Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 August	23 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Farmer (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE mentions as sources found (and not used here for some reason but were listed in the previous AfD discussion) This is the closest I could find to a good article on him, although it is regional coverage of the junior team he played with briefly (1 game). The previous No Consensus Keep appears to based off a confused interpretation of the 2014 SNG for WP:NHOCKEY #6, which then simply read as having played on a senior national team for the World Championship. The meaning was the same then as it is today, but the phrasing has been further clarified by noting "in the highest pool", which he has never played in. In all regards, he currently fails NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league. Yosemiter (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete, only because he did win the best British forward award in the 2014–15 season which may just be enough to satisfy criteria #3; in my eyes it's not enough but it is the only hockey related accomplishment that could save this article. He fails on every other front. Deadman137 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Likewise, I saw the "Best British Forward" bit on the eliteprospects.com site, but what is that, exactly? Awarded by whom? There's nothing there indicating what league or entity awarded it. Ravenswing 14:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY and I believe also fails GNG. FYI @Ravenswing: the "Best British Forward" is the british elite league award for the top domestic player, presented by ice hockey UK, kind of like the CFL's "Most Oustanding Canadian" award.18abruce (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough ... so we're not even talking a First Team All-Star citation. Ravenswing 01:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Deadman137 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. Hasn't played at a high enough level. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:21, 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 redirect to Richard Falomir. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted Jelly Beans[edit]

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

The TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) put a {{db-band}} tag on this and I agree with the hammer. But an article that has survived this long is entitled to an AfD discussion. How come that in the eleven years of this article's existence no-one has added independent evidence of notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: it probably didn't help that the article has never been tagged with any WikiProjects on its talk page, and therefore nobody knew that it existed. Richard3120 (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Actually, it was, RHaworth just forgot to undelete the talk page when he restored the article. I have done so now. Regards So Why 06:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, my apologies. Richard3120 (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my initial tagging. Searching for the band with various search terms turned up no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly not a case of {{db-band}} with being signed to a notable label, releasing two albums on said major indie label (which has a roster of notable bands) and having notable members, all of which would make it pass WP:BAND easily. The lack of sources is not a reason to speedy delete, especially after such a long time with a subject that was mainly active before the internet era. Even if sources were missing (did not have time to check), WP:ATD clearly is against deletion here: We have both Richard Falomir (notable former member) and Kung Fu Records#Past artists as suitable merge/redirect target without even having to think much further. Regards So Why 06:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A redirect to Richard Falomir would be reasonable. The only coverage I found was a very brief bio from Allmusic and a very brief review from the same site. --Michig (talk) 08:00, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Albert[edit]

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

Non-notable news weatherman. No third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 06:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, this one slipped through the cracks for a decade. The guy was a local weatherman (and frankly, set my teeth on edge with babytalk like "thunderboomers!"), full stop. Doesn't come close to meeting any notability criteria, fails the GNG. Ravenswing 12:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seem to be some sources about his death - [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] but he, as a person, is not notable per WP:SINGLEEVENT. — TheMagnificentist 13:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found by TheMagnificentist, what a fundamental misunderstanding of policy, sources documenting the career and death is not one event. GuzzyG (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Try WP:NOTMEMORIAL, while we're on fundamental misunderstandings of policy. Ravenswing 22:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WCVB-TV (section News operation). Person non-notable, but redirect could be helpful. Elliot321 (talk) 16:00, 15 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)}}} 19:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because obits ran in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald. The Jewish Advocate, in addition to numerous profile stories over the years in Boston area media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:26, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moduli scheme[edit]

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

Non-notable mathwank, no sources found. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was already referenced. I have just added a high-quality reference to a major theorem by a Fields Medallist. WP:CIVIL applies here, too. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. A quick google search finds tons of papers about the topic. So even though it's just a stub, notability seems clear. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep. There are multiple books entirely about this subject [9] [10], including also Fields medalist and MacArthur fellow David Mumford's doctoral dissertation [11]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Obviously notable topic, OK article. Rentier (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Matthews: @Deacon Vorbis: So if it's so notable, then why was the article literally untouched for NINE FUCKING YEARS?!?!?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: While we are on rhetorical questions. If you have been here for 11 years, how come you have so little clue about guidelines on notability, civility, and WP:BEFORE? Driving Twinkle without due care and attention isn't exactly a recommendation, you know. What did you screw up now? Plenty. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Technical articles can sit around for ages on Wikipedia without getting the attention they require, because experts are rare and their free time less than copious. But the subject matter deserves coverage nonetheless. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable mathematics topic. No valid reasons given for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:19, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abinesh Elangovan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:notability , the reference mentions the subject as a pass by and does not emphasis on his notability Shrikanthv (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Indian businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSF 323 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Today is this editor's first day. Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Mainz[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a person whose only stated claim of notability is being the first gay contestant to appear on, but not win, one particular local adaptation of the Got Talent reality franchise. Being a non-winning contestant on a reality show is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia, however, and being the first gay person to not win it doesn't make his failure to win it more special or noteworthy than any heterosexual contestant's failure to win it. And the depth of sourcing shown here doesn't help get him over WP:GNG, either -- reference #1 verifies the existence of the show while not mentioning Max Mainz/Soloegg at all; reference #3 verifies the existence of another competitor named in this article while not mentioning Max Mainz/Soloegg at all; and reference #2 just claims that a newspaper published an interview with him without providing its title or publication date. There were also some contentious BLP claims here about alcoholism and homelessness which I've already stripped as unsourced, and even the explanation of his nickname "Soloegg" is teetering on the edge of a BLP violation given the unverifiability of its claimed source (a Wikipedia article has no business asserting anything about a person's genitalia without really solid sourcing for it.) Nothing stated or sourced here makes him notable at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about the Luxembourg TV show which is the basis of the subject's claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Seymour[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only potential claim of notability, launching an online magazine five months ago, is not reliably sourced. Of the six footnotes here, three are unnecessary duplications of one of the other three, so there are really only three sources -- one of which is a Twitter tweet, one briefly quotes her as just one of 18 soundbite-providers in an article about something other than her, and she's the bylined author of the only reference that actually has any substance to it. But as always, a person gets a Wikipedia article by being substantively (as opposed to soundbitey) the subject (as opposed to the author) of content in reliable sources (as opposed to social media) -- which means that none of the sources here are cutting it at all, and nothing claimed in the article entitles her to an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this is essentially an advertisement for her magazine. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Moore[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a city councillor. While Atlanta is a large and internationally prominent enough city that its municipal councillors would be eligible to keep articles that were properly written and sourced, this is written like a campaign brochure rather than an encyclopedia article, and cites no reliable source coverage about her at all. Rather, it is referenced entirely to primary sources: six of the eight footnotes are unnecessary reduplications of the same reference to her own self-published profile on the city council's own website about itself, and the only two other citations are the local office of the Federal Reserve Bank and the city's own financial plan -- and neither of those two citations are about Moore at all, but are here merely to verify a tangential fact about the size of the city's reserve fund. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly, but in this form it's so badly written and inappropriately sourced that it warrants the blow it up and start over treatment. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 18:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this is essentially a campaign advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I would city WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP in favour of keeping something like this, but Bearcat is right that there really isn't much to work with here. As well, at Atlanta City Council whoever made this article didn't bother to fix the redlink to "Felicia A. Moore," suggesting a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. The amount of redlinks on that page makes me feel that this article won't be missed. Madg2011 (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The article would need to be re-written from scratch, and is a borderline notability case. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:18, 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. As this is a BLP, and nobody has explicitly put forward a direct argument for keeping, deleting seems the best option. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Asay[edit]

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

WP:1EVENT applies. Appears to fail WP:CRIME. reddogsix (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS. The majority of the coverage is localized, centered around the state of Florida's press. Being on death row is not a case for instant notability. A WP:DIVERSE group of sources need to be established but I am not finding that at this time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is not just Florida media that reported this. There is a BBC News story about this case here. This mentions at least two things ("Mark Asay is the first white man in state history to be executed for killing a black victim, according to the Death Penalty Information Center") and ("It was the first time a new drug cocktail was used") that suggest that the article subject might be noteworthy. There is a similar CNN story here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason for this AfD is WP:1EVENT and WP:CRIME. Those guidelines say: "...is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written..." and "...is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be..."

This subject is notable for being the first white man in the state to be executed for killing a black victim, and, for being the first to receive this controversial drug cocktail. Well, those are two things, so 1EVENT should not apply.

This subject is notable for something other than the criminal event itself, i.e. the manner of execution. So, CRIME should not apply.

If I hear a good counter-argument, I may !vote delete, otherwise, keep may end up being my position. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided on this one too. I don't think we should give much weight for "the first white man executed for killing a black man in Florida" angle - I'm not sure this was really verified (though it has been claimed and repeated - it actually isn't that easy to verify - post 1976 perhaps is easier, pre Furman probably not easy at all). One could argue that the crime and execution is 1 event - just as a crime and trial are one event, or a crime, trial and incarceration are one event. Yes - the execution in the current current American legal system is a prolonged legal affair which occurs long after initial sentencing - but so is incarceration. Is being the first to be executed with a new drug significant? Or is the drug significant? Note that this is some really "new fangled drug" - it is the replacement of the anaesthetic midazolam with etomidate - both of which are well known and widely used. The 2 other components of the cocktail (which actually kill - rocuronium bromide and potassium acetate) aren't really new. I don't think this really confers notability on the killer. He does have a Harvard Law Review from this year - [12]. I don't see all that much coverage (hard to tell, mainly since sidebar hits pollute/swamp by-date filters - which is an indication there wasn't much) in the past prior to the execution itself. Most of the people on List of individuals executed in Florida don't have a blue link. I'm leaning to a Delete here, but sitting out, what missing in my mind - is coverage prior to the execution run-up - and this is missing from the article. If this were a case that generated actual coverage (e.g. the case itself was notable per WP:NCRIME back in 1987 and thereabout - I would perhaps go for keep.Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icewhiz. What say makes good sense. I'll sit on the fence for a while and hear from others too. Many thanks for the thoughtful response. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the claim that the Miami Herald actually makes is that he would become the first "white person convicted of killing a black person" to be "put to death" for murder "In the 41 years since Florida reinstated the death penalty". [13]. Text of article makes an inaccurate claim.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non-notable criminal. Crime appears to have received no press attention at all at the time it was committed or during the trial. Nothing at all appears in a proquest news search in his name in th2 1980s, when the crime was committed. The first mention I can locate is in a 1991 article in the St. Petersburg Times, 12 Fla. death row appeals rejected Each of the 12 gets a laconic sentence, "Mark Asay, convicted of fatally shooting Robert Lee Booker and Robert McDowell on July 18, 1987, in Duval County." article fails WP:NCRIME and WP:BIO1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If some sort of legal notability inheres to one of his legal appeals, it belongs in Capital punishment in Florida.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:39, 29 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 Tita (singer). Given the number of times this has been recreated, I'm tempted to salt it, but I'll hold off on that for now. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kasay[edit]

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

Redirect now reverted multiple times, and still no chance of an article, fails GNG and NSONG. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive independent media coverage has been added. Feel free to check the sources. ^^^^ User_talk:LoVeCa3 19:27, 22 August 2017.

Delete with possible redirect to Tita (singer). The song was released three months ago and has yet to chart. As Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Singles says: A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. This article fails to illustrate any stand alone notability. Dammitkevin (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of other singles which have a Wikipedia article, but have failed to chart anywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Just_Wanna <- Great example here. Should we considering deleting these as well? Or 10 million views on a verified(!) YouTube channel with additional references from four independent Bulgarian media outlets aren't enough to qualify as being "notable"? Pretty discriminating IMO. User_talk:LoVeCa3 19:40, 22 August 2017.

Except the example you give has in fact charted. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Richard3120 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I found a relatively "notable" Bulgarian mainstream radio chart, where the song has ranked at number 32. http://www.njoy.bg/bg/charts/view/9/radio_n_joy_top_40/ The following source should be taken under very serious consideration as well. http://www.prophon.org/display.php?en/search_form/TITA User_talk:LoVeCa3 19:40, 22 August 2017.

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Tita (singer): article creator says "feel free to check the sources" – well, I did. First reference is from Nova TV, Bulgaria's major commercial TV network, so it's probably RS. However, it's mainly about Tita starring in an online drama series – mention of the song is limited to "it's just been released" and "it's already proving very popular on the internet". Second and third sources are just mirrors of the first. Fourth source again says "new single has been released" and "it's expected to get one million views on the internet". Fifth source is from a blog, and talks about her appearance on Bulgarian daytime TV to promote the song, and that Tita says, "My message with this song to my fans is to break with all the notions of what they themselves should be, ignore all the dogmas imposed by parents and loved ones. My message is to believe in myself and to dismiss all stereotypes." – so not an independent view of the song, or anything that demonstrates its notability. And the final two references are links to where the song can be bought online. So basically, regardless of whether the sources are reliable or not, all coverage boils down to "the song has been released, and is expected to be popular". PROPHON is Bulgaria's performing rights society, so that just proves the existence of the song, not its notability. Fails WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tita (singer). Apparently fails WP:NSONG. Hayman30 (talk) 11:58, 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. -Colapeninsula has a valid point; the fact that sources are only likely to appear in print, and in Greek, does not make them invalid. But, nobody has presented any such sources. So, based on what we've got so far, I don't see any alternative but to delete this. It can always be restored later if somebody comes up with sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelos Stefanos Tzivopoulos[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be the subject of sufficient coverage to warrant an article. More sources may be available in Greek, but given the English sources, this article does not appear to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:SINGER. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific notability standard for swimmers, but based on the track and field athletics guidelines WP:NTRACK, competing in the FINA World Aquatics Championships and winning a silver at a grand prix event would seem to be sufficient to be notable; I found a ref for the 2001 world championships[14] but can't find where exactly he won silver. Other events were masters tournaments which would be less important. Sources are likely to be offline (since he was active around 2001), and in Greek; such sources are equally valid. No idea about his singing career. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 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 00:25, 16 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, Jdcomix (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you've checked Greek-language print sources? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:23, 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transworld Associates[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in the following reliable refs [15] [16] ET [17] DAWN [18] [19] [20], and is one of the "two major cable landing operators" in Pakistan. [21] Meets WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 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 00:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Mar4d. "TWA and PTCL are the only two companies with landing rights in Pakistan for internet and voice data traffic", which with sufficient coverage establishes notability. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 03:24, 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, Jdcomix (talk) 16:20, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deh Mandro[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in several refs. It also appears to be a geographical location, which makes it notable by default per WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 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 00:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Mar4d. Its also mentioned in the 1998 Census - Mfarazbaig (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless significantly improved) In its current form the article makes an extremely weak case for notability. Regarding Mfarazbaig's comment, the point of a census is to capture everything within a region under investigation - so something being mentioned in a census only states that it exists. Not every geographical location on earth is notable. It needs reliable, independent sources (cited inline) in order to establish that this is an important, notable place that needs to be included in an encyclopedia. Famous _dog (c) 08:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless significantly improved. I agree with Famousdog above. I've no idea whether this station is even still operational as it might have been superceded. Pity there's no "List of Satellite Ground Stations" article although there is a partial list in Ground station. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make a list? L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article does need major improvement, that is not a justification in deletion discussions. The sources in the article and above at least seem to establish a baseline notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 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. So Why 08:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Students Federation[edit]

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

No coverage found for this organization. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have been notable in 1980s student politics [22] Mar4d (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just namechecked. Not enough coverage in multiple sources. Greenbörg (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 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 00:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some coverage in the World Heritage Encyclopedia]. An absolutely terrible unsourced stub about a short-lived political group. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 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. Proposed redirect target was deleted as well. So Why 08:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelmatic[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to be notable. The references presently in the article are puff pieces and press releases, or otherwise not obviously reliable (according to WP:VGRS). The only reference from the VGRS CSE (search) that isn't a false positive is this article in Kotaku, but that article isn't about the article topic. No hits in the CSE for the video game they've apparently developed. Izno (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The amount of sources are not huge, but it was mentioned in Venture Beat and Pocket Gamer, both reliable sources, and those weren't "puff pieces" as they were written without any use of copy paste or quoting PR. There are also several reliable interviews with the company's founder about their activities._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources largely miss the boat on WP:SUSTAINED. --Izno (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I would like to change my vote to redirect to Samson Mow, the founder of the company._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~A merge/redirect per Zxcvbnm looks reasonable, per the dearth of long-term sourcing. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)~~ When I remembered I submitted the AFD ~ woops! --Izno (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've PRODDED Samson Mow as it does not meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You should really have done an AFD, not a PROD. It's kind of ridiculous for PROD to determine the fate of an AFD, since if the redirected article might be controversial to delete, then the target would obviously be controversial. But if the base article is deleted then this should also obviously be Deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, makes sense the way you put it. My bad. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. References are either about products/games or fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A directory-like listing and sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. They are largely WP:SPIP or routine corporate developments. No evidence of a cult following or significant impact on the gaming industry. Just a private company going about its business, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:23, 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 redirect to 2017 Commonwealth Youth Games. There is a slight consensus (4-2) that this should not - as it stands - be a stand-alone article. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis at the 2017 Commonwealth Youth Games[edit]

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

One sentence, one source article with a lot of stats. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. The content can be summarized on the main article. - Mr X 11:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not even close to a notable event. Doesn't need a separate article as medalists can easily be listed on main 2017 Commonwealth Youth Games article. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep There is longstanding consensus to have such articles ("X at the Y games", "Country at Y games" etc.). This consensus can change of course but AFD is not the right forum to do so and deleting a single entry out of hundreds or thousands of such articles will most likely be disruptive. I urge the closing admin to consider this when assessing the discussion and I urge MrX to start a discussion at the appropriate venues before bringing more such articles to AFD. If they really all fail WP:NOTSTATS, they can all be deleted together, not one by one, overwhelming this already overwhelmed process. Regards So Why 10:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else agree with SoWhy's argument to retain the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at all convinced by the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If this event isn't notable enough to justify a fork from the main event, then we shouldn't fork it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per a quick google search there are plenty of GNG sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:CONTENTFORK, sources are not the only thing that matters. As an aside, I'd love to see that Google search. I have a feeling you're conflating results from tennis at the Commonwealth Games (very notable) with tennis at the Commonwealth Youth Games (doubtful notability as standalone from the games themselves). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, I know my multi-sports events, and its borderline offensive to even suggest that. Tennis has only been held at the Commonwealth Games once (in 2010). The sources that are pulling up in Google News is going to be recent and not from 2010. Sources [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] and [30] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:44, 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 00:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2017 Commonwealth Youth Games. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:09, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Vandervaart[edit]

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

Relist following a no-consensus closure -- but it wasn't closed no consensus because there was any dispute, it was closed no consensus due to insufficient participation after two relists, and thus really should have been deleted per WP:BIODEL as an unopposed nomination. This is still a WP:BLP of a teen actor, not yet demonstrated or properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. Whereas NACTOR requires multiple major roles, Vandervaart has had one major role and a bunch of minor supporting ones -- and the sourcing here rests entirely on "local boy makes good" coverage in community weekly pennysavers in his own hometown rather than major market dailies, so there aren't sufficient grounds to claim that he passes WP:GNG yet. Creator attempted to add some primary source verifications to the self-published website of one of the shows he minor-roled in and his IMDb profile, but those aren't sources that bolster notability either. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but neither the sourcing nor the substance present here are good enough yet. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON: roles are all minor; does not meet WP:NACTOR. Lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 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 00:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:19, 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy John (apparel company)[edit]

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

Simply promotion. There is no objective commentary. The article has been reference bombed with concealed and unconcealed promotional sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only connected article is Tom Patterson (entrepreneur), the company's founder and CEO, and that article is only connected to this one. That article only has references that I read as all advertorials, not as bad as the sources for this article, but still dubious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has peacock-like language, possibly due to PR types, but by way of coverage, it appears to pass as a notable company. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, can you point to two sources attesting to notability per WP:CORP? I think every source fails. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian I've reviewed all the sources and commented below. I'm also interested on which two pass the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 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 00:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. There's solid press coverage: a Forbes article that devotes a paragraph or two to the company, a New York Times blog article, two Business Insider articles,[31][32] and one in Men's Health.[33] Sure, the tone is bad, but that's a matter for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your not bothered that the tone *is* toned down from these references? That these are blatant sponsored informercials. No objectivity or critical commentary, just hard sell. "Could This Be the World’s Greatest Underwear?". "We tested this company's underwear, and it is perfect for active guys". "An up-and-coming retail brand is convincing men to spend $48 on underwear"? Really? This is not encyclopaedic content, it is promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good reviews are not the same as promotion. Are you seriously accusing Forbes and Business Insider of shilling? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Actually, none of those references meet the guidelines for establishing notability. I've outlined why they don't below. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why these reputable publishers are doing it is not the question. Did you read their text? No depth at all about the product, or the company, or its marketing, just repetition of the company promotion lines, even embedding their marketing video! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a review of references, they all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND since the references rely almost exclusively on data/information generated by the company or company officers. Edit !vote changed, see below. The apparelmag reference fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND as it relies entirely on quoting the founder. The argusleader article fails for the same reason. The forbes article, again, for the same reason (it even prints the company's statistics from their "Valentine's Survey). The cbs news article, same reason. The underwearexpert article, prints verbatim an interview and therefore fails for the same reason. The nypost article fails for the same reason. The WSJ article for the same reason and is even highlighted that this is simply a "news roundup". This CNBC article also relies entirely on Patterson. The Forbes article fails for many reasons - one being that the article is not "published" by Forbes but by a contributor with the byline "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" but the main one being that more than 50% of the mention is taken up with a quote from a board member and investor. The nytimes blog post fails because blog posts are not regarded as reliable sources (but other than that - if for example the blog posts are under editorial control, this reference would meet the criteria for establishing notability!). The esquire article reviews one of their products but says nothing about the company and therefore fails the criteria for establishing notability. The fastcompany review fails because it relies on quotations and information from Patterson. The youtube reference fails because it is produced by the company and is an advertisement and I have no idea why it even appears in the article. Finally the instinct magazine article fails for many reasons but lets go with the fact that it doesn't provide any information on the company but is a commentary on one of their ads. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The esquire article [by the now-former senior fashion editor] reviews one of their products ... fails the criteria for establishing notability"? Say what? You also haven't addressed the Business Insider and Men's Health articles. Are they "informercials [sic]" as SmokeyJoe claims? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not infomercials? Was the spelling wrong? Product placement in a magazine read by the elite target audience? For any source, the publisher is one check, but so is the reading of the text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Product placement?^{[citation needed]} Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - All three of your chosen links, 1, 2 and 3 illustrate their articles with supplied promotion photographs of the promoted product. The reviews are thin, very thin, contrary to your description of "solid". I don't read coverage or commentary, but text that reads as company description, promotion, and testimonial. Related to this is my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Paid_editing.2C_Advertorials.2C_and_Reference_bombing. This article is surely the product of clueful paid editing, the sources are advertorials, and the articles were WP:Reference bombed from the beginning. The large multitude of references makes it hard for AfD reviewers to conclude that none pass the sourcing tests of the WP:GNG or WP:CORP. So, a fair challenge for a proponent is: Show two to three (no less, no more) references that demonstrate notability. Your chosen three do not. They do not provide secondary source material for the topic, and, despite traditional respect for the reputation of the involved publishers, my assessment is that there do not read as independent. They read as non-independent. No downsides. No caveats. No cross-competing-products comparisons. This product is great! Buy some now! User:HighKing points out how some of the publications are merely associated with the traditionally reputable publishers, but are actually outside of the publisher's decision making. Maybe the "solid reviews" were not included in your three examples? Where are 2-3 solid reviews? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again, you baselessly equate favorable reviews with promotion. "Advertorials"? Reviews are certainly not primary sources, unless you're claiming the writers work for Tommy John. Also, I don't recall Business Insider and Men's Health being taken over by the company. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Clarityfiend, it appears you missed my response to your rebuttal which was originally posted above so I've copied it below. You're also missing the point that a source needs to be independent. That doesn't mean it needs to be owned or taken over by the company, it means it needs to be "intellectually independent". An easy way to spot if a reference is intellectually independent or not is to check to see if the article attributed facts and information to another source (for example, using phrases such as "According to the company" or "The founder XXX says ....") - that is not "intellectually independent" unless the author then provides some personal view or insight. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarityfiend, "Say What" isn't a rebuttal based on policy/guidelines. Just to be clear, this article is a review of a T-Shirt made by the company. It hardly mentions the company. It provides zero facts about the company and name-checks the company a grand total of twice. This is not "significant coverage" of the topic and fails WP:GNG. I had missed the other references but since you've pointed them out, here's my analysis.
    - This businessinsider article relies almost entirely on company produced material including extensive quotations from the founder and even embeds the company's YouTube ad into the article. The article is not "intellectually independent" and fails the criteria for establishing notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
    - The 2nd businessinsider article makes the following statement at the very top: Business Insider has affiliate partnerships, so we get a share of the revenue from your purchase. You asked earlier if another editor was accusing BusinessInsider of shilling ... well ... what would you call this? Clearly the reference is not intellectually independent and I would reject any "reviews" from BusinessInsider on the basis of that statement since it calls into question their "intellectual independence". It is not possible to be independent and take a share of revenues. Fails WP:GNG.
    - This menshealth reference is a review of a number of different mens underwear. Just like equire article, it fails to provide any mentions of the company but does discuss one of their products. The Topic of this article is the company, not their products, therefore this cannot be considered "significant coverage" of the Topic (the company) and therefore fails WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the WP:SPA sole author, I7I (talk · contribs), is not an undisclosed paid editor, undisclosed alternative account, then I'm a monkey's uncle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly with a merge - the company is profiled as a success story in a book in print - Brian Cohen, ‎John Kador, What Every Angel Investor Wants You to Know: An Insider Reveals How to Get Smart Funding for Your Billion Dollar Idea (2013), p. 96-98. My instinct is that since the articles on the company and the founder are both relatively short articles, they could stand a merge. The target title doesn't really matter, since the one would then redirect to the other, although the narrative flow would obviously depend on whether it's an article about a company with a large section on its founder, or an article on an entrepreneur with a large section on his company. If at the end of the day there is an absence of consensus to keep such a combined effort, then move to draft space, under the usual condition that it must be sufficiently improved there, or eventually will automatically get deleted. bd2412 T 01:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BD2412, just so point out that the author of that book, Brian Cohen, was an investor in Tommy John. The reference is therefore not from an independent source. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose that if Warren Buffet were to write a book about his investments mentioning Berkshire Hathaway or Coca-Cola (of which he owns a substantial share), we might cite that as a source strictly for the notability of the subject, despite the lack of independence of the author. As long as the relationship is pointed out, the reader can decide how reliable the account is likely to be. It is a minor point. With or without that source I would lean towards keeping, but also lean towards merging the two related articles, and perhaps moving the merged whole into draft space for further improvement. bd2412 T 19:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be left to each editor to apply the policies and guidelines but in my opinion, something written by an investor is not independent. If the topic was Coca-Cola, that reference would fails the criteria for establishing notability (but note: that reference *can* be used to add the fact of his investment into the article). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - After a little more searching around, I see that the company is also profiled (at less length) in Bruce R. Barringer, R. Duane Ireland, Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures (5th Edition) (2015), p. 110. bd2412 T 20:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do not have access to this book so I can't independently verify. Maybe someone else can? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can see this in the "look inside" preview on Amazon.com. Search for "Tommy", and the requisite paragraph comes up - in summary, it says that the company "began in 2008 by making custom-fitted men's undershirts, and has now expanded to men's briefs and men's socks", and that the products were initially sold through a single retailer, then through Neiman Marcus nationwide. Of course, it's not a particularly extensive analysis, but it's more than most companies get in trade literature. bd2412 T 14:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        bd2412, that Amazon book is good - it meets the criteria for establishing notability. Also, Endnotes on page 131 points to here but the audio is missing. If we can find one more reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, I'm happy to change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And how would you say these thing rate against the language of WP:CORP. Which two or three sources establish our threshold of notability? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I would say that I lean towards agreeing with Bearian and Clarityfiend that there are already sources in the article that are sufficiently reliable (even if they are merely "good reviews"), and would reiterate my earlier point that even if Cohen is an investor, the Cohen/Kador book is still a book in print, and carries some weight towards the notability of the subject (basically, my thinking is that the book reflects that he thought this was a good company, therefore he chose to invest in it, not that he invested in it, therefore chose to think this was a good company). If that was all there was, I would be inclined to keep but move to draft space for further development. If the Barringer/Ireland book is added as a source, as it should be, then I would lean more towards keeping outright. Obviously it's not the most important subject, averaging 25 views per day, so the encyclopedia would not collapse if it was deleted, but it's not an outright hoax or a product only sold in one local store, so I see no harm to including it, either. bd2412 T 01:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, but I don't think "reliable" was ever at issue. The underpants undoubtedly exist, weight what they do, and get bought. The issue is "independent" and "third party" and "coverage". I haven't evaluated you suggested good book sources, but the current content is entirely supported by non-independent promotion. The danger is the continued breach of promotion, paid editing, and reference bombing to confuse our reviews. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That is exactly why my opinion is somewhat tentative. Those are editing issues that can be corrected by the addition of sources like the one I have found. It should be added to the article, although I have no personal inclination to work on this subject. If it is not, then the article should be moved to draft, so the other issues can be addressed before returning it to mainspace. bd2412 T 12:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I think new good sources are an argument for WP:TNT instead of straight delete. The content is built from inappropriate sources, all of it, and none of it can be fixed by adding something else. If the good sources are about an innovative start up, fine, but the underpants promotion has to go. Keeping the paid editor attribution for entirely promotional material subsequently removed is a dishonest substitute for TNT. They are not an author of the fixed (substituted) material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems to me that the line of thought here is that 1) the news sources speak positively about the product, therefore the news sources must be compromised, and 2) the editors writing about the product incorporate the positive news sources, therefore those editors must be compromised. I disagree with the premise that the all of the current sources are inappropriate; sometimes independent reporters have positive things to say about a product they like. I think that points have been made by others in this discussion about some of those sources. I myself have written articles about, for example, nineteenth century judges, for which all of the available sources were positive reviews talking about how kind and gentle and well-spoken the subject was, and how well-regarded his opinion were. I wasn't paid to write those articles, but they reflect the sources, and therefore present a positive picture of the subject. The product here appears to be well-liked. The only significant criticism seems to be the cost, which is mentioned as the first response in the CBS News source, but has not made it in the article. I would add that information. However, I have seen articles for products like fad diets and herbal supplements where the products are useless or even harmful, and available negative information is whitewashed. This is not that. bd2412 T 16:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It's now many weeks since I came to this article doing New Page Patrol, when I opened and read every source, and was able to infer that *every* superficially notability-attesting source was a planted advertorial. It was not simply that "reviews are too positive", but that on looking for secondary source material, statements that comment on the basic facts, distilling those, they were bald faced advocacy. Who says these underpants are great? Compared to which competing products? Silence. All advertorial. This product on a mountain peak in isolation. I certainly do not reject reviews for being positive, but there is a difference between a testamonial and a review. The "news" sources are not "news", I judged, but not due to their positivity. True, there is no negative or harmfully misleading components at play here. This is a clean case of clever promotion, SPA DUCK paid editing, and Reference bombing with advertorials. Supposedly our test is simple: is WP:CORP met? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't disqualify sources like CBS News that basis. The fact that CBS News does a story on the subject also itself increases the population of interest for the subject, making it more likely that people will turn to an encyclopedia to learn more about it. We cover widely reported topics not just because the reporting provides material from which to sort article content, but also because we ultimately serve a public that is turning to us to find this information. bd2412 T 02:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        People come to Wikipedia for product information, yes they sure do and so do I. The expectation is for object description. Why are these underpants better? What technology or quality advantage do they have. To what popular and critical reception? What do independent commentators say, comparing these garments with standard garments? This is what I expect, and it is not the current content or the current sources. Mere coverage has never been good enough for WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The CBS news article is a great source, but is not independent and so does not contribute to the notability test. Do we require independent sourcing for commercial products or not? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not keen on going around this point endlessly, but I can find no evidence that the independence of CBS News was compromised with respect to this story. Can you demonstrate, for example, that CBS was paid to place this story? After all, if the mere favorability of a review was taken as proof that the review itself was not independent, then we would only have articles on poorly reviewed things. bd2412 T 12:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing the point (maybe?). CBS is a reliable third party source, I think everyone would agree on that. The specific part of the article used as a reference relies almost exclusively on quotations from Patterson (the founder) and Hart (an investor) for data and information. There is no substantial editorial comment (neutral third party comment) on any of the quotations or facts or information - therefore the article is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH (quotations used as story) and WP:ORGIND materials originating from company sources. If, for example, you removed all the facts and information attributable to connected and non-independent sources, what are you left with? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter who they are quoting, as long as CBS retains editorial control over the content of their publications. There are situations where entities like Forbes do surrender that control. This isn't that. bd2412 T 15:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope, no easy way to say this but you're dead wrong. All editorial control can do is ensure that quotations are accurately reproduced. Job done. It doesn't stand over the content (facts, opinions, language, etc) of the quotation though and therefore we can't either. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll need to see a source for your proposition that a news outlet has no choice but to reproduce everything and anything that an interview subject says, without editorial control. bd2412 T 12:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Strawman argument. I never said that a news outlet had no choice but to reproduce everything and anything. A quick test - read the article, remove/ignore anything attributed to company sources and if there's no substantial information left, it fails the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that he is wrong. Unusually, but it happens. No amount of mere repetition, or provision of platform for presentation, transforms the source material. In this case, all material, not counting the sniggers, is first-person primary source material. He believes that the CBS editor's decision to play the material is sufficient to establish notability. It is not a terribly uncommon position. It would mean that everything passed through CNS is suitable for standalone articles, which I consider absurd. However, we are not about to change his mind. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Please remember, my original !vote indicated preference for a merge and move to draft on the basis of the sources included in the article as is. Of my own accord, I searched for additional sources, and found some that it does not seem anyone else had done a deep enough search to find (one of which is not independent, but is still from a book-in-print, the other of which is pretty clearly independent). My final impression is that the existing sources taken collectively, plus the newly found sources add up to meeting the threshold of notability. I am not claiming the CBS News source is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it is one of several sources in the article that I would not dismiss entirely. bd2412 T 21:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So, you afford strong weight to editorial independence? I don't. It can't be proven one way or the other. I think the decision should rest on analysis of the material in the source. In the source, who with independence said what about the topic. CBS made no commentary beyond sniggers. They merely provided their platform. A show filler. Slightly unusual. An advertorial. What also kills it is the complete lack of mention of similar products, and I also note the lack of incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        We are each entitled to assign weight to the source in accordance with our interpretation of its value. I differentiate a piece that is merely "lightweight" from one that is purchased advertising. bd2412 T 01:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. I understand what you have said and believe you have understood me. Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a run-of-the-mill apparel company, with an article filled with puffery about a "candid approach" etc. At the moment of this vote, the article content is 100% promo, which is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Otherwise, significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. The sources are largely WP:SPIP and there's nothing better out there, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 22 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, Jdcomix (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SmokeyJoe I believe this case study also meets the criteria for establishing notability. It is a case study on Tommy John presented by a professor-emeritus of the University of Massachusetts and impeccable academic qualifications. The case study is presented as a list of facts and data but not attributed to a PRIMARY source. Based on this reference and the previous book reference found by BD2412, my !vote is Keep. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: Typo, there? bd2412 T 15:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - BD2412 Aaarghh! Fixed. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that a case study teaching material establishes notability. Especially not with the first two references being to overtly promotional sites. However, the third and moreso the fourth references are coverage that include comparison to other companies. 3&4 are:
  • Men's underwear leaves the Stone Age

– http://fortune.com/2012/01/27/mens-underwear-leaves-the-stone-age/

• Tommy John Underwear: Tames Sweat, Stays Tucked, Changes Lives – http://www.thestreet.com/story/12041511/1/my-new-underpants-just-changed-my-life.html
I still think all the currently used sources are advertorials, and the article needs a rewrite. The founder says he was "lucky" to get coverage. I don't think it was lucky coverage, but skilfully managed promotional featuring. These two references are different in that they include comparison, enough for a non-failing grade for a scholarly review. The fact that the reviews are 100% glowing positive is not a critical failing, it may be a worry, but it may be that the underwear actually is as good as claimed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locaid[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - one ref is about it being bought and the other is about the company that bought it. Pity this didn't go via AFC.

(Naturally, edited only by an account with a declared COI and a SPA with an undeclared one...) Pinkbeast (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It did get some coverage.[34][35][36] But it might be better to merge or redirect to its purchaser LocationSmart. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge wouldn't do much besides insert those refs you have found into LocationSmart, which wouldn't hurt; and a redirect would also seem sensible. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:48, 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 00:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content and references about its acquisition are not sufficient to support a distinct article. The former company's products did get some start-up coverage but I am not seeing substantial coverage of the Locaid company as would be required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. (Reverting to this version so that it redirects to its acquirer LocationSmart could be an option.) AllyD (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to LocationSmart. No case for a stand-alone article. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:40, 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, Jdcomix (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH for lack of significant coverage. A redirect is unnecessary as the target article does not look to be notable itself, and the term is unlikely to be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it a "valid search term"? It's the name of a corporation, an obscure one to be sure, but it's not impossible it could be searched for. The target appears to be notable: nobody has nominated it for deletion or tagged it, and you offer no reason why it is non-notable, so a redirect is reasonable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To LocationSmart. Valid search term. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:02, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hub Strategy[edit]

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

I find a lot of references but they are all mentions and nothing that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the mentions are associated with campaigns they have done for clients but does nothing more than mention them as the agency responsible for the campaign. CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. References fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:18, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wehebe Darge[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship. He was lead in some stats in the 2009 IIHF Junior Div. III tournament, but as far as I can tell there was no in-depth coverage and is just stats sheets, strictly routine. Yosemiter (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 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 00:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still another Australian hockey player with no significant independent coverage who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY because playing in lower tier IIHF events does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 15:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY LibStar (talk) 01:09, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Boyle[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources (a fair amount of it, but all are mere mentions or stats). Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship. Yosemiter (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 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 00:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some routine sports coverage that fails to meet WP:GNG and playing in junior lower tier IIHF events isn't close to meeting WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 15:11, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eray Atalı[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 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 00:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of GNG. Sources are all databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Fenix down (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY is not met by lower tier events. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another of a long list of Turkish players with WP:ROUTINE mentions in several sources, but nothing of significant depth indicated for passing GNG. Well below the criteria for NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are all databases and short references. KindleReader (talk) 21:56, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California Farm Water Coalition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ineligible for PROD - de-prodded in 2009, kept at AfD in 2012.

The first PRODder's reasoning was "appears to be one of thousands of lobbying / educational groups in the state capitol", and that appears to be correct, as far as I can tell. The group's leaders are regularly quoted on water issues, but being quoted is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. I have been unable to locate any in-depth independent sources that discuss the CWFC ‘’as an organization’’, in Ghits, Gnews, and Gbooks.

The article was de-prodded in 2009 with the de-prodder commenting that sources would be added ASAP, but that never happened. In the 2012 AfD, the first keep vote explicitly acknowledges that the mentions of the org are trivial, despite being numerous. Neither party added any sources to the article or responded to the nominator's request for information about sources (which, although they aren’t required to, indicates that they aren’t as available as suggested). As with the 2012 nomination, I am happy to withdraw early if sourcing is located and added but I just don’t see it. Pinging all participants from 2012: @Rorshacma:, @Cullen328:, @ThaddeusB: ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tolga Bozacı[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 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 00:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of GNG. Sources are all databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Fenix down (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of many Turkish ice hockey players with only WP:ROUTINE mentions and no significant coverage as necessary for WP:GNG. Has only played in the fourth and third tiers of the IIHF World Championships and nowhere near the top level as required by NHOCKEY #6. (The team won the Div. III tournament in 2016 before being relegated back after the 2017 Div. IIB tournament.) Yosemiter (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routines sports reporting is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and playing in lower tier IIHF events does not meet any criteria in WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 20:43, 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. So Why 07:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Jawed[edit]

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

Not notable per gsearch. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his books are reviewed in reliable sources such as Dawn here, The Hindu here and the BBC which have some information about him included. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as his books are reviewed in reliable sources as detailed in my last posting, and they have some information about him Atlantic306 (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no Urdu article on him? Seems like it will be impossible to determine how notable this person is without an editor familiar with the languageHyungjoo98 (talk) 03:48, 16 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, Jdcomix (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The BBC article, for one, indicates notability and can be easily checked using GTranslator. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources mentioned in Atlantic306's comment. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:51, 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 07:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justice and Development Party (Pakistan)[edit]

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:15, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic (given name)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NNAME with only one valid entry, Sonic the Hedgehog. "Sonic Man" sounds more like an adjective rather than a name. This is part of a series of questionable given name pages created by Kaithehedgefox, including Wario (given name) and Waluigi (given name). -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:59, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Sonic Man" is not mentioned in List of Mega Man characters, and its first word sounds like an adjective rather than a name. Without that entry, there is only one character with this name. This means that the name does not deserve its own article; WP:APONOTE states that for a name to be notable, there must be at least two notable people with that name. – Fayenatic London 19:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't create name articles if there are no notable people with the name. A list of two fictional video game characters isn't enough. And it wouldn't be enough even if the racehorse Sonic Lady were added, or any of the artists for whom this is a surname-looking nickname (like Chakra Sonic or Rob Sonic). – Uanfala 11:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. There's no sign it's a notable given name, it's merely the name of a single video game character Power~enwiki (talk) 02:22, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 collapse of Route 4 bridge in Israel[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS insignificant road traffic accident with one fatality. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable event, just a routine road incident. - Galatz ^Talk 16:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very unfortunately; however, according to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE this is not notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while this has received very wide coverage in Israel (and perhaps a bit outside) - it isn't lasting beyond the 1-3 day news cycle.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 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. Links to google searches aren't good arguments in deletion discussions. A stronger argument would be to identify the best few of those sources and state why each particular one qualifies for WP:GNG purposes. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Vision Factory (production company)[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage except name-checking. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in several reliable sources [37]. Also notable for being the producer of recent Pakistani fims and as Asim Raza's company. Mar4d (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 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 01:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Also the result of a Google search (above) does not meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 16 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, Jdcomix (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- production companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Just promotional 'cruft. Affiliated with Asim Raza which itself could be checked for COI / PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Freidman[edit]

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

Coatrack BLP article about a non-notable businessman in NYC. Article was initially created in violation of the TOU by a CU confirmed sock that was part of a sock farm that both promoted some subjects while creating negative articles about others. The PROD was contested by a user that tried to balance the information after the initial creation. As a whole, the subject is borderline notable at best with most of the coverage coming from beating his wife. This seems to me to be a WP:BLP1E type scenario and given the origins of the article and the trend deletion seems like the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contrary to what TonyBallioni states, most of the coverage is not from the alleged assault on his wife. Evgeny Freidman was known as "the taxi king" of New York for good reason. A quick Google search will confirm that there is no lack of coverage of his activities in reliable sources. Freidman has been involved in so many lawsuits and legal disputes that I left out quite a bit so that the article would not seem needlessly negative. Although the article very likely started as a paid puff piece, I have done my best to make it neutral. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME, that he had criminal issues with either his wife or taxi company that got coverage are not enough to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia, and the heavy weighting of that material in an article that was created by a sock farm that created coatrack articles that looked promotional initially and were then updated to include negative information about the subjects is enough to push it to TNT territory for me. He was a major taximan in NYC who would have been borderline notable without the criminal actions. The criminal actions don't push him over the line because they don't meet WP:CRIME, and the TOU violation and pattern with this farm are very relevant to the AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take a moment and look at the references or just Google Evgeny Freidman. Paid editing and sockfarms are not relevant to this discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure they are: it was created as a violation of the terms of use. Full stop. If he was exceptionally notable for things that weren't unproven crimes or domestic disputes, there might be a case for keeping, but he also isn't there. Regarding notability, I did google, most of the significant coverage started in 2015 with the lawsuit. The actual crimes don't contribute to notability per WP:CRIME since they don't meet any of the attributes needed to have an article about the perpetrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesn't matter when the press coverage starts or why if there's sufficient to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. And there is. Probably this 2008 piece and this 2015 piece will do it. They were name-dropping him in the New York Times in 2007. Freidman easily meets the notability guidelines because of his status in the taxi industry. The legal issues are relevant, but not why he is notable. How the article came to created is not relevant if the article should exist anyway. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Parts borrowed from my response on the talk page from a BLPCRIME issue: when coverage starts does actually matter when dealing with criminal matters. We need to assess whether or not it meets the standards of WP:CRIME in that it has historic significance or ongoing coverage beyond routine trial updates. That has not been established here. One-line quotes in a NYT opinion piece that aren't about him aren't coverage under WP:N, a 40-under-40 certainly isn't. The Uber story in Bloomberg is better, but it is largely about Uber and its impact on the taxi industry using Freidman as a foil. I've argued succesfully in other AfDs about BLPs that being the human interest component of a story about a larger societal trend is not actually coverage about the BLP, but about the larger issue: in this case, how Uber is disrupting ground transport. Re: closing the AfD, as suggested in the edit summary, it doesn't meet any of the criteria under WP:SKCRIT, and I am continuing to advance policy-based arguments for deletion. That means a closure at this time would be inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. relatively minor crime, and there's no other notability. That's enough reason for deletion. BLP Crime is an exception to the usual notability rules.If the bulk of coverage is negative, and the crime is not a matter of public importance , or the sort of sensational crime that gets extensive press attention, we do not make a na article. The principle is do no harm: if our encyclopedia article will be the major source of information on the person, it's unfair to have an article. If there worldwide or nation-wide press coverage is such tat our article makes no difference, that's another matter.As for creation by a banned editor, there are a whole range of possible reasons.The rule is that we delete unless some regular experienced editor takes responsibility. In this case , the BLP concerns would be suffficient for deletion, so the question does not arise. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be mislead by TonyBallioni's contention that the article is about Freidman's alleged assault on his wife. I think that is covered in one or two sentences. Nor is that the reason that Evgeny Freidman is notable. Freidman is notable for his involvement in the taxi business, leading him to be known as "the taxi king". And please note that the article was 'not created by a banned user. It was created by a user who was subsequently blocked as part of a sockfarm (with no banned or blocked user udentified as the sockmaster). Since the article's creation, I have worked on it quite a bit and I am perfectly willing to be held responsible for it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per DGG and per WP:BLP1E, and for the benefit of World's Lamest Critic, I would reiterate DGG's words: As for creation by a banned editor, there are a whole range of possible reasons.The rule is that we delete unless some regular experienced editor takes responsibility. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me who the "banned user" is? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- created by banned user / sock Special:Contributions/AnalyticCat. The subject of the article is an unremarkable businessman, with a minor crime in the mix. Better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ran a failed taxi business and charged with domestic violence; sources seem to be mainly local newspapers and tabloids. That's not enough for notability. There is a malicious side of me that would like to see Friedman get the paid editing he deserved and be stuck with the top search hit for him documenting his trips to the slammer, but there's not enough coverage in sources for that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all delete rational, no need to repeat. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per above. WLC, step off the gas!Winged Blades^Godric 14:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I'm not wasting any more time on this. The article will be deleted because it was created by a banned user. It was clearly a puff piece when I encountered it. The time and effort I put into improving it was a waste of time. It is irksome that the facts about the article and the notability of Evgeny Freidman are being willfully distorted to accomplish the deletion, but the ends justify the means, I guess. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WLC, I spent time and effort once trying to rescue Sonia Poulton (type "zebra in a wig" into Google) and it was deleted at AfD anyway. Nobody is pouring cold water on your efforts to salvage the article. It's just, well, shit happens. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems pretty much the same thing. A woman at the receiving end of an unfortunate insult and a businessman who has been covered by the media for years as the result of his success (and downfall) in the taxi industry. I feel much better now. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Who created the article should not be relevant, the only relevant issue is whether it is, or can be made into a neutral, informative article. Here are some links: http://nypost.com/2017/04/06/taxi-king-no-longer-allowed-to-manage-hundreds-of-medallions/; https://therealdeal.com/2017/06/07/taxi-king-arrested-for-allegedly-failing-to-pay-5m-in-taxes/; http://observer.com/2016/05/derailed-by-uber-deposed-new-york-taxi-king-gets-sued-in-chicago/; https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-taxi-medallion-king/; http://www.crainsnewyork.com/40under40/2008/Freidman; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSvNGsL-iig; https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/upshot/new-york-taxi-mogul-seeking-a-bailout-says-hes-too-big-to-fail.html?mcubz=1; https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/national/nyc-taxi-king-accused-of-failing-to-pay-5m-in-taxes/2017/06/07/6f94c7b8-4bab-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_story.html?nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader&outputType=accessibility&utm_term=.8fbbcdba0a8d. I hope the New York Times and/or the Washington Post are not too "local." DaringDonna (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, a number of those sources are tabloid journalism (though not all, the Washington Post and New York Times sources are fine), but the acceptable level of source coverage for criminals is high, and it has to be more than just one-off coverage, but sustained pieces in the national mainstream press first before the need to accommodate the subject in an encyclopaedic manner outweighs the need to respect the subject's privacy and dignity. And indeed, my own news search shows the coverage is limited to the past 8 weeks or so. If he's still getting regular news coverage by Christmas, then we can talk about having an article. It's not like he's Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, is it? Regarding the paid editing accusations, I don't particularly care who writes an article - notable is notable; just that for me a "holy grail" of paid advocacy is the subjects turn out to be notable, but for reasons they don't particularly like, that they are then permanently stuck with. Sort of karmic retribution really. Unfortunately, most of the time it's not possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point. He was notable BEFORE he was arrested. The article went up way before he was arrested. I dont think Charles Manson or Ted Bundy were notable before they did their heinous crimes. Its irrelevant anyway. What is relevant is that this guy is getting extensive news coverage NOW because he was notable BEFORE. I guess if he goes to jail and the news about him dies down, his fame might vanish by Christmas, but as an historical personality, an article about the man that once owned 900 taxi medallions in New York City and was known as the "Taxi King" would probably still be useful for people studying the history of the cab business, or the rise of Uber, or any of a large number of subjects. I also think it is telling that Kudpung put the tag "clarification needed" next to the word "medallions" on the article. Never having heard of a taxi medallion before, he thought it was some kind of not important bit of information. All it needed was a wikilink to clarify. A bit embarrassing, I would say. I also want to add that I am personally insulted that you think any of the sources I sited are "tabloid." They are all acceptable sources on wikipedia, and for basically all New Yorkers, perfectly legitimate places to go for news. DaringDonna (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral A TOS violation on one hand, a substantial rewrite by World's Lamest Critic on the other, and coverage that would almost certainly grant the subject inclusion if he was, say, a Youtube cook. My findings:

New York hybrid cabs from 2005: an Associated Press story mentioning Freidman and a few sentences on an industry website which cites Reuters as its source.
A NY Daily News piece from 2007 which discusses Freidman and his background http://www.nydailynews.com/news/takes-taxi-top-article-1.269065 (a tabloid, but a Pulitzer winning one)
Yeshiva University story "Ride to Riches" from 2012 http://blogs.yu.edu/news/ride-to-riches-2/
An in-depth profile of Freidman in Bloomberg BusinessWeek https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-taxi-medallion-king/ It was widely circulated. It is cited by at least two books [38] [39]
Sustained, national and international coverage of his various problems: RT (2013), abcNews (2013), Politico (2014), WSJ (2015), NY Times (2015), The Times (2015), WSJ (2016) and the flurry of articles in 2017.

Rentier (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete marginally notable. But due to the obvious (negative) promotional pressure it is not going to be worth community effort to maintain the neutrality of this BLP article. Delete and salt, and enough of this nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable business man, ample coverage of his career to establish notability. Searches using terms terms like Friedman + "taxi kingpin" [40], and Friedman "https://www.google.com/search?q=Frriedman++%22taxi+king%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8" make notability clear. WP:BLPCRIME simply does not apply to a businessman who has been in the headlines for years.(It does not matter who created the article, or why. What matters is notability documented by years of news coverage.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability not being a core policy, but a guideline. WP:BLP and WP:NOT being policies that override. Additionally, the TOU are above even local policies and guidelines: if an article doesn't comply with them, it should not get the benefit of assessment under local policy. This is the same principle as we have with copyright since users have added the content in violation of our terms of use. The only content here is either a BLP violation or a TOU violation, so notability doesn't even come into the picture. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am truly astounded that you can say notability is not a "core" policy. I must be reading a different Wikipedia than you. Notability is literally the first issue discussed, along with reliable sources, on the "Your first article" page. But no need to get picky, lets say you agree Gene Friedman is notable, which you seem to think. What you are concerned about are 2 other issues: Violation of some BLP rule, and TOU. So please tell me what BLP rule is being violated by this article? Is it his criminal activity which is alleged and has not been proven? So take that bit out of the article. And if its something else, then edit that out. Why would you delete an entire article about a notable person if the problem can be fixed by editing? Second issue, violation of Terms of Use, which I haven't figured out yet if it is paid editing or sock puppet editing, or maybe both, but whichever it is, how can you possibly know, for sure, that the person that wrote this article was paid? Couldn't it be that yes, he's a paid editor, but was not paid to write this particular article? It seems to me, if I were Friedman, I'd pay to get the article taken down. The same goes for the sock puppet thing. Maybe someone does have a multiple personality disorder and just likes to write under many users. Can't a sock puppet write a legitimate article? OK, he's violated TOU, but really, isnt blocking him enough, do you have to take down the decent articles he's written too, especially those that have been subjected to some good editing, like this one has by World's Lamest Critic and a few others. I just don't get it. DaringDonna (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, notability is not a policy: this has been clarified frequently on Wikipedia and DGG above is probably one of the best people who explains it. It has also been discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 60. WP:N itself recognizes that notability alone is not a reason to keep an article by making WP:NOT an equal requisite to the general notability guideline in order for it to be met. Yes, it is a BLP violation to include things that he has not been convicted of and don't have any proof of long-term inpact. WLC introduced these into the article ~~in an attempt to save him~~: as has been demonstrated above, WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME make it clear that sources discussing run of the mill crimes are not enough to make someone notable. This sock farm has actively targeted BLPs in the past to run smear campaigns. As Jytdog above has pointed out, for someone who it is borderline notable at best, it is more harmful to the encyclopedia and to the BLP to keep the article than it is to delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @TonyBallioni:, first, please stop saying that the article contains violations of [[WP:BLPCRIME}}. That is not true. Second, please explain what you mean by "WLC introduced these into the article in an attempt to save him". I started editing the article on June 11, after the New York State Attorney General publicly announced Freidman's recent arrest. The SPI case which identified the creator of the article as part of a sockfarm was July 27. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Struck the part re: timing. Sorry about that. It is a BLPCRIME violation which is one of the main reasons for deletion, as other editors at this AfD agree on. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sources showing in the footnotes to clear the General Notability Guideline, which asks for multiple pieces of independently published coverage of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject of the piece. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carrite your !vote made me look at this again, and the article falls apart when you dig into it, like all the little section with "recognition" and "philanthropy" etc. The philanthropy section is cited only to this ludicrous piece of self-puffery for example. And the sockpuppetry going on try to keep this is really quite in-your-face (not taking about you of course). So I don't understand your !vote really. This is just a little piece of overstrained corruption. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog - Don't conflate article quality or motives of article creators or motives of article editors with notability. AfD is a simple test of whether a subject is covered substantially in multiple instances of presumed reliability, published independently of the subject — or if other Special Notability criteria are fulfilled. A simple run through the footnotes will demonstrate that this is a leading figure in the New York City taxi industry, the subject of ample coverage in the periodical press, and therefore a challenge of the article on the basis of notability should fail. Paid editors, single-purpose accounts, sockpuppets, bad current content — none of that matters here. What matters is that this individual clearly fulfills GNG and this article should be kept on that basis. More work on the piece is clearly needed, don't get me wrong. Carrite (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! keeping an article also means a commitment to maintaining it, and in deletion discussions this is increasingly being factored in on marginal subjects like this one. Which in my view is good stewardship of our scarce volunteer resources. With a very clearly notable subject we have no choice but to keep and it isn't even a question. This person is not say Bill Gates. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no it doesn't! This is not the Article Improvement Workshop or the Notice Board for Problematic BLPs... This is the Traffic Court from Hell™ in which we determine whether an article merits inclusion or faces deletion under our well established standards. Editing matters are editing matters. WP:NOTPAPER. Carrite (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, have you even looked at the history of the article? After 2015, which editors do you think are sockpuppets or paid editors? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the promotional pressures are obvious ( I should have mentioned "positive pressure" as well above). The question of whodunit is not relevant to an AfD. If there are socks (and I have not said there are) they would clearly be clever at avoiding detection which would make all the more reason to just delete this and be done with it. (please note the use of the subjunctive) Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC) (strike stupid remark Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Jytdog: Let me quote you - "the sockpuppetry going on try to keep this is really quite in-your-face". Note the lack of the subjunctive. You stated very plainly that there is sockpuppetry and that it is blatant ("in-your-face"). If you're not prepared to defend your accusations, retract them. If you're trying to suggest that I am in any way involved with paid editing, you are way off the mark. I am not. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So i did. brain fart -- my bad, and thanks for pointing it out so graciously. striking. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for retracting your accusation. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse anyone. Not sure what you are talking about. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - THIS 2008 PIECE certainly counts towards GNG and might be mined to improve the tone of the standing piece. Carrite (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is already in the article. Not a lot there. its a shame this marginal character came under all this promotional pressure. there a real NYC human interest story of the rise and fall of the immigrant striver, plus the role of uber. but thats not the basis on which we discuss what to keep and what not to keep. The question is can we keep this as something that is a WP article, and is not NOT an encyclopedia article? All Notability does, is help us implement NOT on the level of articles and everything i have seen says that we cannot prevent this from being constantly pushed into being SOAPBOX promoting or denigrating this guy; there isn't enough meat to hold the center. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or Move and retitle to Taxi Cab Management: There is a slight case to be made that owning the largest taxi fleet in NYC is itself notable and that there is enough potential coverage of that feat and his complicated legal history to establish that he meets GNG, or at least that the company does (perhaps an article on TCM would be a better option). Other than that, there's zilch; his criminal record is run of the mill and his civic activity is typical for someone of his social standing. That said, quality and notability are separate issues, and quality issues alone don't justify deletion. This all sounds like more of a weak keep than a week delete, but when you add in the sockfarm paid editing problem, that tips the scale somewhat. Montanabw^(talk) 00:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am amazed by the level of distortion and outright dishonesty I've seen in this discussion. There are a total of 48 edits to this article since it was created in 2015. That includes bot edits and edits since it was put up for deletion. Phrases like "constantly pushed into being [a] SOAPBOX" and claims of WP:BLPCRIME violations based on false readings of the guideline make me question whether everyone here is acting in good faith, or simply arguing to justify a foregone conclusion, namely that since the article was created by an editor who was part of a paid editing sockfarm that it must be deleted regardless of the article itself. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been truly remarkable. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 6 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( 03:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. This guy has a long, controversial business career well covered by the press. Among others, Bloomberg has a long article devoted to him.[41] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ he obviously meets notability guidelines, but I don't believe an article can be written that is compliant with both WP:BLP guidelines and WP:NPOV. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You may wish to review WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Neutrality does not mean that an article has equal amounts of positive and negative coverage. Neutrality means that it accurately reflects what is known and has been written about a person. Incidentally, User:Jytdog just removed some of the positive coverage from the article, calling it "self sourced blaggety blaggety". It did not appear to be self sourced. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You actually think someone other than Friedman's PR people wrote this: " The company is like a miniature United Nations with 3000 loyal drivers from a multitude of ethnic and religious backgrounds. It provides constant support and understanding, assisting them in attaining the American dream. Gene’s sense of social responsibility permeates Taxi Club. " The same person is who the subject of this headline? "Taxi mogul to pay $1.2 million over allegations he was ripping off cab drivers"? Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 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, Jdcomix (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Creator of article is totally irrelevant. The four-minute Bloomberg TV segment,[42] Two articles in NY Times [43][44] that discus HIM directly, and the second one is hardly trivial, but about his successful fight to use hybrid cars as taxis. There are a ton of articles in Russian-language newspapers, in U.S. and Russia, that also discuss him in depth, beyond the tax issue. They discuss his life story etc. I'll add the details to his bio.[45][46] —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article still needs work, but it's sufficiently improved that I'm striking my delete vote. The article is still largely a mix of puffery and personal attacks, but an encyclopedia article may exist with those reduced further. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Power~enwiki it is still a massive BLPCRIME violation: he is not a public figure who has not been convicted of many of the charges, he never plead guilty to the crime of beating his wife, and it was created by a sock farm that has a history of creating coatrack articles, and where the BLP issues haven't been resolved. Not to mention that all of the criminal coverage doesn't come near where we need for notability under CRIME. This AfD has been turned into a referendum on GNG vs paid editing, but the core principle here is doing no harm to living persons that is undue and having an article in line with our BLP policy. I'm sure that this will be replied to by someone else, but our BLP policies and the CRIME notability guideline is clear: he's not a public figure so he is entitled to protection under BLPCRIME, and run of the mill crimes don't count towards notability. This falls clearly under both, and nothing that has been updated in it changes any of that, and none of the sources show otherwise under either CRIME or SPIP. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've removed the "Personal life" section entirely as un-salvageable. The issues regarding his taxi business have to be discussed somehow in an article about him, but are possibly undue weight right now. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I saw and also removed some. They have since been reverted (I just removed them again and have moved the conversation to talk). Thank you for trying to bring this in line with the BLP policy. The CRIME notability is still an issue here, and otherwise doesn't meet GNG. Ultimately, this is about enforcing BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        This is entirely about enforcing your desire to delete articles which you believe have been created by paid editors, whether or not those articles otherwise meet our standards. If this article survives , I will deal with your patently false assertions about BLP policy then. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: I think the Terms of Use supersede the biographies of living persons policy. I think there are very few people who advocate undisclosed paid editing in the community so I would err on the side of deletion without prejudice to re-creation by an uninvolved editor. DrStrauss talk 19:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not a paid editor. I have more than doubled the size of the article since I started working on it. Why should my work be deleted because the person who created it is suspected of being a paid editor? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you can re-create it as an uninvolved editor and ensure that any paid content that contravenes the Terms of Use or core content policies is removed. We need to make it clear that undisclosed paid editing in any form is unacceptable. DrStrauss talk 20:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the content contravenes the terms of use. If any of the content contravened the core policies, it has already been removed. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm unable to find any policy which says we delete articles just because they were created by TOU-violators. I was also able to find coverage in WP:RS that goes back to 2013 which has nothing to do with spouse abuse:
- Daily News
- New York Post
- The Jewish Voice
- ~~Daily Mail~~
- LA Times

Based on that, he meets WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you cited the daily mail there. oy veh. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I forgot about this RFC. I'll strike that one. But the others are certainly WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is better. The Jewish Voice piece is churnalism dreck, completely derived from the NY Post piece (and it says so) The NY Post piece is gossip about Bloomberg cursing the guy out. This is how you judge notability, really? Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find any policy which says we delete articles just because they were created by TOU-violators.

@RoySmith, the relevant policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, read in the light that the topic itself may be notable, but we delete the version written as a means of promotion (WP:TNT). (Not watching page.) czar 05:53, 3 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfiqar Halepoto[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. some cited sources are not RS, while some RS are self published. Saqib (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in multiple sources [47]. Mar4d (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he doesn't meet WP critera per WP:NPOL. No article on Sindhi Wikipedia and also no article on Sindhiana check here. He was namechecked only so fails WP:GNG too. Greenbörg (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sindhi Wikipedia only has a few thousand articles and isn't a great determinant for notability. It would be better to rely on news coverage which is adequate. Mar4d (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of the question of whether he has a valid notability claim or not, none of the references present here represent reliable source coverage about him — most of them are primary sources, and the only two that actually appear to be reliable source media outlets both have him as the bylined author of the article and not its subject. And even on Mar4d's Google search results above, I'm seeing glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not any evidence of coverage that's substantively about him to the degree necessary to count toward a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 15:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His book launch covered by Express Tribune. Also see: The Herald, Pakistan Today & The News. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:11, 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. czar 08:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Alamad[edit]

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

Draft had been declined 4 times at AfC for very valid reasons. You can see the rationales here, since somehow the editing history of the article has been deleted. Right now this is little more than a glorified CV. Searches turned little more than a few mentions. He's accomplished, but not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - most of the existing sources seem to be significant, reliable and independent of the topic. — TheMagnificentist 12:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Perhaps he's not very notable, but the subject does have a few indicators that could support inclusion. Coverage begins with mentions in 2014 and another one in 2015; this continues into 2016 and 2017, where coverage becomes relatively more frequent (though, as I must concede, not extremely so). That coverage only includes news articles unconnected to the subject. What I make of that is an individual who honestly wouldn't have been notable enough for inclusion in previous years, but by now, seems to barely make it past the mark. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contributions to Islamic financial scholarship have barely been noticed on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 15:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell the coverage in the independent sources cited in the article amounts to passing mentions or quotes from the subject in connection with his work on halal loans. This is not significant coverage of Alamad himself. The one exception is [48], and I don't think a single source meets the WP:GNG. I couldn't find any additional sources or any indication that he passes a SNG. As the nominator put it, he is accomplished but unfortunately not notable. – Joe (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly WP:TOOSOON; the accomplishments are not significant, neither is the coverage. 100% promo article with content along the lines of:

"He was also featured in the Move Your Money Campaign as a pioneer of ethical financial products!"

The rest of the article is pretty much the same. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Add: the draft of the article has been declined four (4) times at AfC: link, but was moved to mainspace anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 29 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. czar 08:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Terra Online[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Wild Terra Online" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable game, fails WP:GNG. I could only find 2 reliably sourced articles in Siliconera and Igromania, respectively. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, needs work. There are some coverage.[49][50][51][52]. — TheMagnificentist 13:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, those are not significant, and not enough to base an article on. I am not even sure that most of those are reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A source isn't unreliable until proven. — TheMagnificentist 20:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming those are all totally 100% the most reliable on the planet, they are mainly 1 paragraph descriptions, so they aren't significant. The first one is merely a by the numbers patch note/press release with no further input on the part of the writer. The second, third and fourth, more press release type articles with no original thought._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources address the topic directly and in detail, and they're not trivial mentions. One paragraph is considered significant enough. — TheMagnificentist 20:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:PROMO such blatantly promotional things as press releases sent out by the game devs do not make something notable even if it is on a secondary source. Said source has to actually state why the game is notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvcvbnm is correct that in their assertion that press releases, by definition, are not third party coverage, but rather, first party coverage, because they're written by the company themselves. Even if third party sources repost them, they're still entirely the work of a first party. It doesn't make the sources unusable, but it doesn't help in proving notability. These sources listed, not only do I doubt their reliability, but beyond that, they're mostly either exact reposts of press releases, or primarily press releases with a couple comments before/after the repost. Either situation doesn't really constitute significant coverage. If this is all the sourcing that is out there, I'd !vote for delete. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erm? I'm fairly certain a source is not reliable until shown that it is. Can you show those sources all exhibit the quality controls we expect of a reliable source? (I have asked a question at WT:V#Default status of a source regarding this since there does not appear to be an obvious answer in policy/guideline.) --Izno (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless of default status, as soon as its been questioned in any capacity (as Zxcvbnm has done above) that WP:BURDEN would basically require TheMagnificentist to prove their assertion that it's reliable anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though Sergecross is right, it is to be noted that there is a discussion of the burden issue at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Default_status_of_a_source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 15:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game failing to satisfy WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The two non-primary sources, one MMORPG is just an announcement and Xsolla does not appear to be reliable and is not independent (it's an interview). Of the four sources above, all appear to be brief announcements, feature lists and basically PR. No content to do proper WP:WAF. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Weeks have passed from initial comment, and no better sources have been provided, and I'm not convinced the current ones are WP:RSs or provide significant coverage, so I think it fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 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 07:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darya Khan Rind[edit]

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

Promotional stuff. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 08:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some arguments about why GNG fails would be welcome. Has anybody looked for sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. This is another example of someone who may be notable, but not enough information about him is present in easily searchable English language resources to prove that. I don't think this is too promotional, and wonder if the author of the page has used present tense when they should have used past tense. I think it would take someone with access to significant published material on Pakistani poets to truly check notability, and to just delete because we don't have access to the right material is lazy. Ross-c (talk) 23:57, 15 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, Jdcomix (talk) 15:10, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AXM Futsal Manado[edit]

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

Non-notable team. While the citations given provide evidence that AXM has won some competitions, it is unclear what level these competitions occur at. There is insufficient coverage of either the ADM Cup or the Alveyro Open Tournament to verify whether these are top-level professional tournaments or local amateur tournaments. This team is not included in the roster of teams in the Indonesia Pro Futsal League, so it is clear that they do not play at the top tier of futsal in Indonedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to use wikipedia editor, but please help me to make my article suitable enough. Teach me about wikipedia more and so that my article will not be deleted. Aepangemanan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aepangemanan (talk • contribs) 17:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised some information and some new reference and please so that this article will not be deleted, no conflict of interest or even promoting something. this is purely an act to share information to others without disclaiming others page or article. Help for a better inputs for AXM article. aepangemanan 20:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 09:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address the changes made after nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 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, Jdcomix (talk) 15:10, 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. The arguments to keep consist of a WP:COI editor who presented a number of sources that didn't meet the approval of other editors, and another editor who asserted that this meets WP:GNG without providing any specific examples or details. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Powai Bengali Welfare Association[edit]

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

non-notable local (in the Powai neighborhood of Mumbai) linguistic welfare group, no reliable sources except for some local mentions on events etc, it's been here long enough, mostly acting as a brochure for the organization, Prod was removed with no explanation by an account whose sole focus is this advertorial. —SpacemanSpiff 05:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 05:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 05:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SpacemanSpiff Powai Bengali Welfare Association is a 12 year old social and charitable organisation with over 10,000 members and followers and organises some of the largest cultural events of Mumbai city. While its original name had Bengali - an ethnic word, it is more commonly known as PBWA. There are over 20 credible external sources of information about the organisation. Am providing the links below from Times of India, Hindustan Times, Vogue etc. which are leading Indian publications. Do let me know if these appear credible to your goodself

http://www.vogue.in/content/isharyas-latest-line-is-empowering-women-in-need/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/rasgullas-mishti-doi-draw-bengalis-to-powai-festival/articleshow/58584006.cms

http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/in-mumbai-ceos-discuss-women-empowerment-at-powai-s-durga-puja-pandal-on-ashtami/story-uJotie07NNofeTUSg1f8qJ.html

http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/catch-a-glimpse-of-vivekananda-memorial-at-a-mumbai-puja-pandal/story-pa2KaE9jwvsVMLenw6bNyJ.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/latest-hindi-movie-news-bollywood-movies-news-updates/bollywood/news/Raghu-Rai-to-judge-photography-competition-during-Durga-Puja/articleshow/54694575.cms

http://epaper.livemint.com/epaper/iphone/showpage.aspx?issue=67862016100800000000001001&page=4&returnUrl=http%253a%252f%252fepaper.livemint.com%252fepaper%252fiphone%252fhomepage.aspx%2523_title67862016100800000000001001%252fwatitle67862016100800000000001001%252f6786%252f67862016100800000000001001%252f4%252ftrue&x=0.8802816901408451&y=0.773542600896861

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-durga-puja-2016-top-5-pandals-to-visit-in-mumbai-2262240#

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-best-of-durga-puja-in-the-suburbs-2262141

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Powai-Bengalis-to-celebrate-Tagores-birthday/articleshow/52269301.cms

http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=Y3FK24EG9VP&preview=article&linkid=37600a73-3226-4508-9aa7-84ed2383c898&pdaffid=gR%2bqSP9PjZqRZnb%2fE1wfTw%3d%3d — Preceding Snerarika23Sneharika23 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

unsigned comment added by Sneharika23 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I"ve mentioned in the nomination statement, none of this is showing any notability for the organization, anything that talks about the org is of specific local event listings, and then there's others that you've added that have no relevance at all to the organization. You've got to understand that Wikipedia isn't an advertorial venue for you, especially given your conflict of interest here. 03:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

concur that it continues to be a page that is poorly written and styled, and poorly referenced. Numerous times the CoI has been expressed to a variety of users, or socks of user. I know similar organisations that have similar membership but no article. That an organisation manages something or is mentioned in an article does not automatically prove our notability. Take the article to draft and get it fixed, prior to the decision about its suitability for enWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG,. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

- Comment Care to expand? Which sources did you find to establish notability? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 19:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and references above all fails WP:CORPDEPTH andor WP:ORGIND. If sources can be found that don't rely on company materials or interviews with company executives, I will take another look. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear example of an article on a non notable local organization backed by routine notices. Al locla orgaization have such notices--they're one of the purposes of the organizations, to spread publicity about local events. They should do it without WP. DGG ( talk ) 12:19, 1 September 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian states by population growth rate[edit]

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

This page is redundant to List of countries by population growth rate. That list contains all countries, including Asian. If there is need to compare Asian states, a separate column ("continent") may be added to the List of countries by population growth rate. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy/pasted the arguments I made when the page was marked for speedy deletion which was subsequently overruled by an administrator.

"The page that it has been tagged as duplicating is "ist of countries by population growth rate" (I assume you meant to tag list of countries by population growth rate). The aforementioned article not only doesn't get updated regularly, but more importantly, does not split countries up into their individual regions. To this end, the two main ways that this separate page adds value are:

1. The larger list gets updated infrequently because of the effort required to not only fill in the new growth rates but re-rank all the countries of the world. A smaller list not only takes less time but someone living in the particular region may be more motivated to update their region's demographic statistics.

2. People are often interested in comparing demographic statistics between neighbours or countries within the same region of the world on a timely basis. For example, if one were to compare population growth in the South East Asian Region, they may be muddled with countries from the Caribbean or Africa that share similar growth rates and not find such a large list as intuitive.

Finally, I was personally motivated to create this new list as I found the world aggregate list very cluttered. I find the new page a lot cleaner and aesthetically pleasing."

In response to new arguments posed by Vanjagenije, the suggestion made not only does nothing to address the update frequently problems in Point 1, but a new column for "continent" does nothing to provide clean, intuitive and timely accessibility to end users as well as adding to the clutter problems on the world aggregate page. In addition, the suggestion made is out of line with any current precedent of continent-specific lists, as a multitude of continent lists already exist for a wide variety of demographic and economic statistics. Finally, the suggestion would make it much harder to find this information through Wikipedia continent-specific categories.Maranello10 (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have read carefully the position set out by Maranello10 but simply cannot agree with it. By this reckoning, we need a separate article, with less detail in but updated more frequently. What we'd then have is the main article potentially left or infrequently updated, thus creating a situation where one article may be up to date, whilst another is not, yet ultimately they both seek to offer the same fundamental data for the respective region. There is no guarantee a separate article would be updated frequently either, which is itself a problem of many articles on wikipedia, but the solution is not to effectively mark it as "out of date" and supercede it with one offering less. Besides, adding a region column into this article may be beneficial regardless, but I haven't seen a compelling argument to create and maintain the article in question; i'd consider changing my vote if I could be convinced otherwise. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete In response to the points raised by Bungle. Admittedly, I could have made it a bit clearer that the main reason a separate list adds value is not because of update frequency but that the aggregate list is cluttered; it has too many data points made worse by the inclusion of non-sovereign states and multiple periods and overall isn't suitable for those looking for region specific information. In response to the suggestion of adding a "region" column; it is not a practical solution as it would require a pivot table in order to sort by both "rank" and "region" at the same time. This adds a level of complexity to create, edit and for end users to use the list and infer information; notwithstanding the list becoming further cluttered and even less intuitive. The potential for improved frequency of updating is just an added advantage and yes, in isolation, I agree would not warrant an entire new article. Finally, I must stress again that "split articles" by region are very ubiquitous for economic and demographic data; deleting this article completely goes against the typical treatment of similar topics.Maranello10 (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I am just not being convinced right now.. maybe others who choose to express an opinion will, but personally I can't see the justification which warrants having a separate article, offering basically the same, but less. A region column on the parent article could include the part of that region in parentheses (i.e.: Asia (South East)) which would be sortable collectively.

Maybe you should do a sandbox article of the main one (or a portion of it), with the above suggestion included to explain why you feel it'd not be appropriate. I also feel if we go down the separate articles for regions, it'd have to be done for every region and not just one - we would have to make the parent article redundant to avoid the issues I raised. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A non-trivial listing of broad import. Quite fascinating, actually. Sourced to American CIA figures, which means that governments are studying these things also... I'm not seeing a redundancy that makes deletion imperative — if anything the universal set of countries is so large as to be unwieldy. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is needless duplication of information from not only the main country list, but also from the Individual article such as SAARC and ASEAN. For example for ASEAN, a lot of content including population comparison is already there at Association of Southeast Asian Nations. There are many such groupings of countries and it is sometimes hard to define them. For example, it is debatable whether Afghanistan is South Asian or Central Asian. (SAARC includes it). This will only result in multiple scattered lists. Rather than creating another redundant article, it would be good to improve the existing ones.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Splitting articles and lists can be useful when the parent article or list is becoming cluttered or the split is notable on its own (guidelines here). That is not the case here; the suggestion to add a "continent" column to List of countries by population growth rate is a concise and compact way to provide this list's functionality in the parent list. Malinaccier (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This content is covered sufficiently on List of countries by population growth rate. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:47, 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, Jdcomix (talk) 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 soft delete. Very little participation. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy On Hold[edit]

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

WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:SOAP, WP:NOTSOAPBOX , WP:LINKFARM , WP:NOTOPINION , WP:PROMOTION , WP:NOTADVOCATE

This page is a promotion of the company Easy On Hold as can be seen in the first paragraph of the page...

"Easy On Hold is a music on hold and messages on hold provider owned by TBA, Inc., a Michigan, USA corporation. Notable for its successful development of streaming music on hold, Easy On Hold was founded in 1997 by Timothy Brown. The company has introduced innovations in message on hold delivery, specifically client-controlled marketing content via http stream."

The page then skips to multiple topics each a service offered by Easy On Hold. All the sections on this page relate to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_on_hold page.

The section of "Streaming Equipment" continues to promote, both the company Easy On Hold and the manufacturer that provides their equipment- ProDigital Manufacturing. The company name ProDigital Manufacturing then includes a link directly to the equipment as if it were a direct advertisement.

The Easy On Hold page then goes as far, as to mention each service that they offer and the "notable clientele."

The References used even DIRECTLY quote the CEO of Easy On Hold These are not a neutral references. This whole page is acting as an advertisement and soapbox for Easy On Hold. In fact one of the references used is even to the Easy On Hold website... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnn09 (talk • contribs)

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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING Power~enwiki (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:05, 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 redirect to Leibniz Institute of European History. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On site, in time[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No indication why this publication is notable. Kleuske (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly no references, no notability IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClrView (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leibniz Institute of European History. Mentioned there already. Regards So Why 07:43, 30 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. czar 08:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Matheson (musician)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable musician; a search for coverage in reliable sources for Matheson came up empty, while coverage for his solo project Potmos Hetoimos (also part of this AfD) isn't much better, with only one significant source (of questionable reliability) being found. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the two following articles; one is the aforementioned Potmos Hetoimos, and the other is the latter's album Proclaim Thy Judgement (no coverage of any kind seems to exist, at least online, for the said album):

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No evidence of notability anywhere. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Narutolovehinata5, you could probably have added The Millstone (album) to the list as well. Richard3120 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article did not exist at the time of this nomination. I have added it to the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - Page has been moved to Matt Matheson.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all nothing notable here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be Alright (Ariana Grande song)[edit]

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

Sources include trivial mentions of the song, at best. Notability lacking per WP:NSONG. Many many more articles like this one exist, so I'll only AfD this one first, to save community resources. That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it more appropriate to just redirect instead? I can imagine fans will get their knickers in a twist over this, but the encyclopedia is filled with such articles of little value. When you dive into the sources, this becomes more apparent.That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It passes NSONGS. Numerous charting, live performances, 43 sources, third patty sources. I can't see why this is even being nominated. — Calvin999 14:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a major song for the artist, many reasons to keep which I won't even list because this will probably be a snow. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't go as far as saying it was a major song of Grande's, but it definitely passes NSONGS. — Calvin999 14:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wrote 'major' because it was the first single released off an album, was introduced on Saturday Night Live, it highlighted a tour, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of those things particularly make it major but.. anyway, off topic. — Calvin999 15:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has enough coverage to support its notability. Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep song about notable song. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ignoring chart appearances and trivial mentions of the song within reviews of the parent album, there are multiple examples of coverage beyond passing mentions such that a standalone article is reasonable. gongshow talk 21:21, 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 per WP:TVSERIES (non-admin closure) SahabAli wadia 14:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alif Allah Aur Insaan (TV series)[edit]

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

I don't know why but I think this article which meets WP:TVSERIES, doesn't have any reliable source. Mostly I have found sources are blogs. SahabAli wadia 13:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SahabAliwadia Hello, I am User:Sammy.joseph and I have started editing this article since a month or so, just saw your notice on the page so thought to tell you some stuff. Basically this is a Pakistan TV Series, internet usually doesn't have enough information about these which we would usually term 'reliable', the channel usually shares information on their website and mostly on their facebook or on twitter, alot of information is also available on Imdb but since all these sources are considered less reliable so we usually search for websites which have enough context along with their reliability so it could fit in wikipedia. I have also edited several Pakistani pages before along with fellow users and believe you me there were several articles that had same discussions going on, so after several talks and also a large removal done by senior Users we revamped those pages and came to the conclusion to use these websites. You might have also seen that in the Production section of this article we have mentioned the source and the dialogues quoted are done by the cast members themselves since they were interviewed, to support the same dialogues we have added some of the other sources aswell since they were also interviewing the same person. About these sources being blogs, these are not necessarily blogs, they are just those websites that generally provide television updates, interviews and latest happenings particularly described as a entertainment news website. With what you thought of it being a blog was its review section, they also have these critic reviews which i was suppose to add in the Reception section under the 'Critical appreciation section' along with the critic name and the publisher's source in the future, these sections are typically found in Television series or films.

There was another tag on this page that it needs more grammar improvement, so let me assure you that the plot section is constantly being removed and the anonymous users without user ID are constantly replacing my edits with theirs having lowest grammar. And lastly about the reception section, we once approached a senior editor (administrator) last year where we told him that a Pakistani Television Channel is provided with the TV Rating information by the Audience measurement brands and they typically release informations on their facebook page claiming which brand/Rating Source gave them the information, a consensus was made that we shall only mention fact that rating information was given on the channels/series official facebook page who's link/source will be mentioned on the external links section. Last month a User removed the information and I told about the same fact but since he was not listening and he only needed the channel's source, I added the link just because he was constantly removing with no official reason.

I am trying to make this page better and more informative, i gave you all the information i know and all the edits i do, if you still have queries please let me know here or on my talk page. If this is not the place for discussion please let me know where to discuss. Sammy.joseph (talk)

@Sammy.joseph: Thankyou for your kind and support, keeping article for non-admin closure. But please fix all the issues as said in the page. SahabAli wadia 13:01, 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 redirect to Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer#Winners and nominees. czar 08:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Nussbaum[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Winning a Hugo for fanfiction is impressive, but when there is no other information available, it's probably a sign the individual has not yet become notable. Her name is already listed in the Hugo award article, and I think that is more than sufficient for now. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be precise, the subject won a Hugo award for fan writing, meaning commentary published on her blog and such, like book and film reviews. (I found her blog but I don't know where else she has written.) That's not the same thing as fan fiction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my apologies. But it is still non-professional amateur writing. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Deleting the page will cause people to want to create it again. She may likely be notable in the future as I'm finding quite a lot of her writing in significant works, but there anything to support a BIO at the time. I'd redirect to the Hugos. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ordinarily, I would have just iVoted delete, because it's waaaay too soon for an article, even though I did find that she has had her writing as a critic published in a couple of real publications. But I can go along with the suggestion of User:Megalibrarygirl, and editor whose work I respect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer#Winners and nominees per WP:ATD-R and above. Likely search term. Regards So Why 07:34, 30 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 already speedily deleted by User:Cullen328. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Blampied[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable entertainer/ personality etc. The only near-WP:RS available are those I have provided- one NJEP article and one from the Irish Mirror. So one local, one tabloid. But neither provide the necessary in-depth or persistence of coverage required to even pass the basic requirements for WP:ANYBIO. The only other available sources are from his employer/company ([53]), which are wholly self-published, and per WP:PST, unsuitable as standalone refernces, particularly in the context of a WP:BLP. — fortunavelut luna 12:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I'm not sure whether this article is the same as the previously deleted one. I think I remember something a bit more grandiose. Assuming this doesn't fall on that criterion, it fails on notability. Whatculture doesn't even have an article. Its wresting promotion did have an article but that got deleted at least once. Nothing here is notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:35, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Murphy (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Biography of a broadcaster local only at the local level in a single media market, written with some "memorializing a dead friend" overtones and referenced predominantly to primary sources and blogs and unpublished personal correspondence. The only two things here that count as reliable sources at all are an obituary in the local newspaper and a glancing namecheck of his existence in a Billboard article that isn't about him, and that's not enough substantive coverage to get him past WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep. It is not every day that a broadcaster obtains a major news profile at the time of his death. It is reproduced on a blog, but is from the Ottawa Citizen: http://grubstreet.ca/articles/index/856/exceptional-musical-knowledge-brian-murphy,-was-64 The article has been up on Wikipedia for a number of years now, was cleared at the time, with no subsequent challenge to its notability, until now. I know that doesn't provide particularly strong support, but when he did pass in Ottawa, it was very much a legend passing, to many, as evidenced from the tone of the Chris Cobb/Ottawa Citizen piece.Dreadarthur (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any radio personality most certainly would get an obituary in the local newspaper at the time of his death. One piece of strictly local media coverage doesn't make him a special notability case for the purposes of an encyclopedia, because any radio personality on earth could show that — what gets a radio broadcaster into Wikipedia is not "was a legend in Ottawa", but "has a nationalized notability claim beyond just Ottawa alone". And the length of time that a Wikipedia article was kept before being listed for deletion is irrelevant to whether the person is notable or not — for starters, nobody has to "clear" or "approve" an article before it happens, but rather anybody can try to create an article about absolutely anything, and the only mechanism we have to respond to that is for somebody to notice that it's not compliant with our notability and sourceability standards after it's already here. Sometimes that happens within minutes, and sometimes it can take years, but we judge the article according to the standards and not according to how long it was here before somebody noticed that there was a problem. (And, in fact, many of Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards have changed over the years, as well — there are a lot of things that were once accepted as notable, but aren't anymore. But those things don't get grandfathered in just because they met the standards that pertained at the time — they get deleted if they can't be upgraded to the standards that pertain now.) Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All fair comments. How does one distinguish the Wikipedia pages on local politicians then? Similar considerations as to potentially misperceived notability? Dreadarthur (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We expressly limit the notability of local politicians to people who can credibly claim that their notability goes beyond the exclusively local: mayors of large cities, city councillors in internationally famous global cities, and selected other people who can be especially well-sourced as significantly more notable than usual for that level of government. So they're already under constraints much like what I described here, and not a contradictory counterexample. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I'm sure everything written is true, but he was just one of thousands of local radio DJs. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 17 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)} 11:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep I found full article coverage from back in 1971 at newspapers.com [54], leading me to believe that there is more to be found with some digging. I request this to be kept for now until I had time to analyze some of the 7,000+ hits (the common name makes it a bit hard and I don't have the time right now). Regards So Why 07:40, 30 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 deleted under WP:G4. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 18:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra shakya (Dijendra)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

speedy delete - non notable person under wikipedia gidelines. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 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 speedy deleted as a blatant advertisement, so badly written and so badly sourced that even if it could be salvaged as notable under WP:CORPDEPTH it would still require a complete top-to-bottom rewrite of the whole thing. WP:SALT applied as well, due to the multiple creations at another title. If creator is really that determined to get an article into Wikipedia, they can submit it in draftspace. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VA Sound[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Unsourced. Kleuske (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. — fortunavelut luna 11:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG, and recreation of VASOUNDLLC, which is already blocked from creation. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 17:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably could go speedy as there are no sources available through search. I find the VasoundLLC website and a few YouTube references but nothing else. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shuja gandhi[edit]

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

Fails at WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Hitro talk 10:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 10:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a notability issue and not enough references are available. Edwige9 (talk) 11:09, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Gibert[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON borderline WP:GNG, doesn't obviously meet any of WP:AUTHOR 1-4 or WP:ANYBIO 1-3 . There's at least one mention "Martin+Gibert" A Plea for the Animals: The Moral, Philosophical, and Evolutionary Imperative to Treat All Beings with Compassion by Matthieu Ricard (disambiguate - this isn't Sir Martin Gibert, the Winston Churchill author).Widefox; talk 15:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:48, 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 22:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:06, 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. Sandstein 14:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meisya Siregar[edit]

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

The subject is briefly mentioned in some sources, but otherwise appears to fail WP:NACTOR. The idwiki article does not provide sufficient reliable sources either. - Mr X 13:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 08:28, 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 22:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Siregar Meisya or Sylvie Meis? Both namesakes are of Indonesian origin, but S. Meis is a more beautiful meisje than S. Meisya. In contrast to missis Meisya, miss Meis was the sexiest meisje of her country. To speak the truth, Meisya has performed title roles in notable films, but it's not that important. In addition, the meisje you are talking about is married so that I see a serious reason for WP:Speedy deletion. --Sir Gossip (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. While looking for "Meis" in idwiki, I ran across id:Meisya Siregar (instead of Sylvie Meis). Then I created an English stub for a change. But I don't think it's very important. That's all I think apropos of our talk. --Sir Gossip (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable sources, fails GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:02, 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. czar 08:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tekfusion[edit]

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

dubious notability, promotional, unreliable and/or first party sources FASTILY 07:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider this article promotional, as Tekfusion is a notable audio brand in India since 2011. If that was the case, you should also delete most American audio company's pages from Wikipedia, so that the readers will have no information about them as well. Please remove your notice from the top of that page, as it holds no grounds. Also, I would like to inform you that the more information is provided on notable companies in India, the better for those who are seeking information, which is what Wikipedia is for, and this article, at least according to my knowledge, seems like it was created in good faith and in no way seems to be promotional. If there is any promotional material on it, you should help improve the article by removing the promotional content and justify your actions rather than calling the entire article unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some reasoning based on policies and/or guidelines. Even better, please provide some references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the company's information on sites like HindustanTimes and IndianExpress - two of India's most popular news websites, and on TheQuint - India's popular digital media journal website is an indication that the company has had a decent coverage from unbiased news websites. Also, full company's journals are available on websites like TheStartupJournal and TechStory which are noteworthy as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order to understand the criteria for establishing notability, you must *first* look to see if the source in a reliable secondary source (and I'm sure the newspapers and digital journals you have mentioned are fine in this regard) but you must *then* look to see if the article (the reference) published by the source is "intellectually independent". For example, an article that relies on a press release, company announcement, product launch or corporate website fails the criteria for establishing notability. Similarly an article that simple relays quotations from company officers or investors fails the criteria for establishing notability. The references you have provided fail the criteria for establishing notability - mainly the criteria found in WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify your doubt, I do not see if the articles mentioned are relying on press releases or announcement, otherwise I wouldn't have provided those references in the first place, and I'm very well aware that articles that rely on press releases or product launches do not meet notability criteria. If you could pin-point any particular articles that you feel is relying on a press release, then we can prune it off the article, rather than just delete the entire article. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sourcing for notability, as Highking has explained in more detail. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds given above and a strong suspicion of puppetry. Cabayi (talk) 18:31, 29 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 07:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Life (video game)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game, fails WP:GNG. Few if any mentions in reliable sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. There seem to be some sources but the article's not ready for mainspace. — TheMagnificentist 13:06, 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 01:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is weak, at best. Delete else it will languish in draftspace as the original writer appears to have a COI. --Izno (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 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. czar 08:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HousingAnywhere[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

We've established before that any means of promotion is an immediate violation of WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically its relevant sections WP:Not a webhost, WP:Promotion, WP:Not advocacy, WP:Not newspaper and WP:Not catalog (all and any apply), and an article that has any of this shouldn't and can't be considered differently. Take the emphasized promotionalism by a clear COI account, recently, which is of course an immediate violation of WP:Terms of Use, given employees or connected are given no exceptions, since there was in fact a company account previously. Take the sources:

Source 1 is a startup-focused publication, therefore indiscriminate because WP:CORP says other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.
Source 2, 4, 10 and 12 are a clearly labeled "company profile"
Source 3 is an announcement: "His announcement", "he spotted the opportunity", "he says", "he used", "his team", "he had financed", "after his graduation", "he raised $190,000" (hardly noteworthy for Wikipedia here, since anyone could easily obtain that with the relevant attention), "him with his first cash flow" and "the company works with" before the article ends.
Source 5 is a Portuguese announcement in a local paper
Source 6 is a Spanish announcement (both of these are conveniently worded like the same PR agent was employed)
Source 7 is about relevant students services as is Source 8
Source 9 is, as conveyed there, a France-targeted announcement; as a note, three immediate announcements in overseas websites is hardly coverage, if each one of them carry the company's own liking on itself
Source 11 is an event listing, which carries basically the same publicity initiatives as before
Source 13 is now a Dutch-targeted announcement

It's one thing for there to be a lot of publicity or, as some may say, "importance", but importance is not what classifies notability here, instead it's major independent significant news as by WP:Notability and I know the few sources here aren't (1 is a "Who Are We?" and 2-6 are company-stamped announcements). Next, as if there wasn't enough concern, the last 2 "Keep" voters at the AfD were now-banned users with a history of undisclosed contributing, yet another Terms of Use violation. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Write a combination article There's a solution for situations like this which simultaneous can give a true NPOV presentation of whatever encyclopedic information there is, and remove promotional writing and those who want to do promotional writing from WP. It's a key provision of the widely misused WP:GNG, that even passing GNG does not guarantee an article, quite apart from the other provisions of NOT : sometimes related topics are best covered by merging. As the article we are discussing says : "The international housing platform has direct competitors also focusing on the international student accommodation market, such as Uniplaces and Student.com." The focus of promotional contributors on having a separate page is due to Google: if there is a separate article, Google will now put the WP article on the sidebar. If it is not a separate page, but a section, they do not. But this is irrelevant to an encyclopedia. If we deal with this information in sections, we not only put related information together in a way useful to the reader without repeating introductory material, we leave much less opportunity for promotional editing -- which nowadays, is ususuallly undeclared paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 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 00:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is written with promotional content and sources do not seem reliable. Suggestion revising with neutral, factual language supported by credible third-party sources.ctonih25

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just an advertisement based largely on WP:SPIP sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Justice[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 22:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Elliot321 (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everyone needs to be Tom Cruise. She was a lead in one show and otherwise a go-to guest/recurring supporting actress. We've got the basics to pass WP:N here. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numerous recurring characters/roles in her career. Passes NACTOR. — Wylie pedia 13:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How sad, she has been in so many notable shows, but as I understand it, we will need citations to prove that she is notable as an actress, not just that she is an actress. If citations exist to talk about her work then lets get them into this article and save it. Until then, if this passes then anyone that has worked on many notable programs would be able to pass notoriety, including stuntpeople, wardrobe and ect.Sgerbic (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR #1. I'll try to add my comments in the article. StrayBolt (talk) 23:13, 30 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 07:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Vegh[edit]

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

The userspace version was deleted due to notablity concerns. A long ballet teaching career but insufficent evidence of any notability. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ajean42/Maria_Vegh Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 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 05:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the lack of objections and the decision at MfD on the same content should be enough to decide this case. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sufficient sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for WP:CREATIVE either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 29 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Adam Kotsko

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

Fails WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC by being the quintessential "average professor," with no notable achievements as an academic or public intellectual. Grifter84 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Grifter84 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link searches above led me to articles like [55], [56] and [57]. These are sources that could contribute to a well-source biography, but the subject is not really the life of the subject of this AFD. The current article relies a lot on his blog as a source so some of the current content may need to be excised.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those links flesh out the subject a little, but they don't contribute much to an overall impression of notability. He's been involved in a couple minor Twitter spats (who hasn't?) and one of his books formed part of a basis for a rambling New Yorker piece. Nothing to indicate a significant body of scholarly achievement or popular recognition. Grifter84 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a very nicely constructed page. Don't we have other things to worry about than this piece on a marginally notable academic at mid-career? No opinion about notability. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR with multiple published books with non-trivial reviews. Sample reviews:

The Politics of Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvation - By Adam Kotsko. Vidu, Adonis: Reviews in Religion & Theology, Jul 01, 2013; Vol. 20, No. 3. The article reviews the book "The Politics of Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvatio... more
Žižek and Theology – By Adam Kotsko. Mackenzie, Jon: International Journal of Systematic Theology, Jul 01, 2010; Vol. 12, No. 3, p. 375-378. The article reviews the book "Zizek and Theology," by Adam Kotsko. more
ZIZEK AND THEOLOGY by Adam Kotsko. Tester, Keith: New Blackfriars, Sep 01, 2009; Vol. 90, No. 1029, p. 628-630. The article reviews the book "Zizek & Theology," by Adam Kotsko. more

It would be too soon for an article under PROF as assistant professor, but passes AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews in specialist journals carry little more weight than a citation. If the reviews were full-length ones in a a major media outlet like The New York Times or similar the situation might be different (just). Xxanthippe (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Early career academic who works in pop-theology is WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the subject does fall (just) below the bar of WP:PROF, his books have been widely reviewed [58][ (+ sources provided by K.e.coffman), including in mainstream (non-academic) periodicals [59][60][61][62]. He also made remarks that have attracted news coverage on two occasions [63][64][65][66][67] (although these have been cut from the article due to WP:BLP/WP:UNDUE concerns, I'd argue they still count towards notability). So keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 21 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)}}} 04:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Xxanthippe's reasoning. I just don't see a pass of either of the notability standards in operation here (Author or Academic), which amounts to a fail of GNG. Smart guy, clearly, and I've managed to learn the term "political theology" from reading the article, so that's fun, but not notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- BigHaz, I don't understand how failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC has anything to do with failing WP:GNG. The point of GNG is that it is a separate evaluation metric when other notability standards have not been met.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point. I misspoke. Given that he fails AUTHOR and ACADEMIC, he would then need to pass GNG, which he doesn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is marginal, but this challenge is Vogionian. There is plenty of dogshit on Wikipedia that needs to go away, chase that instead of this nicely done piece on an academic in mid-career. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 29 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. The article is now located at Draft:Last Day on Earth: Survival. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last Day on Earth: Survival[edit]

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

Game fails WP:GNG with no mentions in reliable sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - there are some sources^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] but it needs work, not ready for mainspace. — TheMagnificentist 12:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.gamerevolution.com/guides/343367-last-day-earth-survival-guide-vault-code
^ http://www.giga.de/spiele/last-day-on-earth-survival/tipps/last-day-on-earth-survival-code-fuer-alfa-bunker-erhalten-so-gehts/
^ https://www.mobilegamer.com.br/2017/08/como-jogar-last-day-on-earth-survival-no-pc.html
^ https://www.tuexperto.com/2017/08/04/5-claves-para-triunfar-en-last-day-on-earth-survival-en-video/
^ http://techbeasts.com/last-day-on-earth-survival-pc-windows-mac/
^ http://www.hobbyconsolas.com/guias-trucos/last-day-earth/last-day-earth-survival-como-subir-nivel-rapido-158228

First few refs fall under WP:GAMEGUIDE as unacceptable sources. The fourth doesn't appear to be a reliable source, their about page looks somewhat parodic and they cover "memes". The fifth one is also WP:GAMEGUIDE. Only the final one, from Hobby Consolas appears reliable, but that's not enough for WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:43, 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 06:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per TheMagnificentist. Elliot321 (talk) 15:54, 15 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)}}} 04:52, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Azad[edit]

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

Huge promotion.Just check the categories. Nothing exists in reality. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep – --Newdill 16:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Hello Greenbörg, I hope you are doing well. I want to discuss about the page and want to know what are the exactly issue that page has been flagged. Idris Azad is famous a writer and teacher here in Pakistan . I have read "A lot categories" is main issue mentioned. Can you please let know should i have to remove these categories? any help will be really appreciated.

~~Note: Idris Azad is famous with both names, Idris Azad and Idrees Azad. Thanks (Newdill 15:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC))~~

We have a article when someone is notable not famous (i.e don't know what you mean by famous). You should provide references where subject is discussed but sources should be reliable. Greenbörg (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment User:Greenbörg, Idris Azad is author notable books as mentioned on page and these books are available world wide also in notable libraries. There are two Mphil theses have been done on his works in two notable Pakistani's Universities(Allama Iqbal Open University and University of Lahore). Unfortunately both of these thesis are in Pakistan's native language Urdu. I would really appreciate if Wikipedia Admins from Pakistan could visit Idris Azad page or who could read Urdu Language. Thanks --Newdill 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdill (talk • contribs)

Comment Hello User:Greenbörg !! I hope you are doing well. I have updated the page Idris Azad with new references and added some notable references. I hope you will check the page and reconsider about template you have assigned to the page. Any suggestion will be highly appreciated. Also, i have received the copy of Mphil Thesis "(Noreen, Fariya, Idrees Azad Ki Tareekhi Novel Nigari (Critical Analysis of Idrees Azad's Historical Novel Writing) (Mphil). University of Lahore)" and i can share the photos of this thesis as it is not available on university website.' Thanks --(Newdill 22:12, 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 04:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If the subject is sufficiently important as to have MPhil theses written about him, that does seem to suggest that there's a level of notability there. I don't have any Urdu, so I can't verify that those sources in that language are what they would need to be, but I'm happy to take that on faith if nobody else (other than a major contributor, just for reasons of transparency) is able to provide that proof. Moreover, I'm not convinced that "the article is in too many categories" is a particularly helpful deletion rationale. This one is in more than the average, I suspect, but it's a peculiar argument to advance. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shahidgee07. Greenbörg (talk) 07:31, 8 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( 03:22, 15 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)}}} 04:50, 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 Transformers: The Last Knight#Transformers. As an interim measure. This discussion envisions the creation of a disambiguation page at this title, which can link to the various people named Cogman, and also to the article that covers the fictional character. Sandstein 14:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cogman[edit]

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

Strange sort of fan page for a character which apparently only appeared in a single movie. Non-encyclopedic, consider merging with the movie's article, or delete altogether. ‡ ᕮl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Transformers film series characters or delete, unless decent third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers: The Last Knight would seem to be the most appropriate answer given the lack of coverage on the character, and it would be useful to at least have some sort of pathway directing back to the associated film. However, I would not be opposed to a delete either. Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per both of the above. I think The Last Knight seems a better target, but if he's too minor to even be mentioned there, I wouldn't add him... Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also not opposed to a DAB page in conjunction with merging this content somewhere else. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly a DAB could link to Transformers. There are several people named Cogman ( Genevieve Cogman, Bryan Cogman, Frederick Cogman ). Power~enwiki (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support DAB - Whoa! Good eye there, I wouldn't even have thought to check that. @Power~enwiki: ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ as per the above. One would expect some degree of coverage on this character in either the list of characters from the film series or on the particular film's page, and leaving the current page as a redirect to such a location is not only a typical procedure with coverage of popular franchises on Wikipedia, but will also lessen the temptation for fans to try and recreate the page out of a desire to ensure coverage. A lot of good editing can happen in ten years. (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon having noticed the suggestion right above mine, change to Repurpose. The current content could be replaced, with the article repurposed as an article on the surname itself, including a list of articles on individuals bearing the name. In a subsection on fictional characters, Cogman (Transformers character) or something to the effect could be included, as a redirect to one of the above-suggested locations. The act of deletion in either case is non-arbitrary. A lot of good editing can happen in ten years. (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Read suggestion above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creating a dab page, as above, seems sensible. I'm not sure I fully understand Will's concern. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, Milburn! Haven't heard from you in ages. Anyways, if you're referring to my comment about deletion in the case of the suggestions I made/added upon, my only concern is that the process of deleting the current page, just to recreate it for one of the new suggested purposes would be a waste of time. It's not unheard of to just replace the content in an article which shares a name with a more encyclopedically suitable topic, that heretofore has not been covered, with information on the more suitable topic, without having deleted the previous revisions. A lot of good editing can happen in ten years. (talk) 19:29, 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. There's less discussion here than I'd like to see before declaring a consensus, but it seems like deletion for now, per WP:TOOSOON is a reasonable outcome. If better coverage evolves, it can always be undeleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issac Ryan Brown[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for this young actor. His only main role to date is in the recently started Disney Channel series Raven's Home and a simple Google search for sources about him point to mostly that series - passing mentions or only reporting in the context of that series. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as way WP:TOOSOON. This can be revisited in 1–2 years... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe Move deletion would lose this valuable page history which is already a significant number of role. Cant we keep it in the Wikipedia:Article_development process? I also disagree about Raven's home being his only main role. Haruna is Miles' best friend in Tomorrowland and Dre is significant in Blackish. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the latter roles are "recurring roles" – WP:NACTOR demands "signigicant" roles. It is extremely rare that a "recurring role" (esp. a voice "recurring role") rises to the level of being "significant" in notability terms – it would require that significant press or media coverage of the role actually take place, and this is very rare indeed. In general, an actor will need multiple significant roles in order to pass NACTOR, and that usually requires "main cast" roles, such as the one Brown has on Raven's Home (and sometimes even that isn't enough! – see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendra Timmins (2nd nomination) where even 3 arguably "main" roles did not get a subject past WP:BASIC). As of right now, Brown does not pass NACTOR, and does not have enough independent coverage to pass WP:BASIC. Therefore, this article should be deleted – it can be recreated in Draftspace in the meantime, and then revisited in 1–2 years. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:20, 27 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( 03:21, 15 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)}}} 04:48, 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kent (businessman)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. There are some brief mentions in Miami Herald, but the only substantial coverage is in the completely obscure South Florida Hosptial News. It's obviously created by an undisclosed paid editor as well. SmartSE (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up virtually nothing which would qualify as in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG ([68][69][70][71]). — TheMagnificentist 10:09, 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 02:09, 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 01:06, 15 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)}}} 04:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I'm confused why this is so poorly written, if somebody supposed paid for it to be edited; they should sue for breach of contract. I'm even more confused as to why a run of the mill local business person has an article written about him. Adding to the confusion is why 2 blogs and 2 local newspaper articles would be an argument to keep. Bearian (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTEBLP, of local south Florida/Miami interest only. --Bejnar (talk) 14:02, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Saleha[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, the existing sources are significant, reliable and independent. Probably meets WP:NACTOR as well. — TheMagnificentist 10:18, 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 02:10, 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 01:06, 15 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)}}} 04:42, 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 keep. So Why 07:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Christian Congress[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

borderline A reasonable number of references to it, little to nothing talking about it (in English, anyway). Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a lobbying group of Pakistani Christians, and has reasonable presence of sources on the web. Also mentioned and quoted in WP:RS books like [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] etc. Mar4d (talk) 05:37, 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 00:48, 15 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)}}} 04:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This looks like the deletion nomination is stating the fact that the article does not currently have independent reliable sources, not that the nominator performed wp:BEFORE about the existence of reliable sources. --do ncr am 05:08, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Anoptimistix "Message Me" 04:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awami Raaj Tahreek[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This appears to be the "Awaami Raj Party" created by MNA Jamshed Dasti. In that case, and the coverage available, it meets notability. Mar4d (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Namechecking doesn't make one org notable. We can redirect the page to its founder. Greenbörg (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tahreek (تحریک) in Urdu means "movement". The current WP article does not even mention Jamshed Dasti, i.e. the founder of the Awami Raaj Party. Besides, I could not find any explicit reference to Awami Raaj Tahreek in the article's sources. Looks like a dud to me. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:44, 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 00:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gist of my previous comment: this is not the "Awaami Raj Party". 84.73.134.206 (talk) 06:38, 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)}}} 04:40, 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. So Why 07:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Hassan[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She appears to have acted in several Pakistani films, that too in a leading role, which seems significant. Mar4d (talk) 16:29, 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 00:47, 15 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)}}} 04:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a co-star of at least one Bollywood movie and has significant roles in others. Listed in IMDB and RottenTomatoes. Included in list of 32 Pakistani actors in Bollywood in this article: https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/151729-Indian-journalist-asks-Fawad-Khan-to-leave-IndiafromNewsdog=1 Frappyjohn (talk) 04:24, 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. Consensus appears to be that NOTNEWS applies here. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh Stalking Case[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS.No evidence of notability. Razer(talk) 17:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are ample evidences to support its notability. This case has been a subject of news reports and discussions all over the country for the last few days. One can see about it on the first page of every national newspaper these days. The evidences are notable and reliable. So it deserves to be there on wiki as an article. Of course it needs to be expanded and a neutral point of view as per the guidelines of Wikipedia should always be maintained. --arunbandana 07:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Arunbandana (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. Ajf773 (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand widespread coverage of a major event. Article needs to be more than one sentence to be of any use though. CJK09 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is being expanded Some more time is required. All suggestions are welcome. --arunbandana 10:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has been expanded but I still think the event itself is fundamentally non-notable per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. No doubt the event was traumatic for the lady involved but we can't have articles on every relatively minor crime that gets reported in the news. Neiltonks (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources in article, and more sources that came up on my search of Eve teasing + Chandigarh, Here: [77], make it claear that this case garnered national attention India. I wonder whether the Eve teasing article might benefit by the creation of a List of sexual harassment incidents in India.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A response to the points raised for deletion I strongly feel that this topic is notable and there should be an article on this in Wikipedia. It was under the scanner of the national and international media and the public for more than a week. The honorable chief minister of Harayana, the member of Indian Parliament representing Chandigarh and several personalities of national importance made public statements on this issue. It also came for discussion in the Parliament of India. A simple google search of these two words, Chandigarh stalking, would give you ample reliable references to support the notability of this topic. One may discuss a change here and there to improve the article. But should we even discuss its deletion?

Of course it would too early to call it a crime, whether major or 'minor' because it is for the court to decide that. --arunbandana 05:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge into Eve teasing with one-line info in History section would be enough if the case seem important. Fails WP:NEVENT due to no lasting effect and not enough scope. It was stalking case covered widely by media for a week (and then forgotten, fails WP:PERSISTENCE) only due to political connection of accused and victim was daughter of an administrative officer. --Nizil (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ That the 'case was covered widely by media for a week' in India is itself enough reason to justify that the article should be kept and it should never be merged or deleted at all. It was due to the pressure of the media and public that the police had to file fresh charges against the accused and arrest them again. This is also a notable case that reveals the influence of people in power over the enforcement agencies like the police etc. Had it been a minor case, there was no reason for the executive head of a state of Haryana and other political leaders to make statements. This case has remained on the psyche of India for more than a week. What more do we expect for notability? --arunbandana 16:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I struck out the duplicate !vote of the page creator. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIn every country, there are cases which become important from criminal justice and governance perspective and this case is one of them. Not only position of power was misused, the police and ruling elite continued to disregard evidence, implicitly supporting the accused and working overtime to dilute charges. Hence, this article maintains its relevance and importance, in spite of concerted campaign to silence voices of reason. --Anand Aparna (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A response to the comments It is ok to strike out the vote of the page creator if it is found to be duplicate as per wiki guidelines. However let us discuss some of the guidelines given in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS given as a reference in the above comment. In the first para it says, "....we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion......." The page creator would like to clarify that all the 15 sources given in the article under the subheading, 'References', are reliable, verifiable and third party. Then the topic sentence of the concluding para in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS says, "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." Again the subject of this article has been amply reported in the mainstream media in India and even abroad. A list of the mainstream media given as sources in the article include The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Tribune (Chandigarh), India Today, NDTV. In fact the given list is longer. If we include even those that have not been given as reference, then the list would be much longer. On the basis of the above points given as a response, the article should, thus, be kept, not deleted. --arunbandana 14:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Firstly, if you understand the reasons given by the above !voter for keeping the article, you shouldn't have any problem in understanding the context of my comment. And it has nothing to do with reliability of the sources.

Secondly, you made points that the event was covered for one week & that the sources are reliable. But there is no need to repeat them again and again, as no one even questioned your these assertions. Thanks. – NitinMlk (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as WP:NOTNEWS. I was almost going to support a merge to Eve teasing but that article would start to get very long eventually, and sadly this type of behavior is reportedly all too common. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont).

Delete - Article reads like a news piece, even if it is improved it was still remain a news report, instead of encyclopedia article. Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. The article is also about a WP:SINGLEEVENT which seems to have stopped getting coverage .As I am familiar with Indian media I can comment about the coverage, they mostly hype a single event to get more revenue through ads, on their articles on social media.

Additional comment: Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, seems to be a case of temporary notability. Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this is the sort of articlethat nOT NEWS was intended to prevent--temporary magnification of a very minor incident that happenned to attract attention. We'd need actual evidence of long-lasting impotance here. DGG ( talk ) 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event certainly meets the criteria of reliability / diversity of sources and is a notable event as per guidelines. We should be in no rush to delete the article, as per guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles. Several weeks after, the event continues to generate national media attention and forms part of national discourse on sexual harassment and misuse of power in the country. The article should be re-listed and potentially considered for discussion, after one year or more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.8.164 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS and failing WP:10YT. User:Arunbandana said it perfectly in his argument above: This case has been a subject of news reports and discussions all over the country for the last few days. We are an encyclopedia, not the nightly news. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 2 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Fields[edit]

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

Non-notable American football player who does not meet gridiron football notability. There is no indication that he played in the National Football League or any other first-tier league. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ a quick review of online sources yields very little and not really enough to surpass WP:GNG in my view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some sources that appear to reflect significant coverage: here,here,here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the four articles cited above, there is coverage in ESPN.com (e.g., here), USA Today (here), Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (here plus a dozen more available for pay on newslibrary.com), more from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (here,here, and here), and lots of articles from his hometown paper the Uniontown Herald-Standard which are available for pay on newslibrary.com. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. News coverage found by Cbl62 is all from the same publication, which would indicate that his notability is only local. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it points to local only... but such feature articles also could point toward further coverage in other sources that have yet to be found. My initial review didn't turn these (an admitted "quick review" so that's not suprising). The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a weekly circulation of 170,000+ and a Sunday circulation of 310,000+. Hardly a "local" paper. Further, these are not "sports blogs" but apparently the company spent money on actual ink and paper to publish. I'm ready to go ~~Neutral~~ for now and would like to see more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too many delete voters have not taken the time to check for sources. Fields is a clear WP:GNG pass with abundant significant coverage in multiple reliable news sources, including major metropolitan dailies such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review as well as national sources such as ESPN.com and USA Today. This is in addition to a whole lot of local coverage in his local hometown newspaper The Herald-Standard. I suggest this be re-listed to allow folks to review newly-found sources. Cbl62 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG. [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Keep--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's WP:MILL coverage of many college football players that don't have articles. WP:NGRIDIRON should be the standard. There's no claim that he meets that, and no claim of unusual notability compared to other college football players. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Response but WP:NGRIDIRON is not the standard, it's one of several guidelines--another being WP:GNG. NGRIDIRON is "inclusionary" not "exclusionary", meaning that there are several paths to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're incorrect as to both the spirit of WP:GNG and how it's generally applied at AfD. It is well-acknowledged that topics covered in local news will sometimes not meet GNG. Local news coverage is almost all that we have here. The national coverage appears to be entirely related to his dismissal from the Pitt team, which can't contribute to his notability as a football player, and likely falls under WP:BLP1E. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While small-town newspapers count least in a GNG assessment and national outlets count most, major metropolitan dailies like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette get significant weight as well. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is the oldest big city newspaper in the USA (publishing since 1786) and has received six Pulitzer Prizes since 1938 -- this is not some barely-significant, small-town newspaper. Cbl62 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cbl62, and would add that even if all significant coverage came from his dismissal from the team (which I don't believe to be true), that would still qualify based on WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per above. That's sufficient regardless of the subject-specific guidelines. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 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)}}} 04:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Some decent coverage by reliable sources. Scrapes past WP:GNG. Jdcomix (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62 and WikiOriginal-9's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:41, 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. Several editors are arguing to keep, but nobody has supplied the sources needed to establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DinuraCreations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject fails WP:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG. It lacks any in-depth third-party news, magazines or journals sources. The sources cited are not independent or reliable sources and only establish that the record label exists, not that it is notable. These are the same reasons given in the previous AfD and have not been addressed by the article's creator. Dan arndt (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC) to[reply]

Please read the article's talk page before you make a decision. Thank you. Lkartlv (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt same reasons that applied in 2015 apply today: there is absolutely no evidence it meets the general guideline of WP:N in sourcing. Google News turns up exactly zero sources for me, and I don't see any claim to it in the article. Salting should apply because this is the third creation of the series of articles, and the creator has not provided us with any reason to expect it would be notable in the future. Any future creations would likely simply be a waste of further time. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this version looks different and reliable sources are found. Ariyaratnecol (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ariyaratnecol what reliable sources? The first three references are from websites, that do not provide any adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility (i.e. user generated), with the first obviously supplied by the company itself. The last reference is also a self-published source, provided directly by the company. Dan arndt (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable organization--L Manju (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It would be useful for readers to keep this article which is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka to cover music of Sri Lanka. Dinuraeditions (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note to closing editor(s) Dinuraeditions has an undisclosed conflict of interest in respect to this article. Dan arndt (talk) 03:35, 22 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, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt -- a 100% promo article on a record label with no indication of notability or significance. Such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH & notability is not inherited from the notable artists. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & copy edit Existing label with covering of an universal scope. The audience & the established Independence of sources give a weight addition to its Non-commercial nature. Bisharch (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Bisharch which one of the cited references is an independent verifiable source? Dan arndt (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Dan arndt ; Free Music Archive. Bisharch (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bisharch all Free Music Archive states is the exact (word for word) publicity blurb provided by the company and I quote DinuraCreations is a Musical Record Label and Publisher which is devoted for promotion of Sri Lankan folk music. Our goal is to offer a universal access for the people who may want to enjoy and use our traditional music for their own projects and researches free. We would also like to grant them rights to use our publications for educational and even for commercial purposes under a Attribution-NoDerivatives License. (CC BY-ND). absolutely no objectivity and no fact-checking going on there. The article virtually paraphrases this publicity blurb. Dan arndt (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Dan arndt it is answered by someone in the previous AfD. Consider its noncommercial position and the scope. Bisharch (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bisharch, information on the Free Music Archive is created by users. The website administrations admit all they do is check the legality of the music content, as to whether they can legally host it. There is clearly no editorial oversight, in that they do not check any other content, all which is either fan based content or sourced from the businesses themselves. That sort of information is not 'independent' of the primary source, which if you read the wording above, comes directly from DinuraCreations. Other editors both at this AfD and the previous AFDs have come to the same conclusion, that there are no independent verifiable sources establishing that this record label is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, most probably the editors who had engaged with the previous AfDs may have a pre-judgment and pre-conclusions. Stating the same thing repeatedly does not support to make consensus but a bunch of words. Contexts are usually subjected to be changed in time. If the subject in its encyclopediac value which obeys the policy clearly reflects the impacts on the communities and is admired by the communities it is notable. This record label gives legally free access for the Sri Lankan Music to the communities world wide. Bisharch (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bisharch so where is the independent verifiable coverage that establishes that this record label is indeed notable, as per wikipedia's guidelines and policies, which requires significant third party coverage in multiple reliable sources? I've searched, as have other editors, and haven't found any such sources. As I've stated before this article doesn't even satisfy WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:03, 29 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. Suggest getting some review via the WP:Articles for creation process before moving back to mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Smith[edit]

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

Non notable, article is full of linkspam, no evidence of reliable secondary coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I dont think this page Georgie Smith should be deleted as the credits are officially verified but i'm happy to try to improve the article. Im learning here! I have added some more reliable sources as links from the BBC and IMDB. Some of the links needed updating as the websites they linked to changed their content after a while. Im not sure what you mean by 'link-spam' (have i just added too many links to all the naems etc?) as I thought i was verifiying what certain things were by adding links to them - for example the link to the school where she trained etc - but if this is not the right thing to do, please let me know so i can learn from this advise and improve the article rather than delete it. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobiunderground (talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please can someone help guide me as to what i should and should not include link-wise? This article was created i think about ten years ago and the links were at the time, reliable sources as links to articles. Over the years the content of some of these websites has changed (and why i updated a link which seems to have led me here to this discussion for deletion - not my intention at all!) but the articles must still exist somewhere as they were also in print, for example the original Radio Times Magazine article (sold in all UK newsagents nationwide) for her lead role, or the link to the front cover picture etc. The comment was that i have included 'linkspam' in the article. I have not set out intentionally to do anything malicious, and if i have added links that i shouldn't have, please excuse my lack of experience. I want to correct it. So if someone with experience would be kind enough to guide me as to what links to include and what to remove so i can improve this article, i would really appreciate it. Thank you. Scoobiunderground (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Issue of links addressed and sorted. Thanks to administrator for assistance. Scoobiunderground (talk) 00:42, 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, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment We can keep the article only if better links to reliable sources are given. So please add more reliable references and links. Keep in mind that secondary sources are needed to keep the article.--ClrView (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft so that Scoobiunderground can improve it out of the scope of AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per Ritchie. I'm seeing some stuff that my point to notability as well. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:15, 30 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matter of fact[edit]

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

Context of this article is unverifiable OR while the cited source supports the dictionary definition of the term, not the philosophical context of it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete We have a WIkipedisIsNot policy, but I cannot remember it's name. Its a pretty uncommon word, which is why I remember it exists.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not in a past AfD I thought it be at, and I cannot find another AfD where it was used. If anyone knows it please ping me and enlighten me. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTNEO was what I was thinking of. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:32, 14 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)} 11:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as apparent OR. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a plain matter of fact that the content is verifiable. For example, see The Cambridge Companion to Hume. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 15 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, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a mixture of dicdef and apparent OR. Sandstein 14:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no info on the cultural significance or history of the term - just its usage. I think WP:NEO applies also., per L3X1's comment above. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:29, 30 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.gamerevolution.com/guides/343367-last-day-earth-survival-guide-vault-code

[2] ttp://www.giga.de/spiele/last-day-on-earth-survival/tipps/last-day-on-earth-survival-code-fuer-alfa-bunker-erhalten-so-gehts/

[3] ttps://www.mobilegamer.com.br/2017/08/como-jogar-last-day-on-earth-survival-no-pc.html

[4] ttps://www.tuexperto.com/2017/08/04/5-claves-para-triunfar-en-last-day-on-earth-survival-en-video/

[5] ttp://techbeasts.com/last-day-on-earth-survival-pc-windows-mac/

[6] ttp://www.hobbyconsolas.com/guias-trucos/last-day-earth/last-day-earth-survival-como-subir-nivel-rapido-158228

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]