. I didn't think to mention the awards when I made the nomination because they didn't show up in sourcing, but sure, since you mention them I'll go into further analysis: this is a startup. All startups get awards, and the ones that this company has received don't confer notability.
Re: receiving funding. That isn't a measure of notability.Again, see it being a startup: receiving funding is something most early stage startups that don't fail immediately receive (otherwise they wouldn't be around to write their own Wikipedia article). The question we need to answer is whether or not this company has received in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Per WP:SPIP and WP:CORPDEPTH these sources must not serve the purpose of promoting your firm or be standard coverage any business would expect to receive simply by existing.
As for my bias: I have no bias against your company, I don't really care about it to be honest. What I do care about is ensuring that advertisements for run of the mill products aren't allowed in Wikipedia: as the person who has nominated your company and product for deletion, the community expects that I lay out a case for deletion otherwise I would be wasting their time, which is why the statements here are so negative: I have to point out in my statement why I believe these articles should be excluded from Wikipedia. Its no reflection on your work or the usefulness of the product. Just a reflection of my views as to whether it meets out guidelines and policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni is not true that all startups receive awards. Just below 1% receive awards. You also ignore the mention from 451 Research in their Total Data market analysis report. That is the most reliable source you have and ignores it. Also the fact that it appears in dbengines.com ranking. You also ignore to have a granted patent that most of the companies appearing do not have that is a process that takes several years and it is the only way to demonstrate the "innovative" character. Anyway, it seems that I have a conflict of interest due to I am founder and CEO of the company so I stop my discussion. But it is obvious that all database pages were written by someone asked by the company to do the writing and what contents to put there. Just look at the luxury of details on the funding rounds, who founded and so on, that only the founders and investors actually know. It is just not credible that someone out there without a relation to the company decided to write such an article and find out all that information. Ricardojimenezperis (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2017 (CET)

Delete No claim of notability; the awards mentioned are trade-press coverage and I don't believe that "Just below 1% receive awards" is true in a meaningful way. The articles are poorly referenced and promotionally toned, the author has a CoI, and I don't see significant coverage. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Since, the nominator is questioning the reliability of Forbes article. I just want to bring this old AfD in light, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algolia. Forbes article was deemed WP:RS, even though the contributor is not in the staff list. So I don't think it's fair to dismiss Forbes article unless the coverage is calculated to be just a passing mention. Hitro talk 20:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- HitroMilanese, AfDs go either way on that. Some do count those, others don't. The Forbes contributors section is generally the equivalent of an uncurated blog post on the Forbes website, with little editorial oversight. The key for something being an RS for purposes of notability is generally the degree of independence from the subject and the degree of journalistic integrity and editorial oversight. The Forbes contributor posts tend to not have the latter, and also often aren't intellectually independent of the subject. I see you made the same arguments two years ago! The trend recently from what I can tell is to be a bit more strict on it.TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a proprietary database / private company with no indications of notability or importance. Significant RS coverage not found. Wikipedia is not a product brochure or an investor prospectus. This content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. So Why 07:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German federal election, 2021[edit]

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

Article on the election after next. As has been shown at numerous AfDs (e.g. this), we don't keep such articles. Prod removed by article's creator. Number 5 7 21:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that this was a bit premature, but would prefer not to remove the article now, as it would have to be restored in only four weeks. Imho that would be a bit pedantic. Next time I will wait until election night, promised ;-). Alektor89 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-ify - I agree there's no point deleting it for 4 weeks, but moving it to be a draft is easy enough to do and un-do. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it to draft would seem appropriate. I suggest that Next German federal election is a more appropriate title as there's always the chance of a snap election being called prior to 2021, and the specific year is thus Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. Schwede 66 01:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DD Kids[edit]

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

This article was created in June 2015 [4] with a statement that the TV channel would be launched in November that year. The only working source present until today had nothing to do with any DD Kids channel. I have found some speculative news that DD Kids could be launched this year, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and right now this topic is not notable at all. De728631 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON etc. Spiderone 10:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuğçe Melis Demir[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, contested prod. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets guideline 1 and 2 of WP:Hockey, notable female athelete. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:NHOCKEY, as you have clearly misread it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the sources that I could find and thought that this player did play at the highest level of competition in her country. Of course I take your word for her status since you seem a lot more familiar with hockey than I am. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara (WVS): Sportsfan should have been more clear in their response, but the point was NHOCKEY has never used in a country as part of the guideline. It has always been in the world (either implied or directly stated) as ice hockey is not equally covered in every country like football. Yosemiter (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if an athlete is playing at the highest level in their own country, but is not a global competitor, then they are not notable enough? I do page patrolling some times of new articles. My impression was that if any soccer player's foot touched a soccer ball even once in an amateur game, that earned them notability and a WP article. So it isn't the same for hockey? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara (WVS): Sort of correct per WP:NFOOTY, if a player in the top level in their country (which in most cases are fully-professional) then they are considered notable per that SNG. But ice hockey is nowhere near soccer/football in world popularity and hence don't get nearly the same media coverage, even if said country even has an IIHF recognized hockey team (which many don't). If there were to be an in a country statement on NHOCKEY, that would lead to club team players in Egypt and recreational players in Panama having "notability", which obviously would be incorrect. All Sports Notability Guidelines should imply that the athlete that passes the guideline is 99% likely to be able to the General Notability Guidelines. Yosemiter (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemiter's clarifications aside, if you genuinely read NHOCKEY, you would have seen that it not only is a different SNG than NFOOTY, but that its provisions are entirely different. The logical (if farcical) conclusion to "the top players in any one nation-state are automatically notable" is that beer leaguers in Peru or San Marino are notable by definition, a bit of silliness to which the hockey WikiProject thankfully avoids. Ravenswing 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely does not meet WP:NHOCKEY guidelines, does not play at the top level internationally and plays in an amateur league when there are professional options available for women players. Besides that GNG is not met as all citations found are only passing mentions or databases.18abruce (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After trying to read the sources (most of which were broken or dead), searching for more, and running them through rough translators, I am not seeing anything outside of the WP:ROUTINE mentions and stats pages. This basically only proves that she is a real person who has played hockey but does not meet the WP:GNG standards for significant coverage. Absolutely does not meet WP:GNG as women's leagues have not established any presumed notability for its players based on media coverage. In order for a women to meet the SNG, she must have played for the top division in the IIHF world championships or the Olympics (which typically overlap rosters anyways).
Note: since the time that @Barbara (WVS): listed their keep vote, NHOCKEY has been further clarified to explicitly list all leagues in the SNG itself since some found it to be confusing (i.e. they would see "top professional league" and read "top professional league in a country" despite this never being part of the criteria). Yosemiter (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another in a very long string of articles about NN female Turkish hockey players, and at least we've put to rest the inane notion that they possibly satisfy any element of NHOCKEY, which they do not. No evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barbara (WVS) As WP:NHOCKEY doesn't include women's leagues, it's not relevant here. WP:GNG is a better measure (and supersedes NHOCKEY anyhow). Hmlarson (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks like she's on Survivor in Turkey per a US-based Google search ref, ref (just two of several different news items in Turkish). Perhaps better references can be found, the broken ones fixed with archive links, and/or a Turkish language expert coud help to improve and keep the article per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to redirect the article to Survivor Turkey, by all means; in no national edition of Survivor, of course, are contestants presumptively notable. Ravenswing 07:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

İrem Ayan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in a very long string of articles about NN female Turkish hockey players, and at least we've put to rest the inane notion that they possibly satisfy any element of NHOCKEY, which they do not. No evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see that WP:NHOCKEY even mentions any women's players, leagues, officials, etc. Seems curious to use it here as a reason for deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Not really. The fundamental question we need to ask of any article in terms of its suitability for Wikipedia is "Upon what basis does the article creator assert notability?" Here, it's that the subject's a hockey player. There's a guideline that sets forth the standards of notability for hockey players, which the subject here fails to meet, and which is entirely appropriate to cite. Ravenswing 07:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seda Demir[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another in a very long string of articles about NN female Turkish hockey players, and at least we've put to rest the inane notion that they possibly satisfy any element of NHOCKEY, which they do not. No evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NHOCKEY doesn't even mention women's players that I see. Why do you keep referencing it? Hmlarson (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The fundamental question we need to ask of any article in terms of its suitability for Wikipedia is "Upon what basis does the article creator assert notability?" Here, it's that the subject's a hockey player. There's a guideline that sets forth the standards of notability for hockey players, which the subject here fails to meet, which is entirely appropriate to cite, and which shouldn't be any great puzzle to figure out why it's mentioned. Ravenswing 07:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Jasmina Decu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in a very long string of articles about NN female Turkish hockey players, and at least we've put to rest the inane notion that they possibly satisfy any element of NHOCKEY, which they do not. No evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since women's leagues are not even mentioned in the NHOCKEY guideline, I wonder why you refer to it so often for articles about women's ice hockey? Yes, WP:GNG (which supersedes NHOCKEY anyhow) must be met and must be met for any male player articles as well. Hmlarson (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The fundamental question we need to ask of any article in terms of its suitability for Wikipedia is "Upon what basis does the article creator assert notability?" Here, it's that the subject's a hockey player. There's a guideline that sets forth the standards of notability for hockey players, which the subject here fails to meet, and which is entirely appropriate to cite. Ravenswing 07:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 3D printers[edit]

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

Notability is not temporary. This list can go on indefinitely, lacks very notable printers (e.g. RepRap Prusa), and reads like a commercial catalogue. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. It has been WP:PROD'd before for "WP:NOTCATALOG. This is a list that also violates WP:LISTCRUFT - we do not collect indiscriminate information" Rubdos (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article has been in WP:PROD by User:Gbawden, and that this has been removed by User:DGG (reason: needs sourcing, but we have many such articles). I would want to know what those other many such articles are. I notified both users. Rubdos (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comparisons are or should be limited to those about which we have WP articles or which are discussed substantially in WP articles about the firms.We have many such articles here0--it's standard especially in the computer technology field--the field where WP is best known for comprehensiveness and quality. As such articles go, the selection here is reasonably appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is standard to have such articles though they do take watching. See the articles in Category:Computing comparisons and its many subcategories. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted by DGG, items in the list should have their own stand alone article. This ensures that the list is not endless, and that it does not become endless, with every marginal or unnoticed machine. The list as it is, is OK. Remove red linked entries. Also, maybe remove the different variations of one brand in the list. For example, 'Stratasys' has more than 20 variations - and with that I can agree with the nominator - Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate cataloging of cruft and we are not in the business of promotion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove all variations of a brand (e.g. Stratsys), this would become a Comparison of 3D printer brands, and there wouldn't be a lot to compare anymore. If we keep listings of which there exist articles, would that include e.g. Ultimaker#Ultimaker_2, which is merely a header of a brand? In any case: I think it is wrong to list prices on Wikipedia; would there be objection to removing that column at least? That kind of data is very volatile. Rubdos (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a useful list. We have similar lists comparing operating systems, chat clients, web browsers etc. It presents the information in a concise manner. I do agree with Rubdos that we can remove the price column.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is fundamentally not able to maintain an article like this is any state better than "incomplete and deeply misleading". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has also been improved since this AFD opened. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April Mullen[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a film director, who has a potentially valid notability claim (a film that premiered at a major film festival) but isn't reliably sourced. Of the seven sources here, six are either primary sources (her own website, content where she's the bylined author of the piece, etc.) or blogs that cannot assist notability at all, and the only one that's actually an acceptable reliable source (Niagara Falls Review) just namechecks her existence in the process of not being about her. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but a film director isn't automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- she needs to be substantively the subject of reliable source coverage, not blog entries and a self-published website, to get over WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added citations from Canada's leading newspaper and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that I hope bolster the case for notability, as well as mainstream LGBT media review sources that are independent from the subject person. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. She's the author of the CBC piece, so it doesn't assist notability at all — people get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by being the author of the article's sources. Of the two Globe and Mail citations you added, neither one is about Mullen at all — one is a brief blurb review of a different film, and the other just briefly mentions Mullen's existence in the process being fundamentally about the film's writer, Stephanie Fabrizzi. And AfterEllen is a Q&A interview where Mullen is talking about herself, which thus does not demonstrate notability for the same reason that her self-published website and the CBC source don't: a person doesn't get to hype themselves into Wikipedia by talking or writing about themselves. All of those new sources would be acceptable for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger ones — but none of them count a whit toward the initial meeting of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations of other people talking about her, giving her an award, seeking her comment, and giving her work based on her accomplishments and notability. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're still not really getting it. The only awards indicated here are "Birks Diamond Tribute" and "Niagara Falls Arts and Culture Wall of Fame", which are not awards that count as notability claims — a person has to win an award on the order of the Canadian Screen Awards or the Oscars or the Emmys or the BAFTAs to be considered notable for being an award winner, not just any random local award that exists anywhere at all. Being the interview guest on a TV show still fails what I said last time about AfterEllen: she's the one talking about herself. Being a soundbite-giver in an article about another thing doesn't assist notability, because it doesn't equate to being the subject of the coverage: Mullen still isn't the subject of "Female Directors Face Closed Doors in Canada, Study Finds", but merely gives that article's writer a 28-word quote in an article that's about a broad theme and not about Mullen herself — the article actually says more about Erika Linder than it does about Mullen, and Erika Linder isn't even a director. So no, you still haven't added any references that actually strengthen the case at all — 16 footnotes, and we're still at zero for footnotes that count as notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would be harsh to tell Ms. Mullen that her TIFF trinket is "just any random local award that exists anywhere." Canada's leading newspaper, broadcaster, and multiple online mags are giving her attention and seeking her out for comment because of her notability. If Wikipedia only listed filmmakers who earned CSAs, Oscars, and Baftas, we'd have to cull a lot of articles. Mullen has accomplishments in several related fields; she's not a Kardashian, all of whom have Wikipedia entries -- even Khloe. Yes, one of the cited sources is primarily about Erika Linder, and it's hardly unusual in Wikipedia to use a part of an article to substantiate a claim. Admins know that, so I'm baffled by the sledgehammer reply, sneering putdown of Ms. Mullen/Canada, personalizing, and the focus on the editor rather than the edits in the feedback above.

Part of the media attention Ms. Mullen has earned in turn has allowed her to speak, which in Wikipedia-land doesn't count -- I get that -- because it has to be someone else speaking about her. The irony is her message is that female voices aren't heard in Canadian cinema because men get all the big budgets, and the cited study validates that. And she echoed that finding from personal experience. And then -- this is delicious -- she is declared by Wikipedia admins as being not notable, validating that, indeed, her voice is not worthy of being heard. And that's how Ms. Muzzled, er, Mullen, didn't make it into Wikipedia. I appreciate the time spent on critiquing my proposed article and in listening to me. GetSomeUtah (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for starters, you might want to double-check who created our article about Below Her Mouth if you think I'm somehow prejudiced against April Mullen.

At any rate, one of the main reasons we insist on reliable source coverage about a person, as opposed to handing a notability freebie to everybody just because the article claims something that sounds interesting, is that because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we have no processes in place to prevent somebody who doesn't like her for whatever reason from editing the article to attack her, or inserting outright lies about her, or revealing unpublished gossip about her personal life. You might think nobody would ever actually do that, but you would be wrong — it happens all the time on here, and reliable source coverage is our only method of sorting out what's true and what isn't. We depend on reliable source coverage because it's the only method we have of ensuring that the article stays accurate. We don't insist on reliable source coverage to punish people: we insist on it to protect them from the damage that having a Wikipedia article that isn't properly sourced can do to a person's life and reputation. Having a Wikipedia article is not always necessarily a good thing: it's a double-edged sword with more negative consequences than some people realize, and so using reliable sources to properly support notability is how we manage that risk.

Oh, and incidentally, "Birks Diamond Tribute" is not a "TIFF trinket". It's not an award presented or conferred by TIFF — it's a PR event independently organized and scheduled to occur during TIFF, but not organized or presented by TIFF. So it's not equivalent to winning "Best Canadian Film" or "Best Short Film" or "People's Choice" from the actual TIFF awards committee. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the effort to clarify. GetSomeUtah (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April Mullen has been interviewed and featured on one of the largest lesbian entertainment sites, AfterEllen. I have included a reference link here.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfterEllen (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— AfterEllen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's already been included in the article, and I've already explained above why it doesn't count. A Q&A interview represents the subject talking about herself, and thus works like her own self-published website and not like third-party coverage — it can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been passed by stronger sources, but it does not count toward the basic question of getting her over GNG in the first place. Also, I don't know if you're an employee of AfterEllen or just a random person who picked that as your username because it happened to be top of mind due to the comment you wanted to add — but if you are an employee then you'll need to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules, and if you're not then you'll need to familiarize yourself with our username policy which prohibits usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a Q&A interview. Also, there is a video interview with her at a major Los Angeles film premiere, along with the rest of the cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfterEllen (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a Q&A interview: it's plainly written in the format "AfterEllen: Q? April Mullen: A.", which is the literal definition of a Q&A interview. And video interviews don't count either, for the same reason. The only kind of source that can support notability in a Wikipedia article is one in which she is being written about in the third person by somebody other than herself. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject's 17-year-career as an actress, screenwriter, director, and producer -- as documented in the article -- make her a "significant" subject with many reliable and independent sources, per the definition of the very first sentence in WP:GNG. Ms. Mullen is therefore suitable for a stand-alone article. For those who seek a better citation on any given project of the subject's, there is a template for that, and it can be inserted into the appropriate place in the article. The overall notability is clear, and her accomplishments have received reliable, verifiable, and independent attention in and beyond her native country. GetSomeUtah (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is a measure of the degree to which the subject has or has not been the subject of significant and substantive coverage in reliable sources. You have yet to show any sources that count toward building a GNG claim at all, however — the article is still based entirely on Q&A interviews, primary sources, blogs, and glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her, and still lacks even one source that counts as substantive coverage in a reliable source for the purposes of meeting GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's there any GNG, when every source in the article at all is either unreliable, self-penned or a mere glancing namecheck of her existence in coverage of something else? Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.afterellen.com/movies/511655-director-april-mullen-mouth-female-gaze

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 20:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE as director of a notable film; cited reviews and articles on this film (which has received coverage in Variety, THR, etc) all discuss her work as a filmmaker and hence provide material for an article on her. Her acting is also mentioned in various reviews. The nominator seems to disagree with the existence of the subject notability criteria, and does not understand that material on an artist's creations is relevant when writing about the artist. Nobody else is arguing for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as of now, it passes WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Linaro#Linaro Community Board Group. It is possible that reliable independent sources could be found to support this article; the content can be developed at the redirect target until then. The preferences of editors in this discussion who have limited Wikipedia contribution histories is considered, but given little weight due to their likely unfamiliarity with Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. bd2412 T 23:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

96Boards[edit]

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

This article had references, but they were entirely either from the subject's site itself (constituting a primary source and original research), or simple tutorials which mentioning the subject in passing, and were removed. Leaving this an entirely unsourced article. A preliminary WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dunno — I was in -en-help when the author dropped by, so I thought I should chime in with what I found, as this seems to be a weird sort of borderline area. As a specification, there's other stuff that's adhering to it (e.g., the Dragonboard 410c seems to have a lot of buzz as the 2nd Win10 board; another one), but the press only tends to mention the specification in passing. There are a couple of sources like this, which we're more looking for, but the vast majority of the others are either other boards or non-independent. Like, you've got things like this from intel, but that's not really critical analysis or useful for anything other than an extlink. sort of mentions it. Anyway, it sorta feels like it could have an article, but I guess it could just as easily be merged + redirected to Linaro until it gets more direct coverage. I'm neutral otherwise. --slakr^\ talk / 03:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you slakr for the review, feedback and suggestions. I would like to update you and those who would be voting on this page for AfD.

Addressing "COI" tag — Primary contributor (myself) has declared transparency on both User page and Talk page of page in question. This page has also seen some external contributions. I move this tag not be taken into account when voting for AfD. --Sdrobertw^\ talk / 3:55PM (UTC) 4 August 2017
Addressing "Orphan tag" — Since this pages conception links to page has increased, this will continue to increase if the page remains live and this community has something to link too. I believe cross links to the information in this page in necessary to many other Wikipedia articles and organizations. I move this tag not be taken into account when voting for AfD. --Sdrobertw^\ talk / 3:5PM (UTC) 4 August 2017
Addressing "Notability" tag — From what I understand to be the most important. Siting the clause under "Primary criteria" of the Notability Guidelines under "Depth of Coverage": "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" Since the AfD was issued, several strong reference have been added that should have increased 96Boards notability substantially. I would encourage anyone who take part in this voting to consider these changes, and the additions/changes to come. The 96Boards community is lively, vibrant, and well known in many circles. This Wikipedia page reflects a notable name that will only continue to grow, bringing many more Wikipedians into the fold as contributors. 96Boards is attached to so many articles and companies within Wikipedia, I can see that for every 96Boards Wikipedia contributor, you will have edits made to other pages in the effort to bring the right information to Wikipedia users. Please consider some of the following links to increase 96Boards notability: Link 1 &mdash Linke 2 &mdash Link 3 &mdash Link 4, all of which have been added as references to the 96Boards page. I move this tag be heavily reconsidered when voting for AfD. --Sdrobertw^\ talk / 3:55PM (UTC) 4 August 2017
Comment Much like slakr, I've spoken with this user extensively in IRC -help, and find him to be a great potential asset to Wikipedia. That being said, the history of this page along with the what links here is telling. Literally every link to this page was either made by the author or an army of single purpose accounts. I found only one user who edited something other than this subject. But all came to action on the exact same week. The editor claimed in IRC, that this was due to a recent promotional campaign. I'm stretching my good faith in saying that's acceptable for one maybe two new account creations, but here's my list so far:

* Suihkulokki (the one user with other old edits)

* Ric96

Now I know this isn't SPI, and the point here is to come to consensus regarding inclusion. But I feel most editors would find the above stated references lacking in denoting notability, either being from manufacturers of the product, or from very niche and/or obscure blogs. Bundling that with the duck meatpuppetry is what led me to submit this AfD initially. Anywho, hope this provides some insight. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 15:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents I'm not associated with linaro or 96boards, but I do use a lot of different arm SBCs in my upstream kernel and mesa work, including several 96boards. I think having a standardized arm SBC form-factor / cables / peripherals, like what the 96boards standard is doing, is notable and interesting. Robdclark (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I own a DragonBoard410c which follows 96Boards CE specifications. I am interested to learn more about the company their products and the support provide to developers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shovansurya (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I own a Dragonboard 410c, Hikey 960 and Mediatek X20, all of which are based on the 96Boards CE specifications. I would like to provide people with the knowledge of the existence of this community that is dedicated in the development of ARM based Single Board Computers. Sure the page may be small and the references aren't from likes of The New York Times or The Verge. But, It is a growing community and making headlines on smaller news outlets and online blogs. And on the topic of this being a single purpose account, I was not aware of the fact that this was a thing, and since have started contributing to other pages as well. As for the others, all I have to say is that the 96boards wiki page was announced on the IRC and hence the sudden boost of contributions within a week. Rest assured, this page will continue to grow and to be maintained by us, hopefully adhering to the Wikipedia guidelines, however vague they may be. Ric96 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High quality article - The article may have been a valid candidate for deletion when the tag was added, but since then it is clear that there is a legitimate community here, and the article quality has improved accordingly. drue (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD is in desperate need of participation from experienced editors who are not connected to the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 20:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found. The issue at hand is not whether it has a "community" (I assume of *nix system builders/users) or whether it exists, but whether it has been written about at length in reliable sources. If the only sources available are how-to guides, name-drops, or their own website, then by the definition Wikipedia uses it is not notable and should be excluded until better sources come. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My search shows only passing mentions of "96Boards" standard in reliable sources - usually in coverage of individual boards. Linux.com offers a little bit more about "96Boards" standard: [5] But this is all user submited content, I think (note author of that article was staff member of PC World magazine). With such bad sourcing and SPA problems in this AfD, I´m not too eager to "vote" keep. However, I don´t think subject of the article should be removed entirely from Wikipedia. I would prefer a redirect to article about one of the boards, but there are none right now... Pavlor (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Linaro#Linaro Community Board Group until coverage warrants a standalone article. While this might be an interesting project down the road (perhaps WP:TOOSOON applies), a simple search doesn't bring up any mainstream coverage that suggests this is anything more than a fledgling effort. [[6]] [[7]] Indeed, the Linaro article says the board is under the Linaro Community Board Group, but that segment isn't listed as a segment group on their web site.[[8]] I reorganized the Linaro article and already merged some info there in case the closer prefers that option. I ignored the PIN functions and various mezzanines as overkill - if this info is truly important, readers would be better off going to the Linaro web site to get the latest specs. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also good with this solution, as per the reasons brought up. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala State Television Awards[edit]

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

Literally no references. A quick Google News search showed only passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm happy with just the paragraph that it has got in Kerala State Chalachitra Academy; it doesn't pass WP:GNG and so shouldn't have its own article Spiderone 10:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as improved. bd2412 T 02:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernetz[edit]

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

This is an invalid disambiguation page. The Battle of Bernetz Brook is a WP:PTM as there is no evidence of the battle being known simply as "Bernetz" (the short name would be "Bernetz Brook"). Christian Berentz is close to being a valid entry, but his surname is "Berentz", not "Bernetz". There are also some other entries that all fail WP:DABMENTION as there is no Wikipedia content to link to. With no valid entries, this should be deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments in the previous AfD. In a nutshell: dab page is at present non-standard but useful, and it will stop being non-standard the moment any Bernetz content is added to any of the four linked Quebec articles, and we wouldn't want to have to recreate the dab page from scratch when this happens. – Uanfala 21:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DABMENTION: If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. It's not "useful" for readers to be given a bunch of dead-ends. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[S]ince linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. I was trying to argue that in this case it will. – Uanfala 22:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sending our readers to articles that don't mention the term does not help them find information about the sought topic. It does the opposite, to be frank. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Bernetz River with abridged content from the French article. Really, adding enough content to justify the existence of the dab page takes on average less time than than trying to have that page deleted. – Uanfala 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've got enough unsourced content to deal with, please don't be part of that problem. Do you have some sources to support these claims? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that among WP DAB regulars who have edited the dab page so far, about half have been very diligent at removing entries that aren't currently mentioned in the linked articles. I understand why we would want to do that, and I'm sure we are ready to restore the removed entry as soon as a mention has been added to its article. The trouble is, we aren't likely to be there when this happens (I don't even think the relevant article are on the watchlists of anyone of us even now). Of course, the future editor who adds this content may restore the dab pointer, but most probably they wouldn't. Thus in most cases, we end up making information more difficult to find in the long run. – Uanfala 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DABMENTION should be applied if there's no mention at the present. Why are you assuming content will be added in the future? Do you have a crystal ball? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DABMENTION applies regardless of this discussion. It is highly misleading to participants to make it appear as if the disambiguation page has more entries than would normally be acceptable. If anyone wants to supply to necessary references, they are more than welcome. older ≠ wiser 01:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found Bernetz (township) while stub-sorting, checked to see if it was linked from Berentz (my standard practice for stubs with bracketed disambiguation), added it to the dab page. PamD 08:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that should read "checked to see if it was linked from Bernetz"! PamD 11:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have also found evidence of the painter being called Christian Bernetz so have added that with source to Christian Berentz article; his entry in the dab page is thus justified. PamD 08:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD. Plenty of people are likely to misspell Bernetz as Berentz (and vice versa). —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Dudman[edit]

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

Article about an actor. Most of the coverage is in blogs and similar questionable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 18:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's not an actor (see WP:CREATIVE); he's a run of the mill YouTube "personality". Bearian (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Does appear with John Culshaw on the BBC's Doctor Who site here: http://www.doctorwho.tv/whats-new/video/watch-jon-culshaw-and-jake-dudman-in-the-great-curator/ Are Jake Dudman and Jake Dundsbridge the same person? Ross-c (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only argument presented for a "weak keep" is a dead link. EDIT: That link has become live again but seems to consist of an interview with a different guy who mentions seeing subject's YouTube video. Darthamender (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. He does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, but I suspect in the future he will have enough coverage in reliable, published sources to be reconsidered. I just think someone is jumping the gun a little with a dedicated Wikipedia page after two YouTube videos Pupsbunch (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) reddogsix (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysus in comparative mythology[edit]

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

States the obvious. Lacks support and appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to List of Rocky characters#Union Cane. Snow closure.If the redirect is reverted, protection shall be sought. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Union Cane[edit]

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

Article is about a fictional boxer from Rocky V. Union Cane does not have any significant coverage independent reliable sources to establish notability. The article is sourced entirely to the Rocky wikia, an unreliable source. Redirects to the film have been repeatedly undone. Whpq (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Rocky_characters#Union_Cane. —Kusma (t·c) 18:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom, and past redirect rationales. Editor who has repeatedly restored the article should be thrown a final warning, and/or, the article should be salted. -- ferret (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Barely appears in the one film he is mentioned in and has no significant cultural impact so does not merit an article. Dunarc (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Not even close to independent notability. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No Redirect since Union Cane is a significant character in the 1990 film, Rocky V. He was a former heavyweight champion, and I believe he deserves a place on this wiki. JustInTime1 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2017 (MYT)

Claiming a character is "significant" or "deserving" without showing how he meets the WP:GNG is meaningless on Wikipedia. That won't persuade anyone here. Also note that he is a "former heavyweight champion" only in the context of a fictional movie. He is not a real person, and is not a real wrestler, so he certainly wasn't actually a heavyweight champion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not independently notable and as per my edits on the page, there are no sources available either. Suggest protecting it after closing this discussion due to the amount of times its been changed from being a redirect. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sourced to wikis, no evidence whether this information is factually correct or just something fans guessed at or made up; may even be original research. Article should be stripped of all unsourceable data, leaving it pretty much empty. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Deal (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Multiple IP editors keep on replacing the redirect with an article. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 18:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect the page until/unless somebody can create some meaningful content for it. An IP editor could easily register and recreate the page if it were deleted, so that doesn't really fix the problem, and persistent recreations end up annoying administrators if pages are deleted anyway. It's a plausible redirect if people are looking for the article, so should be kept as people will be redirected to a broader page about Jessie J. Ss 112 18:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've rewritten the page to comply with NSONG, it's not going to grow beyond stub class but hopefully GeoffreyT2000 could withdraw his or her nomination. Hayman30 (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of articles covering this song, as shown here, to justify notability. Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I have implemented all the usable ones. Hayman30 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage, as evidenced above, to meet WP:NSONG. gongshow talk 21:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage for the song is sufficient, as can be seen here and here.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thirteen Assyrian Fathers. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 15:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse of Georgia[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. De-prodded without rationale. DrStrauss talk 17:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thirteen Assyrian Fathers, a group of Eastern Orthodox Church saints of which the subject was a member. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case this AfD receives minimal participation I'd like to ask that the closing admin doesn't relist as I am fine with Metropolitan90's suggestion. DrStrauss talk 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of autonomous higher education institutes in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

This is a WP:POVFORK by Samankamal who has repeatedly tried to remove non state-owned universities from List of universities in Sri Lanka. When the removal was discussed every other editor opposed it. The creation of this article is a prelude to removing non state-owned universities from List of universities in Sri Lanka again. List of institutions of higher education in Sri Lanka was a previous POVFORK by Samankamal which was speedily deleted as WP:A10. Obi2canibe (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the universities and DAI there are more than 150 of higher education institute in sri lanka such as institutes of technology( Ex:Sri Lanka Institute of Advanced Technological Education, vocational schools, and other career colleges (Ex:Institute Of Personnel Management ) that award academic degrees or professional certifications and these institutes are distinct from universities.Most of the these institute (see List of autonomous higher education institutes in Sri Lanka ) are not listed under List of universities in Sri Lanka.Samankamal (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK by Samankamal NaminiGunasena (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Samankamal seems to be pushing his PoV. 18:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Fork of List of universities in Sri Lanka. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination--Chanaka L (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apparently not a place that exists at all. bd2412 T 03:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vošavka[edit]

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

This is not a Municipality of Bosnia and Herzegovina! Perhaps is a simple settlement, but there is not enough evidence that it even exists. Google return only few results and a part of them are unreliable (WP mirrors). XXN, 16:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i know gmaps is my no means comprehensive but when a supposed locality such as this one comes up with nothing ..., also nothing in Bosniawp, the only mention i could find was in this list of localities that children participating in a festival came from but that is all. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this does not exist. The reference above is likely just a typo for Jošavka Donja/Jošavka Gornja. No such user (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CAGE (organisation). (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Qureshi[edit]

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

This article needs deletion. This is not a person of significant importance. The article has little information on the subject and very little can be found or cited on the subject. It also seems like an attempt for an extremist group to give themselves credibility [[9]] [[10]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:2:4A80:5878:155C:1CEE:AEA2 (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested deletion on WT:AFD. I have no opinion on the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to CAGE (organisation). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to primary article. — fortunavelut luna 16:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to CAGE (organisation) as too little content for stand alone article Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 White stag. This is a weird one. It looks like the existing article is about a mythical creature for which we cannot establish WP:N or even WP:V, but the same name can also refer to something else, which is notable. So, redirecting to the notable thing. The article history will still be intact, so if somebody wants to mine that for mergeable material, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost deer[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:Notability. Seems to be an urban legend among local hunters. Dlthewave (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this may be a myth or legend, it has been covered in a variety of sources. http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Tracking-the-legendary-Ghost-Deer-of-Northern-2549732.php However, it may not be a legend: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-private-life-of-deer-video-the-ghost-deer/8308/ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=16JUs03bBKwC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22Ghost+deer%22+california&source=bl&ots=uG1OGu-fQX&sig=ChSbk5I0yxX4vYJok0a3OK7viNY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX-_TRxNLVAhVJIcAKHe9qAJo4ChDoAQhJMAc#v=onepage&q=%22Ghost%20deer%22%20california&f=false It does appear that research needs to be done and the page needs to be improved, but it shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok, we're looking at two separate topics here:

- A specific mythical deer in California that is impervious to bullets and disappears without a trace. Current topic of the article, very minimal coverage.

- A term for (real) albino deer, which sometimes have legends of ghostly origin. Covered by the overwhelming majority of sources. White stag discusses the mythology.

We could probably write more about albino deer mythology, but "ghost deer" seems to be more of a popular catchall term and not an appropriate name for the topic. Dlthewave (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, more research needs to be done. The term 'ghost deer' refers to more than one thing. But, deleting the article doesn't

address that issue, it just avoids it. Ross-c (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage exists in reliable sources, as demonstrated by User:Ross-c. CJK09 (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are one excellent source for the cryptid topic the instant article is about (the SF Gate piece), one source which talks about real amelanistic or leucistic deer (the PBS video), and one weird source about Virginia Dare supposedly being turned into a white deer by magic (the book). I suppose it would be possible to construct an article syncretizing these disparate sources, but that is not the article under consideration. I also did not find any other sources covering the cryptid ghost deer that were reliable, just a bunch of cryptid message boards and the like. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 03:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the coverage mentioned is about two different subjects, further discussion should focus on which subject this article should cover and which is actually notable. If the specific Californian dear is not, this might be a valid redirect to white stag per WP:ATD-R
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are some ghits for "ghost deer," but there's not enough about this ghost deer to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to White stag and locate any mergeable material there. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous assessment[edit]

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

Totally unreferenced article. Tagged for WP:V (August 2016). Appears to be a made-up concept. No sources support "Continuous assessment" that is an education policy in any nation as far as I am able to discern. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, is not a place for expressing personal views or original ideas WP:Notforum and WP:Nottextbook. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, more for being unsourced and not having anything show up when I try a couple of searches. I disagree that it's made-up, as it was certainly the term used for the way assessment was handled when I was at school in Queensland in the earlier years of the century, so on that level I'd expect there'd be something sourceable, but I'm apparently not the one to find it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Type this into Google Books and you get Continuous Assessment: An Introduction and Guidelines to Implementation, A Handbook on Continuous Assessment, Continuous Assessment: A New Approach, Continuous Assessment in the CSE: Opinion and Practice, Weaving Science Inquiry and Continuous Assessment: Using Formative Assessment to Improve Learning, Continuous Assessment for the Successful Implementation of the 6-3-3-4 System of Education: Proceedings of a Multidisciplinary Workshop on Continuous Assessment, Training Handbook for Nigeria Primary School Teachers: Continuous Assessment, Introducing Continuous Assessment in Mathematics in Uganda Secondary Schools, Continuous Assessment in Bhutan, Science Teachers' Perspectives, Continuous Assessment and Lower Attaining Pupils in Primary and Junior Secondary Schools in Ghana, and that's just the first page of 67,000 results. The article may not be great right now, but as a concept it is very obviously notable and there are plenty of sources available. --Michig (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No judgement on notability, just that the content was cut and pasted. probably from Nnadi Goodluck Don hack lord’s Project 2013[11]] without so much as a single reference, not even an academic citation (Smith 1999). Along with it came bad formatting; that's what all those random "o"s are. A ten-fold increase in size without references doesn't come from a dedicated editor. Sorry. Rhadow (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has existed since 2011. We don't delete the entire history just to erase some recent version. Andrew D. (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"We" delete the entire history if the article gets deleted - that's the way it goes on Wikipedia---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absurd nomination as this is highly notable and so should be kept for improvement per our editing policy. Please see WP:BEFORE and be aware that AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew - I am not interested in your personal attacks ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a personal attack, just an opinion on the nomination. There's a difference. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not just an opinion on the nomination - there are also personal attacks which are also snarky comments. They are unnecessary. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep loads of good Google scholar hits too. Probably needs to be renamed, as the article is about education but the term is also used in medicine. Neiltonks (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs to be rewritten - I think it needs to be rewritten from scratch. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nom, I must have been asleep or something when conducting searches for this term. Somehow, I missed the Google Scholar hits, and the Google Books hits. I can't explain it. If I was asked, I would have said that I searched Books and Scholar. I must have used a different and incorrect term or phrase. Anyway, I am changing my ivote to keep. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, incorrect was what it was for Scholar. The term has to be specified for "education", "teaching", "learning" and so on [12], otherwise the search favors "continuous assessment" in the field of medicine for monitoring patients. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- Yes yes yes it's an important topic. That doesn't change the fact that it appears 90% of the text is original research which was cut-n-pasted in without attribution. Without a big change now, forcing some well-researched writing, this article will sit for another four years in the same sorry state. Rhadow (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (warning - a rant is coming) "Appears to be a made-up concept. No sources support "Continuous assessment" that is an education policy in any nation as far as I am able to discern." Steve Quinn, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, if you knew anything about education systems you would know that the ACT in Australia (that small territory that contains the capital, no not Sydney but Canberra:)) has had continuous assessment for over 40 years, a simple gsearch under "act education continuous assessment" brings up numerous hits, here are a couple - Sydney Morning Herald - "A defining characteristic of the ACT senior secondary system is its school-based continuous assessment model", ACT Board of Senior Secondary Studies - "Assessment in the ACT is continuous school based assessment.", this afd should be immediately closed as a "keep", especially as the nominator has changed to a "keep", anyway i'm now going to have a nice cup of tea:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've literally spent the summer learning about how to apply this as one of the New York City Teaching Fellows. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the type of deletion nomination that makes me despair of Wikipedia. Of course this is an extremely notable topic, as anyone who has any general knowledge would realise in a nanosecond. And this had to be relisted twice? Why do people who clearly know nothing about the real world have such power over what goes in the world's favourite encyclopedia? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are significant concerns that the article contains large amounts of trivia, supported only by routine, short-term, and very local news coverage and university newspapers. In this discussion there are calls for deletion, merging, redirecting, and substantial rewriting. All of the participants have provided well reasoned rationales for their opinions, but with opinions so spread out I cannot see a consensus for outright deletion. The discussion of whether to merge, and if so, what to merge, with the university article, is best left to editors' discretion. Note that unless further work is made to address the concerns made here it is likely that the article will be renominated for deletion at some point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traditions of the University of Santo Tomas[edit]

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

I redirected this article because I could not identify sources which were not either primary or non-regional according to WP:N/WP:NORG. My redirect was contested. I continue to hold the belief that an examination of the sources will show that the sources are indeed low quality, so I am submitting this article to AFD. Izno (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can be trimmed down of the trivia and cruft. If not then delete it. It's a prestigious university, but its traditions are not anything that important. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: I'm not sure how the gist of your comment is anything but "delete" given that, unless you or the article creator put the work in, that anyone will clean it up. --Izno (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My partner's nephew attended this university, which has a good reputation, but I don't know where to begin editing, so I alerted the relevant WikiProject to work on it. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nobody outside the university and its alumni have any interest in this from what I can see. This isn't the Boat Race or even the University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt. The high points are already listed in University of Santo Tomas#Events and traditions. We certainly don't need the full lyrics of the school song. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend:But then again, Fair Harvard exists. UST is not Harvard, but would you need Harvard's full lyrics song? And too, the problem of the editor who nominated the article for deletion was the lack of credible sources. The article has more than 40 sources when it was nominated. I have substantially added reliable sources and substantially overhauled the article. The article already has 59 sources to date. Also, I dont have a clue or I am not interested with the Boat Race or the Scavenger Hunt, because I'm from the other side of the world. Readers of this article are from Asia and Philippines. I'm pretty sure, Asians or the Filipinos will be more interested reading this article than reading the traditions thats happening across the globe. Anyway, the popularity of Traditions of University of University of Santo Tomas vs. the popularity of the traditions of your first world universities is not the issue here. It is the lack of sources which I am now addressing. Pampi1010 (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the main author, I have added significant reliable sources from leading news agencies in the Philippines, such as ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs, GMA Network, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star, Rappler, and other online media. To date, there are 62 sources, and half are derived from the aforementioned national news agencies. The reason for the nomination for deletion was lack of notable sources, and not the "uninteresting" content, as one editor mentioned. Also, there are no sources from personal blogs. I am updating the article everyday.Pampi1010 (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this could potentially be merged with the article on the University of Santo Tomas, unless one thinks it is too long for that and merits its own article. Vorbee (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The following articles exist:

University of Alabama traditions - with 15 sources

Auburn University traditions - with 35 sources, it practically lists all the lyrics of their cheers and battle songs

Carnegie Mellon University traditions - 18 sources

Columbia University traditions - with 7 sources

Louisiana State University traditions - with 31 sources

Rutgers University traditions and customs - with 30 sources

Traditions of Texas A&M University - with 112 sources

There are just some university articles focusing on their university traditions. They are allowed to exist. They are allowed to stay even with minimal sources. This article has 62 sources and is better cited than these aforementioned articles. Pampi1010 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger question for me is, even granting that we look at this in the context of Philippine society and culture (that is, disregarding the US-centric articles you cited), are these UST traditions notable enough for Filipinos that they merit their own article? Compared to, say, UP's Oblation Run or the Ateneo–La Salle rivalry. Are many (if not all) of these already well-known to most Filipino readers inside and outside Metro Manila? --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some parts into University of Santo Tomas, delete the rest. There are perhaps very few university traditions among Philippine universities and colleges that might merit their own article and are well-reported (for instance, the Oblation Run and the Ateneo-La Salle rivalry) that they justify having their own articles. Of the many traditions listed in this article about UST's traditions, there may be a couple that might deserve at least inclusion in the main University of Santo Tomas article, but I have reservations about the others that are probably known only to UST students and alumni but not the rest of Metro Manila (if not the Philippines). Unless there is a more convincing argument for putting these university traditions into an article of its own, I'd vote to have this article deleted entirely, and merge only those truly notable sections into the UST article (until such time that one or a few of these traditions will have sufficient justification for having its own article.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This article contains more than 60 sources, half are independent sources. The Philippine-related articles mentioned previously, the Oblation Run and the Ateneo-La Salle rivalry, have 50+ and 30+ sources respectively. And way previously, the University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt, has 37 sources, 18 of which came from the University of Chicago itself. Again, this article has at least 30 updated, reputable, reliable, independent sources. Clearly, the traditions listed in the University of Santo Tomas have more significant coverage, compared to these three, source-wise, right? Pampi1010 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although they're buried in the many, many references to The Varsitarian (UST's own newspaper), this article does have more than enough reliable secondary sources to support its inclusion on Wikipedia. The point about there being numerous similar articles about US-based universities' traditions is well-made, if a touch other stuff exists-y; I wouldn't have guessed such traditions would merit articles here, myself, but if the sources are there... —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 04:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The article has 78 sources - 42 of which are reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject.Pampi1010 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update The article now has 80 sources - 44 reliable, secondary, and independent. When this was nominated for deletion, it only had 52. I want to save this article.Pampi1010 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge - I'm not opposed to keeping a separate article, but the incredible amount of trivia added to the article is WP:UNDUE. Without the trivia, a stand-alone article isn't really necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry - Which trivia are you referring to? Anyway, I am sensing that you are referring to the lists and tables, so I have significantly trimmed them down. I will continue to do so. Just please wait. Pampi1010 (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the next editor who will decide on the fate of this article. The editor who nominated this for deletion said, I redirected this article because I could not identify sources which were not either primary or non-regional according to WP:N/WP:NORG. So because of that, I looked for sources, from the original 50+ sources, this article now has 80 sources, to which 44 are reliable, secondary sources. His issue has already been resolved. That editor did not nominate the article because of the content, not because of the trivia too. Almost all of the content here are supported by those 44 reliable articles. The others are supported by university-based publications. Meanwhile, there are 4 tables here, and based on WP:TRIVIA, the 4 tables are not trivia as they are selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme. The Traditions of Texas A&M University, where I patterned this article from, contains a lot of trivia, because thats what you get from an article based on traditions. You expect everything to be trivial. But, to counter that, significant amount of sources have already been provided. Again, the problem with the sources has already been addressed. Pampi1010 (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros/Publication list[edit]

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

Es una subpágina, no enciclopédica, de un artículo Jcfidy (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This list of publications is a sub-page for a Wikipedia GLAM initiative. It is totally acceptable to have the page be a subpage of the main page. It has yet to be fully developed, but it is already being used heavily as a resource for creating Wikipedia pages that will be either created or improved on English, Spanish, and Portuguese Wikipedia. I don't understand why this is even a problem. This project is aiming to automate and improve Wikipedia, using these fully formatted citations -- the aim is that they can be easily copied and reused. There is no reason for this sub-page to be deleted. The Spanish editor is not even willing to have a discussion with me about this. This is so upsetting, as the intention here is very productive for three language Wikipedia. I don't understand. -- BrillLyle (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This subpage is also not complete. If I need to address concerns about the publication list, I would like the opportunity to improve the page before such a massive amount of constructive information is deleted. I disagree strongly with this deletion, and think it is really aggressive and unhelpful. I don't think that the Spanish admin took the time to understand this subpage. BrillLyle (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Si forma parte de los recursos de algún wikiproyecto lo lógico es que sea una subpágina del wikiproyecto pero no de un artículo. Creo entender que su función va a ser similar a la del proyecto Biblioteca de es.wiki ¿o lo he entendido mal? --Jcfidy (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This list of publications is a sub-page for a Wikipedia GLAM initiative. It is totally acceptable to have the page be a subpage of the main page. It has yet to be fully developed, but it is already being used heavily as a resource for creating Wikipedia pages that will be either created or improved on English, Spanish, and Portuguese Wikipedia. I don't understand why this is even a problem. This project is aiming to automate and improve Wikipedia, using these fully formatted citations -- the aim is that they can be easily copied and reused. There is no reason for this sub-page to be deleted. The Spanish editor is not even willing to have a discussion with me about this. This is so upsetting, as the intention here is very productive for three language Wikipedia. I don't understand. -- BrillLyle (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This subpage is also not complete. If I need to address concerns about the publication list, I would like the opportunity to improve the page before such a massive amount of constructive information is deleted. I disagree strongly with this deletion, and think it is really aggressive and unhelpful. I don't think that the Spanish admin took the time to understand this subpage. BrillLyle (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Si forma parte de los recursos de algún wikiproyecto lo lógico es que sea una subpágina del wikiproyecto pero no de un artículo. Creo entender que su función va a ser similar a la del proyecto Biblioteca de es.wiki ¿o lo he entendido mal? --Jcfidy (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Al igual que esta discusión abarca varios idiomas: Creo que usted ha entendido mal la situación aquí. La eliminación de esta subpágina es en contra de WP: BOLD y tendrá un impacto negativo en el idioma español y portugués Wikipedia.

CPPC como parte de su actividad publica trabajos académicos y de historia del arte en múltiples idiomas que serán citas para apoyar contenido que afecte a Wikipedias de inglés, español, portugués y otros idiomas. Esta subpágina es un reflejo de ese trabajo porque es únicamente multilingüe. Para que los editores maximicen el uso de la página CPPC principal y la subpágina con las citas, ambas páginas deben personalizarse para cada idioma: las plantillas de citas reflejan las etiquetas de idioma de forma diferente.

Una vez más abogo con usted para considerar cuán negativo será el impacto de la eliminación, especialmente para los usuarios de habla española.

Puedo y estoy dispuesto a mejorar la página principal y la subpágina para ilustrar esto mejor. Pero eliminar la subpágina es muy dañina. Le ruego que reconsidere esta postura. Al tener una interpretación estrecha aquí, usted como un editor están teniendo un impacto muy negativo en algo que está muy destinado a ser positivo y constructivo. BrillLyle (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just like this discussion spans multiple languages: I believe that you have misunderstood the situation here. Deleting this sub-page is against WP:BOLD and will have a negative impact on Spanish and Portuguese language Wikipedia.

CPPC as part of its activity publishes academic and art history works in multiple languages that will be citations to support content that impacts English, Spanish, Portuguese as well as other language Wikipedias. This sub-page is reflective of that work because it is uniquely multi-lingual. For editors to maximize usage of both the main CPPC page and the subpage with the citations both pages need to be customized for each language: citation templates reflect language tags differently.

I again plead with you to consider how negative the impact of the deletion will be, especially for Spanish speaking users.

I can and am willing to improve both the main page and the sub-page to illustrate this better. But to delete the sub-page is so very harmful. I beg you to reconsider this stance. By having a narrow interpretation here, you as one editor are having very negative impact on something that is very much intended to be positive and constructive. BrillLyle (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BrillLyle (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- From https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:BrillLyle

Esto no se trata de una tienda de enlaces, ya que he dicho que esta página no está completa. El plan era mejorar su contenido. La página es increíblemente relevante. Pero no parece que usted está interesado en tener una conversación aquí sobre eso.

La CPPC tiene su sede en los Estados Unidos, pero es internacional y muy panregional en los países de habla hispana que utilizan esta Wikipedia. Su misión es la publicación de obras que necesitan estar disponibles en múltiples idiomas. Cada subpágina debe ser completamente utilizable en cada idioma.

El impacto de suprimir esta subpágina significará que CPPC tendrá que duplicar GLAM sus páginas de iniciativa inglesa en Wikipedias en inglés, español y portugués. La página GLAM actual está aquí: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros

Esta es una situación en la que se debe permitir una excepción en el espíritu de WP: BOLD - y también en apoyo de una iniciativa GLAM que planea incluir una gran donación de imágenes.

Al eliminar esta subpágina, está afectando negativamente la cobertura de la Wikipedia española del arte moderno latinoamericano. Esto está perjudicando significativamente a su propia Wikipedia.

De sus acciones aquí también están impactando negativamente Wikipedia Inglés, como un compañero de redacción ha puesto en cola la sub-página de Inglés para la eliminación aquí, tan bien hecho! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros/Publication_list

El resultado final de no flexibilidad aquí es increíblemente negativo para los hispanohablantes y no reflejará la página CPPC adecuadamente. Esta eliminación creará 3 veces el trabajo y no reflejará la entrada correctamente. No creo que sea correcto para usted como un editor tener tal impacto, para interponerse en el camino de una iniciativa de GLAM que tendría un resultado tan positivo en su enciclopedia. Pero esta es su elección.

Yo me opongo. -- BrillLyle (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a link store, as I said this page is not complete. The plan was to improve its content. The page is incredibly relevant. But it does not look like you're interested in having a conversation here about that.

The CPPC is based in the United States, but is international and very panregional in the Spanish-speaking countries that use this Wikipedia. Its mission is to publish works that need to be available in multiple languages. Each subpage must be fully usable in each language.

The impact of deleting this subpage will mean that CPPC will have to duplicate its GLAM pages of English initiative in Wikipedias in English, Spanish and Portuguese. The current GLAM page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros

This is a situation where an exception should be allowed in the spirit of WP: BOLD - and also in support of a GLAM initiative that plans to include a large donation of images.

By deleting this subpage, it is negatively affecting the Spanish Wikipedia's coverage of modern Latin American art. This is significantly harming your own Wikipedia.

Of their actions here are also negatively impacting Wikipedia English, as a copywriting partner has put the English sub-page for deletion here, so well done! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros/Publication_list

The final result of non-flexibility here is incredibly negative for Spanish speakers and will not reflect the CPPC page properly. This deletion will create 3 times the job and will not reflect the input correctly. I do not think it is right for you as an editor to have such an impact, to get in the way of a GLAM initiative that would have such a positive result in your encyclopedia. But this is your choice.

I oppose.

- From https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:BrillLyle

Esto no se trata de una tienda de enlaces, ya que he dicho que esta página no está completa. El plan era mejorar su contenido. La página es increíblemente relevante. Pero no parece que usted está interesado en tener una conversación aquí sobre eso.

La CPPC tiene su sede en los Estados Unidos, pero es internacional y muy panregional en los países de habla hispana que utilizan esta Wikipedia. Su misión es la publicación de obras que necesitan estar disponibles en múltiples idiomas. Cada subpágina debe ser completamente utilizable en cada idioma.

El impacto de suprimir esta subpágina significará que CPPC tendrá que duplicar GLAM sus páginas de iniciativa inglesa en Wikipedias en inglés, español y portugués. La página GLAM actual está aquí: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros

Esta es una situación en la que se debe permitir una excepción en el espíritu de WP: BOLD - y también en apoyo de una iniciativa GLAM que planea incluir una gran donación de imágenes.

Al eliminar esta subpágina, está afectando negativamente la cobertura de la Wikipedia española del arte moderno latinoamericano. Esto está perjudicando significativamente a su propia Wikipedia.

De sus acciones aquí también están impactando negativamente Wikipedia Inglés, como un compañero de redacción ha puesto en cola la sub-página de Inglés para la eliminación aquí, tan bien hecho! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colecci%C3%B3n_Patricia_Phelps_de_Cisneros/Publication_list

El resultado final de no flexibilidad aquí es increíblemente negativo para los hispanohablantes y no reflejará la página CPPC adecuadamente. Esta eliminación creará 3 veces el trabajo y no reflejará la entrada correctamente. No creo que sea correcto para usted como un editor tener tal impacto, para interponerse en el camino de una iniciativa de GLAM que tendría un resultado tan positivo en su enciclopedia. Pero esta es su elección.

Yo me opongo. -- BrillLyle (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that subpages are disabled in the English Wikipedia mainspace, and WP:SUB prohibits storage of article content in subpages. Delete or projectify. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Both list pages and sub-pages exist for filmographies as well as lists of publications. Again the negative impact this action will have will be harmful to end users and especially Spanish Wikipedia. I fear you are not understanding my point and my request for flexibility here. BrillLyle (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Existen tanto páginas de la lista como subpáginas para las filmografías, así como listas de publicaciones. Una vez más el impacto negativo que tendrá esta acción será perjudicial para los usuarios finales y especialmente para la Wikipedia española. Me temo que no entiende mi punto y mi solicitud de flexibilidad aquí BrillLyle (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I again object to you as one editor having such a negative impact on something that is so beneficial to the encyclopedias of multiple languages. What can I add to further explain the positive and constructive benefit of being WP:BOLD. Do I have to add this publication list to the main page?

Otra vez me opongo a usted como un editor que tiene un impacto negativo sobre algo que es tan beneficioso para las enciclopedias de múltiples lenguas. ¿Qué puedo añadir para explicar más el beneficio positivo y constructivo de ser WP: BOLD. ¿Tengo que añadir esta lista de publicaciones a la página principal? BrillLyle (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The impact of your action will require a huge duplication of effort on the project side, which is not reflective of the international and pan-regional impact of the organization and its publications.

El impacto de su acción requerirá una gran duplicación de esfuerzos por parte del proyecto, lo cual no refleja el impacto internacional y pan-regional de la organización y sus publicaciones. BrillLyle (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot follow the Spanish parts and wonder why they are there at all it being about the English Wikipedia. Having said that, a little leeway would help. This is a project that will develop in a major way the documentation and therefore the articles about South American art and artists. It is frightfully underdeveloped. In my opinion this proposal for deletion needs to be speedily removed. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Would a separate "List of Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros publications" page be acceptable. It would not be a sub-page, but would be a separate entry unto itself. / Tengo una pregunta. ¿Sería aceptable una página separada "Lista de Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros"? No sería una subpágina, sino que sería una entrada separada en sí misma. BrillLyle (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google traslate For my part I have no problem in making it a separate list, as an attachment. --Jcfidy (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think I understand the concern about sub-page versus list. I will work on the list page to develop it more. Is that acceptable? Would it be okay to then use "see also" to point to list from CPPC page? / Bueno. Creo que entiendo la preocupación por sub-página versus lista. Trabajaré en la página de la lista para desarrollarla más. ¿Es eso aceptable? ¿Estaría OK usar entonces "ver también" para apuntar a la lista de la página CPPC? -- BrillLyle (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Jcfidy (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Basically just a bi-lingual conversation between the same 2 editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 14:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a subpage. It's also something that can be completely convered by worldcat and other library indexes. Non Encyclopedic.198.58.162.220 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it would need to be moved to List of publications by Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros if kept. But the list is trivial here. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subpages of articles are prohibited. Also not useful as a standalone list because it's just a catalogue of collected works; we don't usually carry this sort of raw data (WP:NOT). Sandstein 17:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A discussion whether such articles should exist in general might be more useful going forward than separate AFDs. So Why 07:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atalanta B.C. in European football[edit]

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

No indication of notability. One of a series of articles along these same lines, all very poorly sourced. None of which even suggest the notability of these particular games as a list. Seems to be the very essence of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As per WP:MULTIAFD, nominated one first to see consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.C. Cesena in European football. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Omerlaziale: User who undid Onel's redirect edit. But why must you be so quick to not discuss on the talk page for a moment first when I took the liberty to try and do beforehand on the talk page? Besides as the last nomination for deletion at A.C. Cesena, the outcome was redirect, not delete, so it would've been prudent to make that clear on the talk page to Omerlaziale first. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first, nice canvassing. second, why didn't that user begin a conversation with me? They simply reverted without explanation. As per WP:NLIST, this list article is not notable. And thanks for the civility. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is the first time I have faced with a deletion of a page created by myself. That's why I am not really familiar with the procedures on this. Anyway, I have included the relevant sources to the page in question. I have tried to improve the page. Before creating it, I have looked at several similar pages such as Coventry City, Derby Country etc. I saw that the history or the number of matches did not matter in those cases. I know Atalanta does not have a big European competition history. However, they will be playing in Europe after a long time and I though it would be beneficial for the fans who wonder their history to list their matches and statistics in a different page and in a proper format. If there is anything more I need to do to save the page, please tell. Thank you. User:Omerlaziale 19:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In complete agreement with Omerlaziale. The amount of games shouldn't matter; there are sources. Especially with Atalanta's European campaign continuing this year. Who's to say it's not notable? By the way Onel, two wrongs don't make a right, Omerlaziale obviously didn't know your history and didn't think you were going to go straight to deletion. You should've discussed on the article talk page discussion I created first. If you didn't want to discuss there, we'll discuss here, that's why I pinged him. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is canvassing, regardless of the excuse. And incivility is still a lack of civility. And when discussing keeping or deleting, please state policies to back up your position, not simply WP:ILIKEIT arguments.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to discuss with you before reverting was a mistake, Onel. You are right on that but please keep in mind that this is the first time I have faced with such a problem. I simply edit pages, update statistics as a hobby. I do not have too much knowledge on other things. I already wrote why I think it could be benefical to have an European football page for Atalanta. I also added the necessary sources. I have looked at different examples from diffetent leagues, and it seems okay to me. By the way, thank you Vaselineeeeeeee for your understanding and support on this. I appreciate that. User:Omerlaziale 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Omerlaziale... my comment was in response to the uncivil commentary by the other editor. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onel, if you think my comments were uncivil, that's saddening. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Atalanta has a limited history in Europe, granted, but it is still a history, and one that they're going to add to this season. No reason to delete this article. – Pee Jay 08:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what is your problem? These are all perfectly notable topics, particularly seeing as how Atalanta are in Europe this season. Italia2006 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that Italia2006 was canvassed to this discussion with this edit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude get off your high horse. Did I ask him to say keep? No. He would've seen it anyway. By the way Appropriate notification: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article - Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Italia2006 the latter point, Omerlaziale the former. Their votes are not to be discredited. I'm also curious to see @Struway2: and @Govvy: who said DELETE at Cesena's deletion nom. If you recall PeeJay and GiantSnowman also said Delete/Merge on the last one, but both Keep here. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since they have a history on European competitions and have a chance to add to that this season, I am in favor of keeping the topic as I wrote before. Omerlaziale (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would any of the keep !votes, excluding the two who were canvassed, care to actually offer a policy reason for their !votes? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Giant Snowman 15:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. For full disclosure: I received a notification of my name being mentioned as participating at a previous AfD of a "club in European football" page, and don't think I'd have attended this one had I not been notified.
The difference for me between this and the Cesena page is that Cesena had played precisely one home-and-away match in European competition, while Atalanta have played in two different competitions, five different seasons, and multiple matches. That suggests that while there was no possible justification for spinning out Cesena's European career from the main article, Atalanta's could be. But that doesn't mean it should be.
The results tables are still in the main article, and there's a bit of prose about Europe in the history section – which is more prose than there is the the article we're discussing here, which has one short sentence: "These are the matches that Atalanta played in Europe." I'm aware that AfD isn't cleanup, but if the question is not notability of subject but appropriateness of spinning off, I'd want to see some attempt at developing the article before I could !vote Keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. These articles have so much room to improve, at times some times have so little time in Europe there-fore an article isn't needed. But as Atalanta B.C. are in European competition again I am inclined to keep. Govvy (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Atalanta B.C.. The years they were in the Europa League can be mentioned under "Honours" in the main article. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Robert G. (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note to closer that not a single one of the above keep !votes is based on policy and/or guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep, in my personal view, the justification for articles like this should be, decently sourced, and enough content to make it not look ridiculous. The big clubs are fine (although Fiorentina has no refs at all!) but Livorno, which still currently exists as a separate article despite the team heaving only one entry in in Europe, definitely isn't. Chievo is another borderline case. As discussed, I see the tiny lists for Empoli, Cesena, Genoa and Vicenza have been merged back in. Conversely, clubs like Udinese, Bologna and Sampdoria don't have separate articles when I believe they have played enough ties to warrant it (definitely Samp, European Cup finalists and Cup Winners Cup winners!). This Atalanta entry would probably be have fallen in the No side had they not been in this season's competition, which gives it a current interest angle as well as boosting the overall quantity of the stats by some way towards a respectably level. However, as it stands, the tables still wouldn't look out of place in the main club article. Crowsus (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: I've created U.C. Sampdoria in European football and merged A.C. ChievoVerona in European football and A.S. Livorno Calcio in European football into their respective main club articles. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 11:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IslamicTorrents[edit]

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

Useful and used, but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NWEB. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 21:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have found three reliable sources,have added them to the article and the subject meets WP:SIGCOV requirements. Note I am unable to use Google Books citation tool as the google books url is blacklisted, so you may have to search Google Books separately for mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishagnik (talk • contribs) 16:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess the sources added
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Wikishagnik - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If this were a WP:N question, I'd probably relist this, but it looks like we don't even have WP:V, and that's a much stricter requirement. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standard High School Igorora[edit]

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

Deprodded by article's creator without rationale or improvement. While high schools are usually considered notable, I can't find a single reliable source to show this actually exists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Places-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to exist. The closest I could find was Igorora Parents' in https://www.yellow.ug/category/secondary-schools/65 . David.moreno72 01:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey in Azerbaijan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. There is no ice hockey in Azerbaijan, only field hockey is played there. No evidence of having ice hockey in Azerbaijan exists. Unreferenced junk article created by an editor. Azerbaijan was a member of the IIHF, but due to lack of ice hockey program, rinks, players and competing in any IIHF tournaments. AaronWikia (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few things to consider; in 1992 Azerbaijan became an IIHF member and has remained so, while in 1992, "Kuwait was expelled, due to lack of hockey activity." So if there is no "hockey activity" why haven't they been expelled? Additionally they were invited to participate in qualifying back in 1993 but declined, which suggests that at least there was hockey. According to Eurohockey.com there is an ice rink in Baku. Leaning towards delete but I don't know what the rationale is for other similar articles.18abruce (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ice Hockey Federation of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The latter could use more content. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This reminds me eerily of the Scouting in the Vatican article, created because some nincompoop thought we Had To Have A "Scouting In Every Nation-State" article. Without meaningful content sourced by reliable sources, I see no reason for such an article, and I think the same thing with the Federation article Sportsfan1234 cites: merely existing is not good enough to satisfy any notability criterion. Ravenswing 15:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After some consideration. The only thing that is certain is that they pay their IIHF dues.18abruce (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Palmdale School District. Next time, just do it yourself. So Why 07:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Willow Intermediate School[edit]

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

nn with half of an intersection and no other information-delete or redirect to appropriate school district Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone does further research on this and does discover sources, feel free to message me and we can look into restoring the page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domnia The Dobrogean[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have been mentioned in any reliable sources whatsoever. The only reference in the article is to a WP:USERGENERATED wiki. None of the ancient sources cited in Tigidius Perennis mention the name of his wife, or where she was from. In fact, subject appears to have been entirely made up. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed. The only source is rodovid, which "is open to everyone" and where "visitors are welcome to contribute information and publish it ... at any time". So much for reliability. Like the nominator I could find no trace of the lady in textual or epigraphic sources. Moreover Domnia (cf. domina) is hardly a Germanic name and the etymology of "Dobruja" is Slavic. Mildly amusing. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources - and wasn't able to find any either. ~~I'm not sure there were Lombards (Langobard) (as a recognized group in the Roman empire) in 180.~~ Domnia is an unlikely name. And Dobrogean seems to refer to an area on the Black Sea (Dobruja - from a quick google check) which is also unlikely.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tacitus mentions the Langobardi as part of the Marbod bund: "Igitur non modo Cherusci sociique eorum, vetus Arminii miles, sumpsere bellum, sed e regno etiam Marobodui Suebae gentes, Semnones ac Langobardi, defecere ad eum." 84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct - they are known from approx. the 1st century - from north-western Germany. Still no sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find corroboration for this story anywhere. The main source for Tigidius Perennis seems to be Herodian:[13] - and he doesn't mention an execution of a wife - just Perennis and a single unnamed son. This article is asserting the execution of Perennis + wife + 3 childredn.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant source is Dio Cassius, which tells of the killing of Perennis, his wife, and his two sons here (English translation). But it doesn't name Perennis' wife or children, and contradicts our article on the number of children... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that if you combine Herodian (who tells of killing of his son in a separate incident) and Dio Cassius - you could (SYNTH) get 1+2+1 = 1+3. But still no Domnia (or son names).Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It looks like the ultimate source of those pages on "Rodovid" is the Harleian genealogies, which is a medieval pseudo-historical text so it would make sense that the name is anachronistic and that she isn't mentioned in genuine primary sources. However I haven't got any further in verifying that there's actually a "Domnia the Dobrogean" in it, and even if there was, without further discussion in secondary sources this wouldn't pass WP:OR or WP:N. Still, if someone with better access to medieval history sources (and the inclination to trawl through them) can find something, I'd be happy to change my !vote. – Joe (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Much of the early content of Welsh genealogies (e.g. in Harleian genealogies) is probably essentially the result of medieval invention. This are not a reliable historical source. Even if we kept the article it would need to be tagged as a stub by it is a stub that could only be expanded by WP:OR, because nothing is known. Such things do not belong in an encyclopedia. Conceivably we might allow an article recording the whole genealogy of which this is part, with appropriate commentary as to its probable unreliability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noe Baba (footballer)[edit]

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

Article previously deleted at AfD as the subject failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. There has been no change in the subjects notability, he still hasn't played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass GNG. Kosack (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Kosack (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Fails our criteria for the notability of football players, in addition to not passing our general notability criteria. I say weak delete because there has been coverage, although the coverage is routine, meaning that there is less reliability to them. If there was a bit more coverage, this article would likely be able to be saved. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He fails WP:NFOOTY, but there's a decent amount of coverage at youth level that might contribute to WP:BIO. E.g. lengthy feature on 15-year-old (regional newspaper), experience of racism (national paper), touring with Man Utd U16s (regional), but turning them down and going to Fulham instead (national tabloids), "first African-born player to captain Ireland" (national), etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Mutation[edit]

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

The label has no independent coverage whatsoever, failing WP:GNG. Please do not mix up coverage with the band of the same name. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage in reliable sources, either as a band or a label related to the band. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 04:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sehrish Mansoor[edit]

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

created by subject herself. i dont see her passing WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a self-published CV and nothing else. The references are incredibly weak. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deeksha[edit]

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

No apparent evidence of notability. Lots of references, but either press releases or mentions such as "Analysing the paper, Dr. Milind, Vice-President, Deeksha Network said it was an easy paper...". Article created and almost entirely written by an editor who has edited solely on this article and on institutions with which Deeksha works (creating many articles on colleges of doubtful notability) and has not yet replied to an enquiry as to whether they have a COI. PamD 15:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian2017's request for Suggestions and advice

Hi Friends,

Kindly guide me in rewriting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deeksha so that it can be live always.

Looking forward for your reply. Thanks a lot in advance

Regards

Wikipedian2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian2017 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian2017: Please first reply to the question at User_talk:Wikipedian2017#Please_reply about your relationship with Deeksha. And please remember to sign all your posts on talk pages, AfD discussions etc - the easiest way is to type ~~~~. Thank you. PamD 06:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and an 100% promo article based on WP:SPIP sources. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Promotional, spam. Not notable.--Nizil (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No more delete !votes after cleanup, sufficient consensus that this is a notable organization. So Why 07:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propane Education and Research Council[edit]

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

Article created by organization's employee is sourced to magazine with relationship to the Council and uncritical pro-industry outlets like "New marketing campaign designed to endear public to propane". WP:TNT and start over if a neutral editor is interested. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- After all the promo is stripped away, PERC is an example of Washington power brokering, to the tune of $27 million a year, hiring ex-president's daughters. Rhadow (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is covered in detail in an Act of Congress, and in various other sources and is clearly sufficiently notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that it's covered in "various other sources", but even if that were granted here's what DGG has said about articles like this in the past: "Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason." Unless you are willing to do the WP:TNT lifting yourself, this kind of !vote just enables crap articles that exist indefinitely. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to see any clear "promotionalism" in the article or anything about it that would require starting over. Which sentences are so promotional that they require the article to be deleted? --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not everything covered by an act of congress is notable, at this trade group is an excellent example. There is no third party evidence for notability, and even if there is, the present article is a promotional directory entry. They have their own website, which is where this belongs. Indeed, judging by the article talk p., the promotional editor who created the article now actually only wants to keep the part which is a pure directory entry. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without the fawning industry publications there isn't anything left. Repeating what I wrote on the article's talkpage: LP Gas Magazine has an editorial board including at least one member of Propane Education and Research Council [14], and the same person was formerly editor in chief of LP Gas. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- I reaffirm my Keep vote. Personal opinion (shared by Souter, Stevens and Kennedy). PERC is a boondoggle mandated by Congress. WP has articles on similar organizations, to wit: the Mushroom Council and the National Processed Raspberry Council. I added a paragraph that gives context. I suggest the promo stuff is now gone, so we can get rid of COI tag. Rhadow (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it and the other checkoff programs are boondoggles. But is the Propane Council a notable boondoggle? You didn't address this question. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Propane was an early (earliest?) checkoff program outside the agricultural sector. The next one will be Cement and Masonry. Rhadow (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY on an unremarkable industry organisation. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH; coverage is WP:SPIP / routine. Industry associations are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but I'm not sure that the article advocates for PERC any longer. I admit, after working on the article, that I advocate for an exposition of the $750 million collected in checkoffs each year. I appreciate K.e.coffman's substitution of remarkable for notable. If we dump this article, then we need to go after its peers, the Mushroom Council, National Processed Raspberry Council, and all the others in the list in Commodity checkoff program. They are similarly unremarkable. The Supreme Court disagrees though, finding checkoffs important enough to hear cases on the subject. Rhadow (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Original advocacy issues have been resolved by recent edits. Here are some additional sources from a news search: [15], [16], [17], [18] ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This seems to get sufficient coverage in sources. bd2412 T 23:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Kiss[edit]

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

Fails pornbio as nominated only, first source is an interview and therefore primary not counting to notability, The second is now nonexistant but even if it was still there and a decent rs would not be enough alone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails pornbio & gng. –Davey2010^Talk 12:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails appropriate notability guidelines and for lack of significant RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davi Shane[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as an actor, singer, songwriter and model. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably created by the subject himself, User:Shanealvarado (Shane's full name: Davi Shane Everett Alvarado), an SPA who has one edit outside this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable as either actor, recording artist, songwriter, or model. No sources to meet WP:BIO; basically, spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Pudahuel Airport[edit]

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

Airport has only one source, is on a sloping hillside, and runway is far too short for landing. Page is linked by only List of airports in Chile Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources other than dodgy databases. Perhaps a very minor airstrip, but not any more notable than any other random patch of dirt where a plane might land. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I started the page, but somehow had totally incorrect data. Günther Eichhorn (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the page-starter also suggests it should be deleted.... Note also that this site linked in the article, which presumably was expected to have some information, does not in fact have any information. --do ncr am 16:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as it's obviously made up by the creator. (A11) (non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptolution[edit]

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

Per WP:NEO. Most google results are on twitter or hacker websites. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Iceland by languages spoken[edit]

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

I cannot figure out the encyclopedic value of this list. It seems little more than a curiosity, a random amalgamation of information available elsewhere. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is similar to the List of multilingual presidents of the United States. That article was listed for deletion in 2011 an the results were keep, see the discussion here -- Dammit_steve (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To me, the question is whether there are reliable sources which address the topic of the comparative linguistic skills of the presidents of Iceland -- not just mentioning the languages spoken by a particular president. For comparison, see http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004699.html which begins by talking about the foreign language skills of various presidents of the United States (and then discusses the foreign language skills of the then-presidential candidates). For Wikipedia to analyze the linguistic skills of the Icelandic presidents without any other source having done so first looks like original research to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with President of Iceland. Learning Danish and English is mandatory now in Iceland, althrough I do not know for how long that has been the case. However, information on other spoken languages should still be present by merging the article.--Snaevar (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a substantive or defining basis for a list. For the reasons listed above, every president is always going to have Icelandic, Danish and English, and any other language besides those three is just WP:TRIVIA, not a thing we need to maintain content about. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't really seem to be much to merge (unless the proficiency of the three most detailed Presidents isn't listed in their own articles, in which case it possibly should be), and what's left is trivia at best. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C9 Entertainment[edit]

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

Possible WP:SOAP. Techyan（Talk） 05:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - given that the article is a consists of a single statement "C9 is a record label and entertainment company" and then a list of artists, which are bare factual statements, how does SOAP apply? (note, I haven't looked into it, but this may be a walled-garden, non-notable label) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, reference fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent coverage. The content is directory type content, and WP:YELLOWPAGES is relevant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. If I was nom, I would have used the WP:PROMO link instead of SOAP, because that subsection is non-applicable AFAICT^[1]. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ As far as I can tell

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. W. Ulsterman[edit]

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

Self-published author. We never consider these notable without significant critical attention. Possible speedy delete G11 as promotionalism . He has not been highlighted in USA today--he has been included as one of the half dozen authors listed in a column about new Kindle releases. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self publishing author who has failed to gain critical notice in the press via reviews for his work or otherwise. Not a significant or remarkable person. Fails GNG, BIO, BLP. Might be WP:TOOSOON. Also, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion - reccomend G!! speedy delete. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just as Nom and Quinn say. I searched and cannot source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klase gonzales[edit]

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

Fails all four points of WP:CREATIVE.

Point 1: "widely cited by peers". Fail
Point 2: invented a concept or theory. Fail
Point 3: "primary subject of an independent and notable work" or has "significant coverage". Fail
Point 4: "won significant critical attention". Fail

Also worth noting that notability is not inherited so just because he's worked with Sean Paul does not make him independently notable. DrStrauss talk 13:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: In the future, please do not decorate your Afd nomination or comments with label templates, as stated at WP:AFDFORMAT. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: sorry, I've de-decorated it. DrStrauss talk 16:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shubh Mukherjee[edit]

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

A non-notable actor. It is riddled with promotional material such as the uncited assertion that he has created "one of India's most-loved films". The article refers to Mukherjee by his first name, while this isn't a reason for deletion, it could indicate a conflict of interest but that is speculation. TL;DR: delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:PROMO. DrStrauss talk 12:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn - Sources have been added to the article which I'm more than happy with, Thanks Thistle202 & 94.119.64.17 for adding these to the article your help is very much appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Central Buses[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, This sort of info ideally belongs in a book, Obviously it being a 1989-1998 company there's going to be nothing on Google News however there are a few books on Google Books however these seem to be all just one lined mentions, There may well be sources offline but that would be a wild guess, Fails NCORP and GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 01:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research. We should expect better from articles in mainspace. I'm not able to find sources sufficient for an encyclopedia entry, some notes about minor labour disputes and mentions in travel guides, which is not enough. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is an entire book about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Devoy, D. (2016). Kelvin Central Buses. Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-5485-0. 96 pages.

That book was created in 2016 so therefore it's likely the entire book was copied from here ... just reworded here & there. –Davey2010^Talk 02:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously pure conjecture. Rcsprinter¹²³ (post) 22:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that book was not created from scratch and that is clearly obvious- Unless you can find sources for each and every sentence in that book other than here then I'm afraid the answer is directly above you. –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does need more referencing, but not reason enough to justify deletion. Have fished around for some bringing some up from external links, will wait on outcome of discussion before proceeding further. With 500 buses, certainly more notable than many of the bus companies with far smaller fleets that have articles.

Book mentioned above is a published work from a publishing house [19] independent of the author (David Devoy is not listed as an office bearer of Amberley Publishing Limited), so unlikely to be copied from an uncited Wikipedia article as insinuated. Devoy has written a number of books on other Scottish bus operators,[20] have the all been copied from Wikipedia? A big call. Having scanned through the online version of the book, is differs substantially to the article with a fair bit of information not in the article, so IMO we can rule this assertion out. Kelvin Central gains a few mentions in Commercial Motor articles, [21] other books on the Scottish Bus Group and contemporary Buses Magazine issues may also cover.

That many of the facts in both the book and the article is probably because they are the truth and have been drawn from the same sources, so stands to reason they are similar, would be more of a worry if they were telling a different story. If we were to assume that statements in published works that have already been stated in the equivalent Wikipedia article to be invalid, then we would be ruling out most published works from about 2005. Thistle202 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep it give it a shot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busguy9 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are great however the article needs to be fully sourced, A good 80% of what's in the article isn't in those books and I don't really want to delete most of the article, I would say it's valuable info that should be kept however paragraps etc do need sourcing (FWIW I'd love to ignore that but we can't unfortunately), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of a five-page article in Buses Magazine in 1995 (which isn't cited here for some reason, but is mentioned in the article on one of their predecessors, Kelvin Scottish) together with many mentions in books and news articles from the time. Not every reference has to be online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.245.192 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide said source?, As for the online comment I did state directly above Obviously it being a 1989-1998 company there's going to be nothing on Google News ...... –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article has been edited to what can be backed up by reliable sources. Thistle202 (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The additional sources have convinced several participants that there is some merit to the subject's notability while one has suggested merging the content with the artist. Either way, there is no consensus here for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Native Art Department International[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:ARTIST Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get off Justlettersandnumbers? Your bias is clear for all the world to see on your talk page. Folks, she asked for additional references first, then in got pissy when I provided more than enough then reverted her moving the article to the draft space. Should this editor even be allowed on Wikipedia?--A21sauce (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relax... this is a process that is about the rules of inclusion for Wikipedia. It is not a personal attack on anyone.104.163.142.4 (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move back to draft space. This article is definitely not ready for prime time. The artist Maria Hupfield might be notable, as most of the sources actually mention her work, but not necessarily this program, or blog, or whatever it is. There is a real feel of promotional advertising here. A21sauce, YOU need to assume good faith and not engage in such an egregious attack on a very experienced editor. The problem here is not racism, the problem is weak writing and weak sourcing. I am posting a notice about this AfD at WP:IPNA to see if the editors there wish to add to this review or comment on the notability of this organization, and I am open to changing my !vote if there is substantial new content added and more independent third-party sourcing. But my own search didn't come up with much, and normally blogs and PR programs don't pass WP's threshold of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 06:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~as Maria Hupfield or provide better sourcing for NADI~~. Include the following independent sources;

A chapter of McLean, Ian (2014). Double Desire: Transculturation and Indigenous Contemporary Art. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Retrieved 2017-08-04.
[22]
[23]
Everett, Deborah; Zorn, Elayne (2008). Encyclopedia of Native American Artists. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-33762-8.--Carwil (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The articles present here show that NADI has crossed the GNG threshold. And the article has shaped up as a description of NADI in particular rather than Hupfield and Lujan. Hupfield still deserves a separate article and her notability is even clearer than NADI. Moreover, (from a slightly IAR perspective), the peculiar multiple life of NADI: an art production, a curation team, and an art blog makes it confusing to append NADI to Maria Hupfield. It's just better for the encyclopedia for it to be an independently searchable term rather than some hybrid collaboration/collaborator article. This may also be an area where Wikipedia guidelines are too comparatively restrictive in the visual arts: if a notable songwriter had a regular duo that had recorded three albums with critical reviews available about them, then we would absolutely keep such an article. So let's keep this one; I hope other editors will give a near-the-boundary case the benefit of the doubt for these reasons.--Carwil (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously, as I worked on it. Thanks, Carwil. It makes a world of difference when editors are interested and experienced in the topic of the article they are editing! Thanks for these sources and let me know if you saw my additional reference adds from today.--A21sauce (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maria Hupfield. The sources for "NADI" and "Jason Lujan" are too weak to support notability. For NADI, a search for news and book sources comes up with very little. The university sources are not very strong. On the other hand, Maria Hupfield has a profile in the Toronto Star and mentions in La Presse. Here's a profile on her for the Site Santa Fe show, and another one in the Yale Herald. The notable article here is Maria Hupfield, not NADI or her collaborator.104.163.142.4 (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there are enough reliable third party sources here to suggest that we ought to keep it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have created Maria Hupfield so that there is an article to redirect to or merge with, should that be the outcome of this discussion. Mduvekot (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mduvekot. Although I nominated this for deletion, I'd have no objection to a redirect to that page as an alternative. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If the site he founded is really more notable than he is, an article about the site can be created and he can be discussed there. But there is clear consensus that he is to be included in one form or another. So Why 06:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Sahr[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Chief Marketing Officer at Sodyo, a non-notable company. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes due to coverage of himself in founding Schoolsucks.com - a groundbreaking umm "enterprise" which was one of the firsts of its kind on the web - widely covered at the time (NYT, TIME, 60-minutes, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Other than starting a joke website, which few people even remember, this is a run of the mill middle manager. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
School sucks was possibly the first website for homework/term-paper resale. A shady business perhaps, but not a joke website. I believe Sahr receieved more coverage as the person running the site than the site received as a site - so it's not an INHERITED situation.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per explanation of Icewhiz.- Mar11 (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Icewhiz. Passes GNG — although I suspect the proper form should be a biography of the founder within a dedicated page to SchoolSucks.com rather than mention of the site within a page about the proprietor. This is ultimately an editing matter, not a notability matter. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No one besides the nominator argued for deletion and they didn't address the sources added later. So Why 06:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Transportation Center[edit]

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

A bus stop with some overhead cover isn't an encyclopedic subject. How is this notable or important? Anmccaff (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources for this place that makes it meet GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busguy9 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
if not then move to Fairfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busguy9 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
lots of mentions in books[24]Busguy9 (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the most exciting topic, but if there are sources --which seems to be the case--it is okay. --do ncr am 02:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment added a bunch of sources108.75.79.57 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One editor favors keeping this and Treasury Tower, one favors keeping this and merging Treasury Tower there, one editor favors merging this somewhere and keeping Treasury Tower and one favors outright deletion. I see no consensus here but remember that merges can always be discussed elsewhere. So Why 06:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

District 8 Jakarta[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Searches did not turn up the type of information to show that it passes WP:GNG, all references are mere mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The District 8 Jakarta complex includes Treasury Tower(?) (which has a separate article) which is the 2nd tallest building in Indonesia, and as such is pretty clearly Wikipedia-notable. It looks like it seemed natural in the Treasury Tower article to describe it alone, and to link to this separate article about the complex. However, the two topics could be covered in one article, if that is somehow so much better. --do ncr am 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the Treasury Tower clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT, the development doesn't appear to. Inclusion of the few salient points in District 8 in the article on the single notable structure within the complex would definitely not be out of line. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

District 8 Jakarta is one of the largest development project in Jakarta in recent times.There are many other notable buildings/skyscraper in the complex, other than Treasury Tower. I failed to realize, why you want to delete this!@User:doncram --— Preceding unsigned comment added by M R Karim Reza (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please read WP:GEOFEAT as to what constitutes notability for a structure or development. Searches did not turn up the type of coverage to show it meets those guidelines. Also, retaliatory nominations, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guthrie, Arizona, don't really help your cause. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the district article, and Treasury Tower can be merged into it, without further discussion, just by any editor. Whether or not other buildings in the district would be notable for separate articles, they can be covered in the district article. --do ncr am 04:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sudirman Central Business District which is the larger area and is notable. The "District 8" is not a district but rather a housing development. The Treasury Tower seems to be notable on its own to deserve a separate article. This seems like the best solution to me.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games. No objections to creating a redirect after deletion were raised. So Why 06:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh at the 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games[edit]

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

Article just says the nation competed at the games. There are no references. A redirect is not necessary as the main article does not discuss the country's participation and its unlikely people are looking for the country specifically. Most likely people will search for 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close This belongs at WP:RFD, not here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Actually, only the Pakistan one was a redirect. Procedural close that one and take it to WP:RFD and Delete the others per nominator. Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These articles are unlikely search terms and lack the sources required to meet WP:GNG, so I do not think they should exist as standalone articles. I have no real problem with deleting them, but I'm thinking a redirect to 2013 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games would be acceptable. That article already has the medal statistics by country, which is all these articles consist of. Papaursa (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

France at the 2013 European Road Championships[edit]

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

Nations at X sport event are reserved for multi-sports events. Plus the page is completely sourced by results pdfs. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alex Shih ^Talk 03:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Aslam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Please don't cite sources like The News as they are related to the individual. Greenbörg (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be covered in multiple news refs [25]. Also, being the editor of a newspaper and president of a major media network is notable. Mar4d (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See: The News, Times of India, this, this and this. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Namechecks are not enough. Greenbörg (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think should be kept because he has been the editor of The News and The Star. --Saqib (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 17:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Anido[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. This is an unsourced article about an actor and model, which was recently blanked down to infobox only by an editor who's been around long enough to know better -- while there are certainly some content problems here that need to be addressed, the appropriate response if you want the article gone is to list it for a deletion process, not just to erase it. At any rate, this has been flagged for notability since 2016, and for lacking sources since 2008 -- but neither actors nor models get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing if reliable sourcing isn't present to support them, and the unverified claims here that he was murdered by the government are pretty much the textbook example of why reliable sources are required. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but we are not a venue for propagating unconfirmed and unsourced conspiracy theories. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep - I found some contemporary coverage - [26] [27] - and I suspect more can be found, however there appear to be conflciting stories here and an amount of politics going on, which means we probably need a bit of a rewrite/review of the page before we can just drop in refs. Artw (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search gave me ample evidence that 1. Alfie Anido was notable before his death 2. the circumstances of his death are still debated in the Philippines' media today. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the previous entry, there is plenty of coverage. E.g. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/279810/alfie-anido-mystery-death-according-to-enrile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some sources to the article; there seem to be more, but the timing of his career (early 1980s) is not conducive to finding web-archived articles, and some sources undoubtedly exist which aren't in English. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 14:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what a weird case but I think he's notable given that his death still haunts Philippine politics for 30 years --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Agarwal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable producer among supposedly other things. Reads like a grandiose resume. Probably a vanity page, created by an author who also created the page for the production house which was deleted as G11. Most of the material mentioned is unreferenced. Fails WP:N Jupitus Smart 09:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a different individual than the one considered in the previous nomination, and to be even less notable than that person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text is promotional, suitable for a personal website but not an encyclopaedia ("He is highly confident to unleash any format of technology in the field of film, television and animation which is created internationally and keeps himself updated all the times.", "It was no looking back for him as his dreams had already started taking shape.", etc.). The passing mentions of the subject in the provided references do no more than indicate a person going about their business. The awards mentioned do not look intrinsically notable, and while searches are not helped by the Amazon executive of the same name, I am not seeing the substantial coverage needed for WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Award found. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Hoffman[edit]

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

Competed at a high level, but I don't think it quite meets WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability and verifiability for 9 years, hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete noting lack of progress in the sport on top of the lack of sources here establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability and sourcing issues addressed in article re-write. --LauraHale (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was almost going to advocate Keep, because some of that coverage looks sound ... except that it's all from al.com. Every source discussing the subject in significant detail, from this one website. It services the Birmingham News so it's reliable enough, but we need multiple reliable sources to meet the GNG, and I've not found one other that does. Ravenswing 20:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changing to keep per Hmlarson; the Honda Award certainly satisfies NCOLLATH. Ravenswing 07:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - I appreciate an effort was made but the sourcing lacks the WP:DIVERSE coverage needed to keep this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Honda Award? Ehh, it is a notable award so I will change my !vote but significant independent coverage is still somewhat lacking.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. ESPN ref Hmlarson (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] There's more here when you search for Kayla Hoffman. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Software Magazine (China)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No indication it’s notable. Seems to be just a short-lived venture, republishing a number of articles from other sources for Chinese readers, but which folded before it really got going. Not tried searching, but seems pointless as "Free Software" applies to so many things.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MCN Live[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. Nominating similarly titled page for deletion as well - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC):[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 06:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped Minds[edit]

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

No references. Not notable as TV show. Google search reveals that it exists, but finds no independent references. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be deleted then the other series on toggle should be deleted. It is a drama as it doesn't have references as the other dramas articles did you see any references ???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan4562013 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the coverage online (at least in English) is not spectacular at the moment, there are some sources specifically about the program, such as [37] this. It might have also been nominated for a Singaporean award. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article contains zero encyclopedic prose. Notability is highly questionable. For example, the source linked above is pre-launch publicity, and nothing better has been presented or found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this 2016 one-shot original drama on Singapore TV did not draw critical notice. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As pointed out by the delete !votes, we keep populated places per WP:GEOLAND if their existence is verifiable. This does not seem to be the case here. So Why 06:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tharakiya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely little information can be found about this place. In my view, it's pretty far from meeting WP:GNG. Also, no arguments were brought up to keep this page in the previous AfD. It's almost identical to what it looked like back then. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 01:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a populated place, don't we keep those? Also, like at another AFD ongoing or perhaps more than one, there is no effort made in the AFD nomination to suggest any alternative. Perhaps it could be redirected to, and covered in, an article about a larger area that includes it. One could do such a redirect without an AFD. Is the purpose of the AFD to tally up one's personal deletions record? --do ncr am 18:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should at least be redirected. There's not nearly enough info on it to warrant a standalone article. I started this AfD in case consensus is against me for some reason. This has nothing to do with my deletion record. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 20:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. Let me note that your reply suggests that the article should not be deleted. What specific alternative to deletion do you suggest? Redirect to what exactly? Can you put some coverage of this topic in whatever target article you prefer, with a Template:Anchor that a redirect could be targeted at?

In the absence of more specifics, I think bringing community attention to this AFD is not helpful at all, and it should be closed "Keep". --do ncr am 23:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and delete are kinda the same thing if you ask me. Either way there's no content left on the page. If we redirect then I guess we could redirect to the next highest subdivision. Maybe Garhwa district? Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 02:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hindi spelling "ठरकिया" gets a a couple of hits, but nothing that would enhance notability. I am adding the Hindi spelling in case the article is kept. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a sub village/hamlet which doesn't seem to have its own panchayat (panchayat is usually the lowest administrative unit). Neither can I find it in the census records. There is scarce information available in English or Hindi. The hamlet doesn't even have its own post office or police station.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while we normally keep populated places if we can verify their existence, this article fails WP:V. Like DreamLinker, I was unable to find the village on the 2011 Indian Census site. I was also unable to find it on the NGA's GEOnet database which is typically very complete. No problems with recreation if we can verify the information later. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Ummah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUS. DrStrauss talk 20:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all of the articles for Sami Yusuf's albums are very poorly sourced, but this shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Yusuf is a genuinely huge star in the genre of spiritual Islamic music, and his albums have sold millions all over the world... see the Independent and Guardian articles cited on the Wikipedia article for Yusuf himself. I'm not saying this article should definitely survive AfD - if the sources aren't there, then they aren't there - but this deserves some careful research and maybe checking for sources in Arabic before simply voting to delete. Richard3120 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: but that coverage is to do with him, not this creation. DrStrauss talk 16:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have done some research. While sales figures are hard to come by, it appears that the album has sold millions of copies worldwide. I found significant academic content discussing this album, e.g. the article in Arab Media & Society discussing Yusuf's adoption of western styles and production values, noting that My Ummah was an important step in this process. So, it appears that this is an album with commercial importance, has been released by an artist who is huge worldwide, and which is important in his artistic development. The only question is: why has such an artist not had his albums reviewed in major western newspapers and magazines?I've added citations to the article. Note: the book citation is on google books, the relevant section can be read there. Ross-c (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. So Why 06:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casey's (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

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

Only one source is specifically about it, and it is a blog post. The other two just discuss bars generally. I don't see a grounds for notability, other than being a gay bar in Portland. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this clearly lacks notability - it doesn't meet the general notability guidelines as there hasn't been significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. A single blog post about the bar is not enought to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of this subject. If someone can produce some, I have an open mind. It looks like typical coverage for a bar.--Truthtests (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/request from article creator: Let's spare the deletion discussion and just redirect the article to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. As the article creator, I think this is the best action to take until someone is willing to expand the article further. I'd do so myself, but I think redirecting is discouraged during an ongoing deletion discussion. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per article creator Another Believer's request. --do ncr am 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have nothing per se against a redirect, but what are the odds someone types "Casey's (Portland, Oregon)" into the WP search bar? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap, so as long as the search is plausible, I suggest we keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the odds are low that somebody would plan that exact title right from the start of typing. But if they were looking for an article about it, they would at the very least type "Casey's" and try to see if any of the search results corresponded to the one they were looking for or not — "Portland, Oregon" therefore being their cue. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the predominant thought right now is delete, relisting to see reaction to article creator's request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Onel5969.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per creator. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find stronger sources — which aren't impossible. Creator also recently did Le Stud, which isn't any better than this as written but as a Canadian I can personally attest that it's highly improvable (I haven't personally been to Montreal since 1992, yet Le Stud is the one gay bar in Montreal that I can name right off the top of my head as quickly as I can name my locals here in Trawna), and thus I maintenance-tagged it rather than listing it for deletion. That may certainly be the case here as well, although I don't know nearly enough about Portland to say one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Float[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill money-lending business. No independent in-depth coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Confirming my PROD: An unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes is PR driven or routine corporate announcements, pertaining to partnerships or funding news. Created by Special:Contributions/Smileverse currently indef blocked for promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9X Odia[edit]

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

Fake TV station Xzinger (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple fake television stations created by User:Rajesultanpur and his various alts, User:Prashantpandeyking, User:Prashantpking, User:Khanbabaji.

Found more fakes created by User:Rajesultanpur.

Delete? I am the admin who declined Xzinger's speedies as I didn't feel they were blatant enough hoaxes to meet speedy. Per a conversation on the user's talk, I understand the issue more now. The 9x had some false positives and/or the hoax has spread beyond Wikipedia. If another admin feels they can go as G3/G5 feel free to undo my declines as I'm about to head to bed. StarM 03:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no reliable sources to verify that this TV station exists. The text of the article is just copied from 9XM. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Text is copied from 9XM, and this seems to be a blatant hoax by a blocked user. G5 it. Jdcomix (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The user is not blocked and although highly likely an alternate account as stated above, there had not been a formal SPI case. --Whpq (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The creator of hoax pages User:Rajesultanpur has now been banned.Xzinger (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not banned, but blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject clearly meets WP:NFOOTY as a senior international. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven Javier[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable athlete/sportsperson. Career does not appear to account to much nor do I see any particular accomplishments. Quis separabit? 01:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few Spanish-language sources that mention his club career. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Uruguayan international with five caps, clearly passes WP:NFOOTY part of WP:ATHLETE. I would have hoped the nominator had learnt from this similar recent nomination of another international player. Number 5 7 12:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an Uruguayan international, he clearly meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an Uruguayan international, sourced, he clearly meets WP:NFOOTY. ClubOranje^T 23:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (Georgia)[edit]

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

Hoax. No references whatsoever about Disney publicly announcing the launch of this channel. Bankster (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC) I'm also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reason[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and no references to indicate notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, RS, maybe TOOSOON. South Nashua (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence, citations or reasons to presume veracity, let alone notability. Darthamender (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it does not pass WP:GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel (Georgia)[edit]

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

Hoax. No references whatsoever about Disney publicly announcing the launch of this channel. Bankster (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC) I'm also nominating these articles for deletion for the same reason[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, no references to indicate notability. Could be a hoax. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amonetize[edit]

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

Logged in to nominate for deletion; there are no significant sources that show this entity as notable. Nowhere near passing GNG. Searches for sources that could improve the article have come up empty, only passing mentions at best or PR-originating fluff pieces. Geolocalipuma (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:DEL6 with WP:IAR I looked at the article and the McAfee reference. I do not see a NPOV in this article, and there are no inline citations that allow me to verify the viewpoints given. I added WP:IAR because of the WP:DEL6 requirement to prove that the article "cannot possibly" be sourced, as I have no way of proving that sourcing is not possible. Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against another nomination but clearly at four relists this one is going nowhere. Perhaps a merge or a renaming discussion would be worth it as well given the concerns about the new name? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frisian Solar Challenge[edit]

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

Hi all - the information on this page is very difficult, if not impossible, to verify. The current information all seems to be in regard to one iteration of the race, and does not reference specific dates. Upon trying to research the subject, a few websites offhandedly seemed to suggest that the race was renamed the Dutch Solar Challenge in 2016.^[1] ^[2] Mavrab (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Dutch Solar Challenge powered by Honeywell Solar Modules". Honeywell Solar Modules.
^ Clean Mobility http://cleanmobility.info/wedstrijden/dong-energy-solar-challenge/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, theres stuff out there a quick gsearch brought up these (they're wikiblocked/filtered so editors can enter heading in goog to look at them) - World Cup for Solar Powered Boats, Solar boat race: Fourth edition registers forty, Racing Solar Boats in The Netherlands, whether they're wikiarticleworthy i'll leave it to others. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to DONG Energy Solar Challenge. Dong Energy Solar Challenge would technically be even better but not consistent with our other article, DONG Energy. Hence my current preference for the name with the caps (we should solve the problems of one article at a time).

Please note that the name in the logo ("Dong Energy Sollarchallenge"), while it has Dong better written, also contains a grotesque Dutchism. Name in the text here (not in the logo) should be held as official and is used elsewhere.

Event also has a Dutch name, Friese zonnebootrace, a beautiful name without the sponsorship, however since there is a common English it should be preferred. Problem with referencing was that our name combines parts of different names and is as such OR.

Following the English or Dutch name, one will see that the subject is well covered in the Dutch press and solar energy media. When renaming please do not forget to create redirects at the other names I wikified in this response and to change the name on the template that is in the article. gidonb (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no new action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.afterellen.com/movies/511655-director-april-mullen-mouth-female-gaze

[2] As far as I can tell

[3] "Dutch Solar Challenge powered by Honeywell Solar Modules". Honeywell Solar Modules.

[4] Clean Mobility http://cleanmobility.info/wedstrijden/dong-energy-solar-challenge/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]