Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 November	2 December >

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. The delete side goes into more detail as to why the proffered sources aren't adequate than the keep side does at rebutting that, and some keep !votes do not offer any evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Tamplin[edit]

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

I'm interested to see what, if any, criteria for notability Glenn Tamplin fulfils. Simply being the owner of a football club at Billericay's level, or being an entrepreneur and millionaire, or even attracting the attention that he has for his methods at Billericay, appears not to qualify him under the current guidelines. We'd then need articles for every club owner, every millionaire. I'm aware that there is the odd exception to the rule but I can't see why Tamplin should be one. Montgomery15 (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the refs are about him specifically, he's just mentioned. Szzuk (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is fairly well known in the business world, article could do with a lot of improvement, buying Billericay FC certainly adds to his reputation especially with the additions of Paul Konchesky, Jamie O'Hara (footballer) and Jermaine Pennant to the club under his ownership is certainly unique, he should be passing WP:GNG easily. Govvy (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Billericay FC have gained national media attention in the UK and have been included in several viral tweets over the past year and a half, specifically relating to Glenn Tamplin. His influence and notoriety will only grow as the club get promoted and continue to spend cash in their respective division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.134.197 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "His influence and notoriety will only grow as the club get promoted" - see WP:CRYSTAL. You have no way of knowing that the team will get promoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will add a few things - aging players dropping into the non-League game is actually very common, as with players like O'Hara whose careers have (so far) been hindered by injuries. So three joining a club at once, although unusual, is no way of assuring the club's owner of his notability. The IP user is right, Billericay Town have gained national media attention - which adds to Billericay's notability, which is why Billericay Town have an article here. Tamplin isn't the only club owner who puts his own money into his club; indeed, the group of owners who don't would be very small. Yes, the cases are rare of such vast amounts of money being invested at Billericay's level - but that in and of itself is no indication that he's notable enough to be here. I would suggest a subsection on the Billericay Town page focusing on his time with the club - but only as much as that. Montgomery15 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability here. Despite the crap muriel and has been players. Signed - sway4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.67 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO; coverage is local and / or routine. "... fined £45,000 and ordered to pay £30,789 in court costs" is trivia; best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments @K.e.coffman: only %40 of the citations are local coverage, there are two that are video interviews with BBC Sport which was aired on their FA Cup highlights show on BBC1, and Sky Sports, that's major national coverage for the UK. There are a total of 12 citations, there is nothing routine or run of the mill about Tamplin. ANYBIO is additional criteria, So out the 12 citations, 5 of them are major national news services. If you google search you will see Daily Mail and The Sun like to cover the guy, but they aren't considered reliable news sources but they are two large newspapers that are writing about him. If you bother adding it all up you will see he meets WP:BASIC of WP:GNG. So anyone saying he isn't notably isn't following Wiki guidelines, they will need a different argument to delete. Govvy (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, wide coverage for his antics. He was listed the second most powerfull person is essex and is also manager of his club. [1] [2] [3] [4][5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. These include 4 sources from The Mirror, 2 from The Daily Mail, BBC and ITV. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:N. All coverage is fairly WP:ROUTINE. --Jimbo^[online] 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments @Jimbo online:, I am wondering if you could give more detail of why you feel the article should be deleted. Simply saying there is "no evidence of notability" seems to contradict the use of citations, other than the football transfer citations, I am curious what you feel are the "Routine" parts of the citations. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the multiple sources AlessandroTiandelli333 has provided that show that the subject of the article passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AlessandroTiandelli333 has received coverage and Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 23:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG and the multiple sources speak for the subject. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Big fish in small pond; sources are from that pond and are run-of-the mill stuff which do not establish his notability.. And re his involvement with Billericay FC, notability is not inherited.TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 7 December 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 Hackman. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hackman butterfly knife[edit]

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

I just tagged Hackman butterfly knife for deletion. It's just a description of a particular brand of knife, with no indication why it would be special over and above other brands. ---- 79.223.6.24 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Completing a nomination for deletion on behalf of IP 79.223.6.24. Request here --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Butterfly knife. There's no reliable source that covers the brand significantly; of course, blogs and forums do mention that this is perhaps an iconic brand. But as there's no reliable source, can't do anything about it. Lourdes 11:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that it's significant enough, compared to similar products by other manufacturers, to warrant a redirect. Fails notability per WP:NPRODUCT. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dom, the brand is featured in popular culture. Books like The Butcher's Son and private collections[16][17] have references of the same. That's why I believe a redirect may be a good option. Thanks, Lourdes 10:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I wrote the original nomination.)

It's not very clear where the pictures are coming from. It could very well be just a catalogue of thousands of knives of different brands.

I don't mind either way though, both delete and redirect would be fine. ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wary Keep~~ Merge to Hackman. Hmh, interesting. I digged the forums a bit and there might be some notability from RS to the knife (re it being used by the CIA in Vietnam) if one would do proper research. See below quotes:

A couple of other books (besides Mike Silvey's) that are mentioned as reference apparently do not make mention of a CIA connection. One is in Finnish book and the other one is Ken Warner's "The Practical Book of Knives." However, there is a third book that supposedly states the connection. It's "The Knives of Finland" by Lester C Ristinen: https://www.amazon.com/The-Knives-Finland-Lester-Ristinen/dp/0962683906 [18]

The following info comes from "The Working Folding Knife" by Steven Dick (a great book - you should get a copy if you don't already): An importer got permission to import Hackman Camp knives (from Finland) from US Customs. The book doesn't give the type of stainless used, but does state that a number of these knives were purchased by the CIA. Since they were of foreign manufacture, they were "sterile" (not traceable back to the US)." [19]

Cheers Manelolo (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on RS: Hah, managed to find a RS for the CIA claim and added it to the article: Silvey, Michael W. Pocket Knives of the United States Military. 2002. ISBN 0965554422. You can see the source page pictured here at 0:44: [20]. Nevertheless, my final opinion would be to merge any verifiable info to the Hackman article and add the rest to its talk page for possible future use. Manelolo (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 23:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If this article were created yesterday, instead of ten years ago, would you suggest it be saved? I doubt it. All original research. No citations. Someone will argue that its long life give its some privilege. I argue the other way. If no references have appeared in ten years, what makes us believe things will change now? I say, "Let's see the notability before the discussion is over." Blog posts don't count. And neither do sources that got their start from people looking at this article for ten years. Rhadow (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hackman per Manelolo; Despite being used by the CIA during Vietnam, WP:PRODUCT specifically advises to avoid articles for every individual item produced by a manufacturer. Operator873^CONNECT 03:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hackman as per WP:ATD-M. Upon consideration and source searches, not notable for a standalone article, but the merge target article has no mention, so this will improve the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hackman. I've struck off my earlier !vote because a merge to Hackman (which, I had no idea existed) seems more sensible here than a Redirect to Butterfly knife. Lourdes 18:45, 8 December 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 List of Thai Dishes. Actually a merge but since editorial judgement is required in deciding what to merge Inhave done the redirect and anyone can move the required content from the history Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praramlongsong[edit]

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

Non notable food that the article admit is not even found now fails WP:GNG and blatantly violatates WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. No reliable sources that ever reported about this. The article was declined at AFC, then the author circumvent further review and copy pasted it to mainspace. — Ammarpad (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Paul_012 (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Paul_012 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the GNG, having received in-depth coverage in Silpa Wattanatham magazine, a major history publication.[21] Shops specialising in the menu have been also been covered by Manager Online[22] and All Magazine.[23] Plenty of English-language coverage in above-linked book results. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes plenty of sources about Thai dishes in general. These sources are not directly discussing this one particular type in an indepth manner. It was merely described as all the rest in the list, and we don't have article on them. You can't just build an encyclopedic article about food because it was described by wannabe journalist in a particular magazine. Else we would end up with thousand of dishes stub, because one cookery magazine can describe 100 types of dishes in one issue. But who write these description and how-to? Everybody and food pundits! More often than not; just by scripting letter to the editor. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The three directly linked Thai-language sources do directly discuss the particular dish in an in-depth manner, including its origins, influences, name, and changes in popularity over the century. They are not cookery magazines describing recipes. As noted above, Silpa Wattanatham is a major publication in Thai history, and its specific coverage of the dish should indicate that it is a menu with a history and story that warrants an article. There are most extremely likely plenty of other offline sources in Thai as well. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, being mentioned in "major newspaper" doesn't confer notability. Since creation of the paper I believed it wrote alot, we dont create article for everything it wrote abou. Earlier you said the above English sources do 'directly discuss it specifically and that's not true, I read them entirely. I can dissect their content here one by one. You now switched position and say; no, the directly discussion is in Thai sources. Before I replied you switched position the third time (below relist's comment) and claimed your keep vote is also for merge. I can't read Thai, and I don't claim I do, but you already shown why you think it is real dish coverage and how only one paper can establish notability for topic; because you think since it is a major paper, it can. This inconsistency (plus my reply under your merge suggestion) show you totally don't have confidence in what you're saying. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you probably misread some of my comments. You argued in the original deletion request, "No reliable sources that ever reported about this." I provided examples of reliable sources in Thai as a counterargument. (I also provided English search terms for convenience, but that was never my main point.) You now seem to be arguing that the coverage by those reliable sources don't confer notability. I don't think that is in agreement with the WP:GNG. The comment below was made in response to the merge suggestion by power~enwiki, and reaffirms my opinion that the subject is notable, and deserves an article (per WP:TNT). --Paul_012 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS There are probably already a thousand articles under Category:Cuisine stubs. Stubs are not a bad thing, and have been an integral part of Wikipedia's content since the beginning. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, the fact that parmanent stubs on other dishes exist is not reason to keep creating things which will never expand beyond recipes how to and depend such creation with weak argument others exist since the beginning; this is Appeal to tradition fallacy.Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was merely pointing out that "Nobody's working on it" isn't a valid reason for deletion either. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not about nobody is working on it, it is about whether it should be included at all in Wikipedia. Even if everybody is working on it they cannot create notability for it –Ammarpad (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        So the thousand-stub issue is irrelevant. At least that's cleared up. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- Alex^TW 04:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Thai dishes. The references are enough to show the dish exists but there's very little beyond that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To make entirely clear, merging would have room for a two-sentence description in the existing table structure at List of Thai dishes; the lead content (and one reference that can be verified) would be merged, and the rest of the content deleted. Wikipedia is not a cookbook, and the "Recipe" section should be removed in any case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 23:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To clarify, my Keep !vote was in response to the original argument that the subject fails the GNG, which I disputed above. I won't be opposed to merging or deleting without prejudice per WP:TNT. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To set record straight, this article was rightly declined due to it's poor shape and notability of content at AFC]. I already said it is just How-to recipe article sourced (also poorly) from recipe magazines against Wikipedia policies. Then small how-to portion was removed already unsourced, and the author resubmitted. Any article rejected based on notability and NOT cannot be accepted by simple removing of few lines, You and I know this. But instead for you to left it for another reviewer to review, you removed the AFC submission and directed the article to the same declined content but different title. The redirect target was also created by the author. You did this because you surely know, no any competent reviewer will accept it because it is rightly both NOT and WP:TNT material (as you also now admit). The author created it in 3 places, so as to pass through AFC 2 Nov, 16 Nov, 22 Nov. I understand you're from Thailand (or nearby) and have interest in everything Thai, but we shouldn't left our nationalistic thought to prevail over Wikipedia standards. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if you're accusing me of doing something wrong, and if so, what. I'm sure that you're aware that AfC is a completely voluntary process (except in the case of COI editing), and there is no policy or guideline prohibiting users from directly creating an article in mainspace, even after a failed AfC submission. The creator of this article created several duplicate drafts, so I redirected one to the other to avoid the redundancy. When they directly created the article in mainspace, they signified their intent to abandon the AfC process, and so the drafts were redirected to the live article to prevent confusion. I never disputed the AfC declines for the drafts to this article, but since it is now in mainspace, AfD is the venue that now matters, and the policy considerations of these venues are different. If you're accusing me of using nationalistic interest to blindly argue for inclusion of articles, you are plain wrong. I am simply trying to help by identifying relevant Thai sources, which, as you have noted, are not understood by everyone. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am sorry, If my comments little upseted you. It is never intended that way, but just to lay record of the drafts, in it deletion discussion. I nominated this for deletion because it fails many criteria for encyclopedic inclusion, the same reason it was rightly declined at AFC. Yes, I agree with you AFC is voluntary process, but the way it is to you (long term editor/auto patrolled+many rights) is not the same to the newbie who created this articles (11 total edits/~30 days account). –Ammarpad (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. I agree content could be Merged to List of Thai dishes per power~enwiki. Operator873^CONNECT 03:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873:. Please read the article and suggest what to be merged. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had read the article and I suggest the lead portion could be merged to the List of Thai dishes. Save for the "Nowadays" sentence. Operator873^CONNECT 18:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Thai dishes. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically List of Thai dishes#Rice _dishes

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alton More[edit]

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

Alton More was a soldier in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; his rank (private) and lack of awards leave him short of notability under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, he worked in sales and died in an automobile accident in 1958. He supposedly kept two photograph albums belonging to Adolf Hitler which he found at Hitler's Eagle's Nest. None of the accounts describe the albums in any detail and, if they exist, their whereabouts are unknown. More does not qualify for a page as having significant coverage. A former French soldier also had photo albums from the Berghof and said the French were there well before the Americans and had taken photo albums. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to admit I have serious concerns when articles on real people are put in characters categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many more of these are there? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to have his own article. Have to agree that it does not qualify for a page, as there is not enough significant coverage. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is solely referenced to his own reminiscences. Fails WP:GNG as there do not seem to be reliable outside sources supplying notability. If he really found such photo albums, why have they not surfaced since? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am updating the article based on a dozen or so articles discussing or about More found in local newspapers on newspapers.com. I'll be finished with these edits in a couple hours. I don't know much about the photo album, but his life seemed to actually be relatively well covered in those newspaper articles, and thus passes WP:V much more strongly than many other members of Company E. This coverage extends to some of his activities during the war, reducing concerns about WP:NPOV that arise when only BoB-universe sources are used for these articles. As for WP:NOR, I don't consider it OR to use newspapers to outline a persons biography when they are clearly covering the same person as in this case. As for notability, he was a corporal in the national guard, but probably isn't covered under NMILITARY unless the photo album story is true and somehow more important than current coverage suggests (note that currently there is no coverage independent of the BoB-verse). As for GNG, I think local newspapers can be used so I would suggest he passes. I recognize that if someone holds a standard that non-local sources are key for content to be encyclopedic, this is a borderline case as the only non-local source currently used (including what I'm currently adding) is a popular microhistory of sometimes questionable accuracy. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 23:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is a story that should not be lost to posterity. Having said that, a guy who was probably a horse-riding charmer and and a favorite of the local paper doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. A million grandads have these stories, most not as colorful as this one. There is not a shred of proof that he ever had Hitler's photo album, and I'm not sure his theft of it is notable in itself. This business that human interest stories in the local paper constitutes notability is an abuse of the guideline. Rhadow (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Rhadow. If More's association with Easy Company can be verified, he may have a place in that article. But the article is unable to stand on its own. Operator873^CONNECT 03:23, 8 December 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. Seems like we have legit claims of notability here. In addition, there is no policy against having articles created in exchange for money (although there are rules about what such editors need to disclose and must not edit) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arne & Carlos[edit]

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

Non-notable clothing company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. As it stands, the article in question suffers from a lack of sourcing, and quick searches by myself turn up nothing that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, nor would they establish the company as having any encyclopedic value. I believe that the fact that this article has not been expanded since 2005 (with the exception of content added by a disclosed paid editor (Talk:Arne & Carlos) speaks as to the notability of this company. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: There is already a discussion underway at the talk page of this article, as I'm sure you've seen. A new draft will be submitted as soon as possible. JacobMW (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a new version of the article in question is in progress is not pertinent to this Afd. Opinions on deletion can be changed as the article is filled out, but this article is live, and as such must be judged in accordance to Wikipedia's criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full disclosure, Arne & Carlos are a client of my paid editing firm Mister Wiki (WP:AVOIDCOI). I'm still not entirely sure why this article was put into AfD (WP:ATD) since this article was originally a WP:STUB and was in the middle of being expanded, but regardless, I'm here to just make a few points and hope that we can objectively come to a decision on this.

Since the article was in the middle of expansion, I think it should be judged by its draft over at this link instead of this current stub version. In regards to SamHolt6's doubt of it passing WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, the new references are not just trivial mentions of the topic, almost all of them are in-depth coverage / interviews regarding the topic. And FWIW, A&C are published authors and have been on display at museums for their knitting work, passing the guidelines of notability for a WP:AUTHOR. JacobMW (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobMW: You never know, perhaps the draft you are working on does fulfill all the necessary criteria. The museum information seems promising. But for now, this Afd is concerning the article as it is. I would recommend that you add the information from you draft to the current article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: Fair enough. Is it okay for me to edit the article directly since I have a WP:COI? It seems we've talked this through, and (obviously, since this article is open to everyone) I have no problem with any corrections or edits that people might want to make after all the content has been added in. JacobMW (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for clarity on whether I should follow Sam's advice and directly implement the draft. User:Jytdog, your thoughts? JacobMW (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under a deletion discussion are treated kind of like drafts and are obviously being examined, so in this kind of situation I would say that since Sam gave you the greenlight, go ahead and implement your changes. Please be sure to note in the edit note: "paid editor implementing proposal as suggested at WP:Articles for deletion/Arne & Carlos ". (that is black because the WP software won't show a Wikilink to the page the wikilink is on -- it will work in the edit summary) And if anybody reverts a change, please do not re-revert. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks! Will do this now. JacobMW (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog and SamHolt6: Page has been updated with new information. Will let the community decide with this draft now in place. JacobMW (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for paid advertising, and we should not have articles created by paid editing clients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Johnpacklambert: Entirely understand where you are coming from and your opinion on this. However, this article was a WP:STUB before which is why my firm was hired to expand it. Regardless of it being paid for or not, it was asking to be built with more information which was done. I've already made a case above as to why I believe this is notable. I'd appreciate any constructive feedback as to how I can improve my practices in regards to WP:PAID JacobMW (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My understanding is that as long as this editor discloses that he's a paid client, there's nothing preventing him from adding to this article. I found a lot of material on this company with a Google News search. There's lots of it in Norwegian, but also some in English, and it doesn't have to be in English to be considered notable, correct? It's also the main focus of many of those articles. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Conflict_of_interest_guideline, that is something. Correct, sources don´t have to be in english, only WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 23:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think WP:GNG can be satisfied with Aftenposten, NRK and the Independent. [24][25][26]. Possibly the topic should be "designerduon" instead of the company, like in the norwegian WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more: National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design: [27]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These people are clearly notable by our standards: the (UK) Independent calls them "knitting rock stars", ABC Australia describes them as "Nordic knitting icons". That is evidence of a level of global notability that far exceeds that of (tens of?) thousands of the sportspeople and local politicians on whom we are happy to have articles. Note: I've again removed the promotional paid-editor content, but have added the references from that version to the current one; while I fully agree with Johnpacklambert that (in almost every case) articles created by paid editors should simply be nuked as promotion, that isn't the case here – it was a stub before and is one again, though I've marginally enlarged it. I hope that other volunteer editors, preferably with fluency in Scandinavian languages, will expand it further. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 December 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carsten Frank[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Article never sourced or improved upon since its creation exactly ten years ago. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor with no reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with John Pack Lambert, looks like no notability and no reliable sources listing him. Google searches turned up nothing. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Gatmaitan[edit]

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

BLP with no working references Rathfelder (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFD is not BLPPROD. Even on my cruddy web connection via my smartphone, it seems like there are reviews and other references (on the subject's literary career) that indicate at least a pass of GNG. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly very notable with lots of coverage on news media. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting its not notable. But we have a rule about BLPs. Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And an established procedure for handling unsourced BLPs. It seems like it would be easiest just to add a source, but if that's not feasible, you should opt for WP:BLPPROD. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EricEnfermero's rationale. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: How is the article a "total failure of the general notability guidelines"? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage for him, at least online, isn't too much, but it does exist. He also appears to have won some awards: this link from the Philippine Daily Inquirer suggested that he received a "Gawad Alagad ni Francisco Balagtas" award from a national writer's guild. There has also apparently been coverage about his books as well, some of which have been adapted into plays. This press release, although a press release, does seem to confirm that he has won other awards as well; other independent sources I could find also seem to confirm this. While the article needs some work, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:29, 4 December 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Nye[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as he has no major roles (just small bit parts), no award wins or nominations, and coverage for him is practically non-existent. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:57, 1 December 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 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, no prominent roles except one in 2016 but that seems to be in a non-notable film Atlantic306 (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has exactly 0 reliable sources. It is high time we delete all articles sourced only to IMDb. IMDb seeks to cover everyone who ever had a role in a film. We have a rule people need significant coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON for actor that currently fails WP:NACTOR. Operator873^CONNECT 03:28, 8 December 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 DanDTM. As content was merged, the redirect has to be kept. In the future, please do not merge content until an AfD is complete. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DanTDM Creates a Big Scene[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are YuTube and blogs. Nothing independent and reliable, Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dan is one of the rich and popular youtubers so notable, this series is not. The refs don't support this article, they are trivial in 3 cases with the 4th being a freelance report which while in depth doesn't have editorial oversight. I googled and came up with a similar scenario, trivial mentions but nothing to support gng. My son watches him regularly so I get to see a lot of him too - he's long since moved on to different stuff. Szzuk (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DanTDM. Artw (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just merged it. Szzuk (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. YouTubers make all sorts of web series. This one doesn't have the episode critiquing or the independent sources to meet notability in television, only announcements that such a series exist. Looks like it was merged into a paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:28, 4 December 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swans Commentary[edit]

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

The only independent sources here are not actually about the website. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepdent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 00:22, 9 December 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Riott Squad[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Also WP:TOOSOON. Nikki♥311 21:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Any argument for notability would be speculative. Feedback 00:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Absolutely the same reason as for Absolution. --Wybielacz (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No Reason to make pages for every team made in WWE unless they known for various achievements in WWE IE: The Usos, The New Day, The Shield, and The Wyatt Family. Also see reason on: Absolution -- SSGeorgie (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply existing is not enough to get an article, they need to pass WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. Nickag989^talk 18:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ENT which per WP:NSPORT is our guideline on this. - Galatz ^Talk 01:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A9. So Why 14:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snowdreams[edit]

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

Following the deletions at AfD of this song's parent album One Day in Spring and the band itself, Bandari, there is little reason to keep the remaining articles for songs and albums by this band: all of them are unreferenced and the text is original research, and there is no independent reliable information that I can find on the internet to show that these pass WP:SONG or WP:ALBUM, unless someone comes up with sources in Chinese (where the band were most popular). Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

Richard3120 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of them meet WP:NMUSIC. The Snowdroms is almost speedy material. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since article now meets A9 - band's article was Bandari (AVC) with related afd discussion closed as delete. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 05:07, 2 December 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. Arguments about COI and suchlike have been discarded. The issue is sourcing and while there are not a lot of bolded comments the nature of the sourcing has been closely examined and the consensus is that they do not meet the GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VandeStreek[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable regional brewery that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth coverage and notability. From my reading, no major awards have been won by the brewery (the company was awarded a forth place and "bronze" award in regional competitions) and a lack of news coverage outside of the Netherlands indicates a WP:GEOSCOPE failure. As far as depth of coverage is concerned, the vast majority of the article's content is in violation of WP:NOTSPAM, as it contains press releases, public relations, and announcements that could be seen as advertisements. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the ongoing WP:COIN and possible WP:Arbcom case, I've made it clear that me creating VandeStreek was not a WP:PAID situation, let alone an undisclosed one. I hope that doesn't influence anyone in this discussion. @SamHolt6, two things: 1) WP:GEOSCOPE is about the notability of events, not companies. 2) I'm sorry, it annoys whenever I'm asked the same question, but I have to ask, did you take a moment to check the references used? To cite WP:NCORP, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". De Volkskrant, Algemeen Dagblad, NRC Handelsblad and RTV Utrecht are reliable independent news outlets. They are mentioned in Utrecht Hop!, a book about the Utrecht beer scene. To me, notability has been met. I've used the brewery's own website for information on some of their beers, if that's too much, I'd be happy to improve it further. Taking out any perceived promotional material should be the first step, as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. (— Note to closing admin: Soetermans (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. ) soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long response and a breakdown of each source incoming. As far as the article's sources are concerned, the first ([28]) covers the rise of special brewing in the Netherlands, and while it does mention the owners of VandeStreek, the article only uses them as an example and is primarily concerned with the large topic of special brewing. In source #2 ([29]), one of the owners of the brewery in question provides a list of his weekend activities, in which list he mentions his home-brewing history in passing. Source 3 ([30]) is a news article detailing the opening of the new VandeStreek brewery while also giving a brief history of the brewery. Source 4 ([31]) is a news story about the opening of a new brewery in Utrecht, and while information is given, the three paragraphs written do not go into any depth about the history or operation of VandeStreek. Source 5 ([32]) is the book Utrecht Hop!, which serves as a guide to the beers of Utrecht. The book lists VandeStreek as a brewery in Utrecht, but again does not provide significant coverage of the brewery, nor is the book actually about VandeStreek (therefore I would consider this a listing or a mention in passing). Source 6 ([33]) is the primary source of the article as well as the website of VandeStreek, as much of the information found on this site is reproduced in the other sources, which are mainly news articles. Source 7 ([34]) is a list of the 2016 dutch beer challenge, in which VandeStreek is mentioned (in name, no description) as the winner of a bronze metal for its Dark IPA. Note that the Dutch Beer Challenge began in 2015, and the award was given in 2016. Source 8 ([35]) is an article/review of beers made in Utrecht. VandeStreek is named here amoung 4 other beers as "misses" and no coverage is given to the article subject beyond a brief description of the beer. Source 9 ([36]) is brief story about an Italian ice cream made with VandeStreek beer. Source 10 ([37]) does not mention VandeStreek at all, but does mention an Utrecht produced beer used in an award-wining (4th place) Italian ice cream. Source 11 ([38]) is press release in a local newspaper detailing the opening of the VandeStreek brewery. A brief history of the company is given, but nothing in depth. Source 12 ([39]) is another, even briefer report on the opening of VandeStreek. Again nothing is added, and the same sections and quotes are used from source 11. Source 13 ([40]) is a press release announcing the launching of VandeStreeks non-alcohol IPA. Source 14 ([41]) is a list of tastiest alcohol-free beers, in which VandeStreek is briefly mentioned as a contender.Source 15 ([42]) is a press release from VandeStreek itself announcing a product. And source 16 ([43]) is a story from a dutch newsite in which VandeStreek's summer ale is judged to be the best in Utrecht, but no information is given about the actual brewery. In my view, the sources provided violate WP:GEOSCOPE, as they are all are Dutch newspapers reporting on a regional event (in this case, the brewery's activities). It is to be noted that (to my knowledge) no sources cited about VandeStreek are outside of the Netherlands. In addition, no information provided by the sources is in-depth, as they mostly re-tread what is provided by VandeStreek's website. To my knowledge, only a few paragraphs of information exist about the brewery, and all of this information comes from a primary source. If we were to remove the WP:NOTSPAM content, there would be nothing left to the article in question. I also believe that, given how little coverage of substance exits about VandeStreek, it should be considered non-notable and unencyclopedic.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're again saying it fails WP:GEOSCOPE. That notability guideline is clearly about events, not about the activities of companies. You're dismissing reliable sources because they are in Dutch, that's not the WP:GLOBAL aim of the English-language Wikipedia. You're entitled to your opinion, and if you believe it fails notability is one thing, but that you keep citing an unrelated guideline and would remove everything, including said reliable sources, makes me doubt your objectivity in this AfD. @Softlavender, TonyBallioni, and Jytdog, as editors involved with my COIN/Arbcom case, could you take a look? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the text of WP:GEOSCOPE, "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." As far as the Dutch news articles cited by the article are concerned, the activities of VandeStreek (such as the opening of the brewery, the launching of a new beer, etc) are events. While the GEOSCOPE guideline is for events and not companies, if we do not consider the activities and operations of a small company notable, why should the company be considered notable, especially when next to no other information exists? This also does not solve the main issue I have, in that the article has very little substance outside of WP:NOTSPAM content.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a different interpretation of WP:GEOSCOPE, which clearly is not in the text. From GEOSCOPE, italics my emphasis:

An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". The subject of the article is a brewery, not an event. That I've used sources that describe something that happens with the subject is not the subject either, but to describe its history and development. Sources like De Volkskrant and Algemeen Handelsblad that describe the history is not SPAM. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m in agreement with you that your first two sources are not spam, but having read through them (and I would request other editors do the same) nothing indicated to me that the article subject was particularly notable. Yes, they described the rise of a small local brewery, but I am still of the opinion that no real notability was establiahed by these articles. Note that these news articles were not of significant depth or length. VandeStreek has yet to attain significant coverage, nor has it shown itself to be different from countless other breweries by establishing an immediate or lasting impact in the industry. As far as the other sources are concerned, I still believe that events such as the launching of a new beer or the opening of a new location that is not reported on outside of the subject’s regional area fails to meet GEOSCOPE. And even if my GEOSCOPE argument is stuck down, I fail to see the notabliy of the subject due to a lack of in-depth coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only policy I'll quote is WP:NOADS and it sure looks like advertising to me. But really why I recommend deleting is just the size. I decided to compare production volume with a microbrewery that I've visited and know (deep in my smallest bones) that is just too small for a Wikipedia article. (Its brewery could fit on a parking lot for say 8 cars) Looking up the stats I found out it does have a Wikipedia article and produces 6,000 US BBLs per year. VandeStreek produces 340 US BBLs per year (about 5% of the other brewery). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones, to WP:NOADS I'll again cite WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. WP:Breweries does not say anything about output. You yourself are comparing another vandeStreek with another microbrewery that you visited, and you've come to the conclusion that vandeStreek's production three years ago is not enough. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Wikipedia:Notability (breweries) is an essay, not policy.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't feel like the subject is being given a fair treatment here, just because of my fuck ups with paid editing. @SamHolt6 added the COI tag, when there was already a tag for possible undisclosed paid editing (which I've stated before that it wasn't), was rather quick to nominate both Arne & Carlos and vandeStreek for deletion and keeps citing GEOSCOPE, which is not about companies. @Smallbones on the other hand was also involved in the COIN discussion and is judging the subject by comparing their own experiences. I'm pinging @Czar, Masem, and Sergecross73, three uninvolved admins that I've known for years through WP:VG. They might also vote delete, but I have faith in them that their judgement won't be clouded. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some more searching, I haven't got the time right now to add them properly to the article, but here are some more sources, including international ones, which are clearly independent of the subject, without any "promotional" tone to them.

UK website BeerGuild mentions them
Polish Jerry Brewery does too
The World Beer Awards entries on Dark Roast, Koper and BlackBock
Esquire's Hong Kong website mentions vandeStreek's alcohol free IPA
Dutch newspaper and website AD.nl mentions them again
Stichting Erfgoed Nederlandse Biercultuur (Foundation Heritage Dutch Beer Culture) has an entry on them
Ronald van de Streek is interviewed by consumers' rights TV program Kassa on alcohol free beers.

I'll try to add them to the article as soon as possible. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BeerGuild ([44]) article is a press release announcing an international collaboration brewing event. Note that in the article VandeStreek is listed as a "participating brewery", so the independence of the article should be taken with a grain of malt. [45] mentions VandeStreek among several other breweries participating in a regional brewing event, but does not discuss the brewery in depth. The hong kong esquire article [46] likewise mentions a VandeStreek beer (among many others) as an example of non-alcoholic beers, but does not provide in depth coverage of VandeStreek. This local news article [47] is entirely trivial, as it mentions only that local breweries (inducing VandeStreek) are donating stolen barrels of beer after a robbery. [48] provides the brief history of the VandeStreek brewery, but I should be noted that this organization (the nederlandsebiercultuur) acts akin to a chamber of commerce, and provides addresses and contact information for breweries. Keeping WP:AUD in mind for the English Wikipedia, I again question the notability of a small dutch brewery. The information provided by nederlandsebiercultuur is also a retread of information that can be found on VandeStreek's website, and again it does not establish the encyclopedic notability of the brewery. The same goes for the interview on a dutch television channel ([49]) which discusses the brewery's plans for its non-alcoholic beer.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Keeping WP:AUD in mind for the English Wikipedia, I again question the notability of a small dutch brewery"? What? You again have an incorrect reading of Wikipedia guidelines, as WP:AUD, italics my emphasis, says "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". That's what it says. It says nothing that sources should be available in English, it says nothing about the notability of a Dutch brewery. Concerning AUD, I've used several national newspapers' websites, which you disregard. I've used local websites. I've even found a mention by the Hong Kong Esquire, yet you keep on repeating that vandeStreek is WP:FARAWAY. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is the key. The Hong Kong Esquire source lists a VandeStreek beer among 9 other beers and gives no indication of the significance of the company. The description of the beer in the article is shorter than this response is. Certainly a trivial mention.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's already "significant coverage" by other sources, remember what AUD says? National newspaper Algemeen Dagblad's website AD.nl has a piece on them! I mentioned Esquire Hong Kong again because of your WP:FARAWAY tunnel vision, your incorrect reading of first GEOSCOPE and now AUD. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per above, I was pinged by Soetermans. Yes, I know him, and have worked with him in the past, but only on video game articles. I have no preconceived notions on Netherlands breweries though, but have participated in hundreds and hundreds of AFDs, so I think I can give an unbiased stance here. The closing Admin can decide on that though. I'll give a stance, but will need some time to look into the subject first, as again, I'm not familiar with it. I can say though, that I disagree with the notion that the article is currently promotionally written. I'm sure someone could point out a thing or two that could be tweaked, and they may be right, but its be just that, minor rewordings, not an insurmountable problem affecting the core content of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Geoscope is not the correct criteria; however WP:AUD, which says a similar thing for corporations is a thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do see one dutch national newspaper - "de volkskrant". Being dutch newspapers doesn't mean they are regional/local newspapers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm having a hard time coming to an !vote on this, but some conclusions I have so far:

WP:GEOSCOPE does not apply - that's for events. Breweries aren't events. I can't believe the arguments went anything beyond that.
The article is not overly promotional in its tone or content, nor is there any specific evidence that Soetermans has any sort of COI connection to the subject.
I don't even believe WP:AUD or any of the "local coverage only" variant arguments apply really, if they're being recognized for "World Beer Awards" or by Esquire of Hong Kong when the subject is from the Netherlands.

So really, my only hang up is whether or not they meet the plain old WP:GNG. There's a lot of sources being discussed, but many appear to be passing mentions or database entries. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 7 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Call (demo album)[edit]

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

It has has a notability notice on it for 3 years, and no effort has been made to establish notability. I think this is long enough for us to now know it is not notable. Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the band's page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK seems fair, merge. Not that I am sure there is much to merge.Slatersteven (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's very little material to incorporate, but at least this way, the page can be made into a redirect to Freedom Call#Founding (1997-1998). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why a redirect is needed, no one is going to look for a non notable demo tape, they will look for the notable band. There can (as far as I can see) be any valid reason for keeping this page. Deletion and moving whatever material is useful into the main article is (to my mind) the only valid choice.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn demo album. There's absolutely nothing to merge here. Not even worth a redirect as "Freedom Call" would bring up the band in the search window. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Freedom Call#Founding (1997-1998). Pageview stats show a few hits every month. As this is a few years old, it would be nice to preserve any possible incoming links from external websites. Jujutacular (talk) 00:41, 9 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy J. Thomas[edit]

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

No indication of general biographical notability. The sources included in the article contain passing mentions at best. Doesn't qualify for WP:PROF due to apparent lack of academic career. Rentier (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an academic or non-profit director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't see anything here to indicate he meets WP:PROF. I don't get this notion that just because someone is a professor that automatically qualifies them for an article. Most are little more than glorified & overpaid teachers. Also since the accounts that created this article have no other contributions, there is likely a conflict of interest.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 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) 20:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Localizing the SDGs[edit]

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

This appears to be purely an essay rather than an article. Nick Number (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the large list of citations, there is very little in terms of reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. The content is also unencyclopaedic, to the point that the page would require a full re-write before being suitable for display here. I think that the useful content could be salvaged and placed in a section on the Sustainable Development Goals article. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an encyclopedia article and appears as more of an essay. If there is any content worth saving, pop it into Sustainable Development Goals. Also, AnnaEstrada, please be aware of WP:CANVASS, per your user talk page posts. I don't see anything egregious, but it is worth being aware of the guideline. !dave 17:01, 8 December 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) 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photojournalism in North Korea[edit]

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

This is an essay, and a POV fork of Media coverage of North Korea. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, instead of deletion, is it possible to merge with Media coverage of North Korea?. --Rodelar (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is valid subject, and the page looks like valid addition to Human rights in North Korea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources referenced relevant encyclopedic content that is enough for a standalone article , passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M13 (Investment Company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Written by now blocked sock puppet and COI editor (earlier PROD removed by another blocked paid editor). The firm pretty much only gets passing mention in sources mentioning it rather than true secondary coverage. Nothing particular passes WP:ORGDEPTH, and most of the source discussion doesn't really rise above WP:FART territory for business-related topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two guys pitching other deals while they scout for a new opportunity? Nah. Rhadow (talk) 00:57, 2 December 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 E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Any pertinent information can be merged from the page history as long as proper attribution is maintained. Jujutacular (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Perconte[edit]

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

Frank Perconte was a soldier in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; his rank (technician fourth grade) and highest award (Bronze Star) make him non-notable under WP:SOLDIER. His post-war career as a postal worker earned him no significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; as with most all of the others. redirect name to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Kierzek (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being in a company that received lots of coverage just does not make all its members notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had a long obit in the Chicago Tribune, but never did anything notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) and transclude/merge any pertinent info into there as needed. No justification for abrogation of NSOLDIER guidelines in this case. South Nashua (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 7 December 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) 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnaz Fatima[edit]

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

Unfortunately there is no coverage in reliable sources for her. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in RS. Being professor in an institute doesn't automatically qualify one to have a standalone article. she is the recipient of some awards but all are unnoteworthy. And there is no source which verifies the claim Dr. Fatima is considered amongst the most respected professors in Pakistan. two cited sources are not independent of the subject. she have co-authored some books but they are non-notable as well. in short, i don't see her career is in itself notable enough. there is some coverage in G'books but nothing of significance about her. --Saqib (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing at all indicates a passing of any of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 4 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Institute of Chemical Engineers[edit]

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

Nothing significant in my searches. Mentioned in this letter. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete it appears to fail meeting WP:ORG because there is no coverage in RS. unless someone demonstrate that this volunteer led body has received some attention or coverage from reliable independent sources, it could be deleted safely. I also would like to point out that there are Institute of Chemical Engineers in several other counties such as Iran, Israel, Korea, Philippines, Japan, Taiwan but they don't have standalone articles on Wikipedia for the reason Existence ≠ Notability. But because this organisation has been named in at least one Letters to newspapers, i may only suggest Weak delete. --Saqib (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such organizations are largely non notable in any country because they only conduct annual meetings and largely are subsets of Science Academies. No sources that can take this to meet WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:GNG. Even the American one is largely sourced with primary sources feom their website despite American media hegemony but no independent sources. If we go with the template if this article then all other countries can have stub created with one external link of the association which shows existence. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadozai Qaumi Welfare Organization[edit]

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

Nothing in my searches. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notatable organization formed because of single event. No coverage in independent sources failing WP:GNG and lack of multiple sources means not even near WP:ORGDEPTH. Search also only yielded the article and its WP mirrors. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:46, 2 December 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Connor (author, born 1944)[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage of this motivational speaker/author to meet GNG nor do I believe any of his published works qualify him for NAUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't see anything notable here.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another of many, many, many promotional articles on non-notable motivational speakers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many many many........ Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 23:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one more promotional text masquerading as an encyclopaedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 06:30, 6 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun Congress of Pakistan[edit]

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

Nothing in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep User is mass submitting pakistani based articles while not conducting WP:BEFORE see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nazia_Hassan_Foundation Egaoblai (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no such organisation in RS therefore it appears to be non notable. Also there is nothing about its founder Haji Abdul Wali Khan Khilji anywhere in RS. --Saqib (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per two-thirds of the above; point of order to Egaoblai, there is nothing wrng with doing that (if indeed it is a "mass" submission- you mention only one other article!) as long as it is not disruptive. And submitting- mass or not- non-notable articles for consideration by the community is clearly not. Just FYI bro! Now, if, say, User:Winged Blades of Godric came along (being he that closed that you mention above) and grandly declared "an abundance of sources" again, I would doubtless meekly accept the posit and change my !vote. But I can't see sheeaat right now ;) ----->SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 00:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged by 54129 my take on this AFD is delete.The procedural keep has nothing to do with my closing of a part. AfD which was clearly a bad nomination heading for a snow and had enough sources unlike the case over here.And from Alex's closure of the AN thread, I take the liberty to assume that the AFDs already launched by Greenborg shall proceed normally on individual merit.Winged Blades^Godric 07:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question was the subject of an complaint, in which it was found that their "longstanding pattern of periodical mass nominations in AfD is problematic, and has been pointed out as such by numerous other users in the past several months...", They appear to have been nominating articles without due diligence and WP:BEFORE, essentially forcing others to do it for them, which I'm sure is a violation of Wiki rules. Hence a recommendation for a procedural keep. I'll admit their isn't a lot of english language sources, it seems to appear in a few google books listing organizations, but I think we need search in vernacular sources too, something which I cannot do. Does anyone in this AFD proposal speak Urdu or Pashto? because that is what we really need here before going forward. I found this article, but I can't read it. http://www.bbc.com/pashto/mobile/world/2012/02/120206_baloch_usa_congress.shtml Egaoblai (talk) 01:13, 9 December 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roomi S. Hayat[edit]

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

Nothing in my searches. Fails WP:GNG. WP is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Störm (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should never have made it past AFC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bio of non notable person. Two sources relies on his WP:INTERVIEW. Two sources shows error messages. Sources number, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 (including one dead) are not about him but about a particular organization he is involved with and all sourced with the organization's website. Sources 2, 4, 5 and 6 are also more about the organization than him, Sources 3 and 2 are his own presented paper and interview. News search shows there is no sufficient independent sources to establish notability here, if any article will exist may be (with some more sources) the organization but not this person.–Ammarpad (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Abundance of sources. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazia Hassan Foundation[edit]

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

Nothing in my searches. Fails WP:GNG. Much is about Nazia Hassan. Störm (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 20:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 20:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and a recommendation for the user to slow down their AFD submitting. A quick google search reveals plenty of notable articles in independent media about the foundation. I will add them here and the submitter, Storm, can add them in order to improve the article. https://images.dawn.com/news/1176170, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/hollywood/news/Nazia-Hassan-Foundation-to-be-set-up-next-month/articleshow/18044381.cms, http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/meera/20031016.htm, https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1150629 .Egaoblai (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your work. But we need reliable sources whereas last two of your are 'not reliable' per WP:RS. There is not enough coverage for stand-alone article instead there are some trivial mentions so this fails WP:NORG (which you want to read). ATD is to redirect to Nazia Hassan. Störm (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other coverage of the organisation here [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. And agree with Egaoblai's comment (see Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#User consistently disrupting AfD process). Mar4d (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)][reply]

A think a *Procedural block* on the recent slew of articles for deletion submitted about Pakistani related NGOS is needed. The user is clearly not following WP:BEFORE.Egaoblai (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be kept for the above stated reasons and it should be improved with references. ATM, the article is unreferenced. sami ^talk 09:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –Because absence of reference in an article is cannot strip it of notability and is invalid reason for deletion per this existing guideline. And passing GNG is sure here; apart from the multiple sources from editors above (disproving your "nothing in my search") here is another from Pakistan's Tribune and more indepth report from UAE's respected paper Khaleej Times. I also join the editors above to advise the nom to heed this ANI advise and stop this "tagerted" and plethoric nomination which both disrupt the fair process and deprive editors of time to asses the merit of each nomination due to huge number. I am afraid another ANI thread about the same problem may not end up with another advise only. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:05, 2 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Animation Museum[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. The 3 sources are 100% identical. A copy paste of a press release from the Azertac which is the state news agency. Domdeparis (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep. poor article quality is not a reason to delete. is there a wikiproject Museum, animation or azerbaijan you can post this article to?Egaoblai (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 18:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now, I'm willing to accept that there might be hard sources out there which we can't see; but saving that, because no-one has suggested there are, then this complete lackof news sources, and this collection of a very few bizarrely irrelevant books, I'm afraid = no general notability. ----->SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 00:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 23:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Activity (U.S. TV series)[edit]

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

No references. Does not satisfy television notability. Too little information to be encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has significant coverage per [56] [57] KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~CBS All Access~~ No Activity#American adaptation unless we get expansion in the next seven days; as-is the article is completely WP:ITEXISTS without much elaboration. Nate • (chatter) 21:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No Activity#American adaptation, the Australian original on which the U.S. version is based, where it already has a section -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect –Since no enough content for standalone page now, and it already has section in No Activity#American adaptation –Ammarpad (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, many reviews online. Should be updated, not deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSTBESOURCES –Ammarpad (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. I'm not saying there must be/probably are sources, I'm saying there are many sources. A quick Google search illustrates enough significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been a considerable amount of coverage among various reputable sources. It needs time to continue to be updated. Should not be deleted. BoogerD (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSTBESOURCES –Ammarpad (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 18:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been greatly improved and sourced since submission here. — Wylie pedia 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now has references to significant content in reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Los Angeles Times, passses WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Sarwar[edit]

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

Nothing in the reliable sources. WP is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is promotional BLP which contains OR. The subject is founder of non-notable organizations except one and have no significant coverage in RS. The coverage in RS and this BLP discuss more about the organisations than about the subject himself. It can be safely deleted or otherwise can be merged with Bilqees Sarwar Foundation at best. --Saqib (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin. We need to very proactively kill articles that move it in that direction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not have said it better myself, mr. jp lambert. The promotional single purpose accounts that plague us have apparently zero comprehension that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA that anybody can edit, not just another free web hosting service. – Athaenara ✉ 05:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 December 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bittu Bhaizee[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable. MT Train^Discuss 17:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no mention in reliable sources; I'm not unconvinced it's not a WP:HOAX, although a subject like this may well exist from time before the written word. But, per WP:N- perhaps when WP:BIAS is sorted out- this is currently an amount of non-notability. ----->SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 00:24, 9 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jhelum Networks[edit]

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

There is no coverage at least in my searches. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 02:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghani burger[edit]

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

notability unclear Mardetanha (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is already well-sourced. Störm (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "notability unclear" is not valid reason for deletion. It is very important to do WP:BEFORE. before AfDing. Currently the article have sources that meet WP:GNG and in addition more sources here, and another coverage from Pakistan's two largest and most-read English newspapers Dawn newspaper and The Tribune –Ammarpad (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:AQU Egaoblai (talk) 08:28, 2 December 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 Mainframe computer. Actually closed as merge but since editorial judgement is needed in deciding what to merge I’m just doing the redirect. Merge away. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big iron[edit]

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

Fails GNG, DICDEF, NEO. I couldn't find anything after a brief search to improve the article. South Nashua (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Big iron still king", computerworld.com, "The age of big iron", Brittanica.com, "IBM turns to big iron again", itpro.co.uk, "IBM turns to Big Iron to revive sagging fortunes", ft.com, 10 things I miss about Big Iron, techrepublic.com. Sources (and this is not an exhaustive list) seem to verify this is well established jargon. Kleuske (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter how well established the jargon is, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not an acceptable topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- <snark>Some may refer to those machine as "Old Iron", though...</snark> Kleuske (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::@Kleuske: Thanks! In that case, I'm happy to withdraw this if the article can be salvaged. South Nashua (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)~~ (see below)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the article claims is that there is a (slang dictionary type) term used for a certain sort of object. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT) and this is just a dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), the article should not be here. That's the policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to merit a standalone article, fails WP:N and GNG. Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT and the best this can be is a dictionary term because there is already an extensive article on mainframe computers. Sources indicate the nomenclature, "Big Iron", is a nickname for the various mainframe computer models and a sentimental indicator for nostalgia. I recommend writing a section in the Wikipedia article entitled "Mainframe computer" on this subject. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- in other words you are suggesting merge, not delete. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a redirect per Steve's recommendation here using Kleuske's refs as an additional section in that article. South Nashua (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mainframe computer. The scenario is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bare-metal server, though a less modern term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Valid piece of history. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ihave alwaysunderstood this as standard terminology.Perhaps that's not evidence, but ... DGG ( talk ) 10:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 23:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line the Label[edit]

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

Non-notable clothing brand that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Has a claim to notability as some news outlets commented on Meghan Markle's wearing of a jacket from this brand, but next to no other coverage exists. I dont feel that this single instance of notability warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this lot. Just please try not to cite the Daily Mail when expanding it..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no indication of any lasting significance - all coverage is a one time media blip re a single event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While the company has been very much in the news lately there are lots of articles online and offline in reliable ibdependent sources from prior years. here are a few. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
notability is not inherited. just because theer are sources that mention the brand, they're not really about the brand. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the sources in that search, or did you just do the politician's trick of answering the question you'd like to answer instead? The very first hit in that search is this piece from 2014 in the Vancouver Sun which is entirely about the company. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete per nom. maybe revisit in 6 mos? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERNOM. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been substantially transformed from this shoddy state when nominating to now this with multiple independent references. These reference are reliable and enough to meet GNG. Careful WP:BEFORE would have also prevented this. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and CORPDEPTH, multiple non-trivial sources, predating the Meghan Markle coverage.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this may be akin to the WP:BIO1E situation for the brand, but it looks like they are here to stay. This Vanity Fair article discusses the coat, which has been renamed as The Markle, and notes that Kate's engagement dress has its own Wikipedia page: Meghan Markle’s Fashion Choices Are a Boon to Her Adopted Canada: Many are noticing that the Markle Effect has a Canadian ripple. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no indication of any importance as a designer; al references but the Sun are celebrity gossip. Having designed one not very important jacket that happens to have been worn by someone very much in the news is not notability. The article specifically says it was that one triviality which made her famous.

I am also calling attention the decision of the author to lobby for the retention of the article on User talk:Jimbo Wales. It is, admittedly, a very effective way of attracting attention. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph and Reuters are not "celebrity gossip", that's specifically why I asked people not to cite the Daily Mail, which has pages and pages of Line the Label related gossipy waffle. The problem you've got is that a) the company appears to have been called "Line" or "Line Knitwear" in sources until very recently, so try and do a search on that b) the association with Meghan Markle has drowned out everything else, meaning you probably won't find it on page one of a Google News search unless you do some clever ninja-style querying. (I've dropped a few pre-2017 news sources into the article just now to illustrate that). Regards your last paragraph, the place to go is WP:ANI; here the discussion is buried and people are not likely to see it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can't say I like all this celebrity stuff but fair is fair: this label meets WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bt it fails NTABLOID--not everything notable is suitable for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The canonical essay I like to cite is User:Uncle G/On notability - "Wikipedia is not a directory. It is an encyclopaedia. It is notability that stops Wikipedia from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopaedia." You can't both be right! Quick British newspapers 101 for those who can't be bothered to wade through the WP:RSN archives - BBC News = fine, but stuff by Laura Kuenssberg seems to be controversial for some reason, The Times = fine, Financial Times = fine, Daily Telegraph = fine, but watch out for the pro-Tory bias, Guardian = fine, but watch out for the pro-Labour bias, Independent = per the Guardian, The Sun = junk, Daily Star = junk, Daily Mirror = best avoided, Daily Express = avoid if you can, especially on anything Brexit-related, Daily Mail = you must be joking, Sunday Sport = are you on drugs? There are no tabloid newspapers cited in this article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All this is under my opinion but otherwise not related since based on different tests. gidonb (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my own statement above I have trimmed the exaggerated claims and focus on celebrities from the article. gidonb (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been expanded, includes a reasonable number of sources, and seems to be notable as well, as it meets the general criteria for notability. Keivan.f^Talk 02:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 December 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 04:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Peek[edit]

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

Non-notable business person with no significant coverage. Only real claim here is working for CIT group and being married to Liz Peek. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, as per WP:NOTINHERITED the notability of Peek's employer and wife do not confer notability on himself.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very substantial coverage in lots of media over many years. I've linked here to some for your convenience. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very numerous, not substantive. Most sources that turn up for Peek are either press releases about his joining CIT group, or are about how he destroyed the CIT.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very numerous and very substantive. There are articles about his career and getting passed over for CEO position at Merrill Lynch. Articles on his taking on the CEO role at CIT Group in 2003. Articles on problems at CIT Group and his departure from the firm in 2009. Articles revisiting his tenure leading up to the financial crisis and company's bailing out. Articles on his later joining Bank of America. All subatantial and about this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on...? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a 30 second google search. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.... and for, in the words of Full Metal Jacket, screwing the American economy up the ass and not have the goddam courtesy to give the country a reacharound. Have a look at the article now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. If nothing else, there are multiple targets to redirect to (Liz Peek and CIT Group) which really makes keeping the only option left. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing shows rising to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

....except running a major investment bank into the ground. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per expansion, new referencing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CEOs of famoys companies are generally notable, and there's enough specifics for him in particular . DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Matt Lauer. Consensus is for the article to be merged. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations[edit]

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

It is unclear why we need a separate article on this topic. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH and WP:FORK, separate articles aren't necessary where the parent article isn't so long as to demand splitting. There's nothing that can be said in this article that isn't already in the article Matt Lauer. As a simple matter of organization, I see no compelling reason to have a separate article. The information is fine, and I may have proposed a merge, but there's nothing here which was not already there before. If the information has a home already, and this article has no reason to exist, I don't see why it does. Jayron 32 11:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Matt Lauer. That article isn't so long to demand a subsidiary article. Rhadow (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matt Lauer. Agree with Rhadow. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matt Lauer. This is not an incident but a culmination of actions through out his career and should be in context. Fettlemap (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Unfortunately, I surmise some editors will say there is "precedent" to keep these content forks. They have fallen into the WP:RECENTISM trap but there is nothing beyond a basic news cycle or any significiant impact. And, in all seriousness guys, we don't need a new article for every new set of allegations because we aren't the news.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP ~~SPEEDY KEEP~~ - the article was just created and is in the process of being expanded. You don't delete an article that's barely 24 hours old crying merge. Looks to me like some editors need to read WP:BEFORE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - there is no POVFORK here, it is routine for sections of articles to spin-out into a standalone so they can be expanded - that is not forking. See Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations for all the same arguments that apply here to keep.^{Atsme📞📧} 00:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

adding reasons to keep - the topic is highly notable, well sourced and should not be censored or trimmed to "fit" into Matt Lauer. This article is a WP:SPINOFF to prevent the expanding volume of the section already in the article from creating an undue weight problem. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme speedy keep actually means something and this nomination meets none of the criteria. I can't speak for Rhadow, Alexf, or Fettlemap but I believe those experienced editors know and understand WP:BEFORE. The fact that you are expanding this content fork doesn't change its lack of independent notability unfortunately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TGS - simple enough change to strong. I totally disagree with your assessment as the article clearly does have independent notability...even more so considering he admitted to what he did, and more information has come forward. The article has already expanded beyond what needs to be jammed into his biography. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems like a fork. Significant issue but merge with Matt Lauer. WP:NOTNEWS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Merge. No cause for a content/POV fork; NOTNEWS. Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I invoke the same keep arguments that were used to on the AfD of Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations that resulted in an inappropriate snow keep after only 4 days of open discussion. Ha! ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe you can invoke the keep arguments -- just the keep arguments -- of a completely seperate AFD? They are not like some master key for any other nomination, even if the contents are similar. I know, other rubbish exists on the encyclopedia but using that as a rationale is a poor way of thinking.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no convincing argument to merge - the article is notable as a standalone, and the main BLP should be focused on biographical material and not be overly weighted with the allegations and what develops from there, including lawsuits and legal issues. Keep brief mention in the main article with appropriate Wikilinks to & from the main page which is consistent with other articles of this nature...Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations, Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, and so on. I’m surprised we don’t already have stand alone articles on the same topic for Roger Ailes#Sexual harassment allegations and resignation, John Conyers and Al_Franken. I think keeping it in the BLP becomes an UNDUE distraction that should be more focused more on a living person’s life and career, and let the spin-offs handle the allegations and legal issues relevant to those allegations. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering why you think this should be kept and won't become an BLP attack page (this article already looks a little too detailed to me) while you !voted delete on roy moore's article on that basis. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the arguments in the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, one keep iVote of which was your own: Keep Per Irn. Agree w/ him that that's what an encylopaedia is for. There are so many allegations, similar to that of harvey weinstein. Considering how much coverage there has been of it, it doesn't make sense to only have ~4 paragraphs at-most that can be exist in Roy Moore. Even if a lot of the content is removed as being too detailed - some of which I see has already happened - there still is enough for a separate article. Not sure why people think if the person isn't U.S. President level fame they can't have a separate article on allegations. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 10:12 am, 17 November 2017, Friday (19 days ago) (UTC−6) Hope that answers your question. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this should be deleted. I'm leaning keep as the details can be trimmed. I'm just wondering why you think this should be kept while you !voted delete in the other AfD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge. Unwarranted content fork per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Not all of these details are needed here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matt Lauer. I think the contents can be summarized and merged to his main article. Agreed with Muboshgu about WP:RECENTISM and Fettlemap about context. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 21:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per User:Atsme's reasons above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. An scandal that brought down one of the most bankable names at NBC News is worthy of an individual article. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 23:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for the reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4600:7B43:B0DC:875B:E8AA:8101 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 2601:18D:4600:7B43:B0DC:875B:E8AA:8101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge Having a seperate article for these allegations from the article on the individual accused is an example of extreme presentism. There is absolutely no reason that this material cannot be covered in the article on Lauer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the article John, but to expand it there creates UNDUE. It's also notable enough to be a spinoff, and there's more that will be added. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Matt Lauer per WP:TOOSOON as the contents of this article fit comfortably into the Lauer article. It may be that the situation will blow up like the Weinstein situation did but we aren't a WP:CRYSTALBALL and can't know that for sure. If and when the topic becomes too big for the main article, spin it off then. Ca2james (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Checking What links here for this page, it looks like notifications about this AfD placed on the Talk pages of the Women in Red and Women projects. These notifications both read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations - women coming forward. which appears to me to be indirectly soliciting Keep !votes (ie not coming out and saying "!vote keep" but saying "this article involves women coming forward about sexual harassment and misconduct, and this is a project about increasing content about women so... You know what to do"). I apologize if I've misinterpreted things; and I understand that my interpretation might be not at all what the poster intended but I thought it best to bring up. Ca2james (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me - you should have added it as a note, not as an allegation that I did anything wrong. Now that you've added it, there's no need for me to add it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Canvassing states Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

^{NOTE: This debate has been included at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)}[reply]
^{NOTE: This debate has been included at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep there's a WP:NOTNEWS argument to delete this, but apparently nobody believes that is policy. Ignoring that, this should clearly be kept; there's enough coverage, references, and volume of material to justify a separate article. Separately, from a purely procedural POV, a merge proposal should be at the article page, not AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki WP:NOTNEWS can only stay policy if editors like you have the heart to apply it. Also, you are mistaken; merge proposals are regularly discussed and agreed upon at AFD if participants believe it is the best course of action. I can provide dozens of such outcomes but you probably should have seen a few by now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up the fight for WP:NOTNEWS in the first two weeks after a news story breaks. If there's an appearance of a consensus to the contrary, the closing admin should discount my !vote. Barring that unlikely occurrence, this is still a clear keep. power~enwiki (π, ν)

I agree with P-e. AfDs usually start out as delete for good reason. This AfD has no justifiable basis to delete beyond IDONTLIKEIT. Merging it into the main article creates UNDUE so that's really not an option. This should be a snow close to keep. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A surprising comment by the article's creator (is there a button for sarcasm?). Don't recall anyone claiming they don't like the subject or why a merge means copy-and-pasting this news story to the main article. Selectively merging useful material happens on the regular. I saw not news, lasting, BLP, content fork, and recentism-based arguments but still no "I don't like it" ones.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise, just fact...like the content fork argument - well, yeah it's a content fork that's being expanded which is what content forks are for, or maybe the TOOSOON argument - as in he was fired over it too soon or did he apologize too soon? That is factual information so it has no time stamp, and neither does the fact that he had a lock button under his desk. To me, those arguments are as weak as IDONTLIKEIT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge at least for now. There’s room in the main article. NOTNEWS. O3000 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matt Lauer, this case does not stand out much from other sexual harassment/assault cases that have been sweeping the world, so per NOTNEWS, merge. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matt Lauer, and keep a lid on excessive detail, bloated prose, and/or laundry lists of reactions that violate WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROPORTION. Not everything written needs to be incorporated into a tertiary source encyclopedia, which Wikipedia claims to be. The plethora of articles in daily news sources (largely repetitive, derivative, and churnalism) do not necessarily mean the subject needs greater coverage in relation to Lauer's career as a whole. Writing in depth about the current event is simply WP:Recentism. If this article remains separate, one could argue an article is due for any controversy involving Lauer. Note that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. For comparison, see how Lauer's firing is proportionally covered in tertiary sources like Biography.com and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Per policy (WP:TERTIARY), tertiary sources can be useful for evaluating due weight, as they help distill the most significant elements from the inherent myopia of day-to-day reporting. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking purely based on fractions, a quarter of the britannica article is on it - which does seem quite significant. But then again this can be condensed and merged. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merging all this content to main article about the person will create an undue weight for these allegations in main article. I think this page stands as a legitimate sub-page based on significant coverage. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we can write concisely, skillfully, and take a broad view, not mindlessly repeat everything in today's news. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is not a News aggregator. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Merge (selectively) with Matt Lauer. Needless content fork; this material can be quite easily condensed (the important info can be given in 3-4 paragraphs at most) and included in the main article. Neutrality^talk 04:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt_Lauer#Sexual_misconduct_and_harassment_allegations. The target section already covers the material in sufficient detail, so I don't see a reason for a merge. However, a redirect would preserve the article's history, so anything that may be worth considering for inclusion in the main article could be picked up from there. Overall, as I said, the main article is already sufficiently detailed for the topic, so any additions should be minimal. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, any additional information as needed with Matt_Lauer#Sexual_misconduct_and_harassment_allegations and Redirect this article name, accordingly. WP:Content fork. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if NOTNEWS was a valid argument, why were following articles created when the news broke? Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations, Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, and so on? The titles that include "allegations" for those BLP's found guilty are wrongly named, but it tells us they were created when they were still allegations. Others can never be proven because the evidence doesn't exist. Do we now make them #redirects or #merge or simply delete them? This is exactly why consistency is necessary. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely for several reasons (WP:Othercrapexists): but one is that those issues have received much greater media scrutiny and publicity over a longer period of time, and/or involved many more people, while Lauer's peccadilloes appear to have already been largely relegated to gossip rags and churnalism. (e.g. "He just wants to play golf" and "Did you hear what he said at his roast!?"). Another is that allegations of exposure and lewd talk between adults is not equivalent to allegations of rape and pedophilia. Lastly, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and it is unlikely that this sub article can be significantly expanded content-wise (I mean, sure, more block quotes and verbose sentences could be shoehorned in, maybe some more soundbites from talking heads, Family Guy references, and Perez Hilton's reaction, but such drivel drags down Wikipedia's reputation). The "consistency is necessary" argument assumes we are robots acting on an "if X, then Y" command, without the possibility for nuance and case-by-case decisions. Given time, some of the articles above may be deemed not noteworthy enough to remain separate. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He apologized, the allegations have been corroborated and that is as close as one gets prior to a trial and why we refer to them as allegations - innocent until proven guilty. But it still warrants a stand alone article considering the substantial coverage in RS, the UNDUE it creates to keep it in the BLP Matt Lauer, and the fact that we're discussing workplace sexual harassment which involves one's livelihood. Just saying. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all of the "(whatever celebrity/politician) sexual misconduct allegations" articles to the main article on each person. The allegations are only notable because the person is notable, they don't have notability independent of the accused. If this is the most significant thing about Matt Lauer, then it can't be WP:UNDUE in the main article. If it's not the most significant thing, then why a separate article? It's a "Catch 22." Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. For one thing, the sizes of these articles are usually a good indicator that a new article is needed per WP:SUBARTICLE, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. There's also a lot of overlap with the Matt Lauer biographical article and the allegations article, so it shouldn't be that hard to merge the most notable bits (most of the "Reaction" section seems to be just re-reviewing his past behavior, so most of that could be left out). Beyond that, this doesn't seem to have independent notability or even a short-term impact beyond "Matt Lauer was fired". ^Falling_Gravity 17:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge. Mooe andWeinstein are special cases.* Moore becvause of the political significance, Weinstein because of the importance as the exemplar. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 8 December 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. – Joe (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Londoner[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Lacks significant roles. No sign of any good coverage in independent reliable sources. Page claims a lead role in Thinner but that is a blatant lie. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- has not had a significant role in a film, fails WP:NACTOR--Rusf10 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 23:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CTFA International Tournament[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT. The page is unsourced, the "tournament" is a minor invitational friendlies between low-ranking countries and it is uncertain if this competition is ever going to happen again. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following subpage for the same reasons:

^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per WP:RAPID. This seems like a rush to judgement, as the tournament is currently underway. I found 742 articles pages mentioning this tournament, and 41 news articles (searching using languages other than English might help). There may be more news articles in the future, particularly in the media of the nations involved. WP:SPORTSEVENT doesn't seem to mention international tournaments at all as it seems to only address club games, but they could be included under "all-star or similar exhibition games." However, I suggest merging the two articles. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: it's now 1,880 results from a news search and 6,020 results from an overall web search in English, likely many more in languages of the nations involved. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what do these say? Ghits do not necessarily equal WP:SIGCOV. Fenix down (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Detailed match reports, commentary about player selection. The essay that you are using to argue for deletion refers to local newspaper coverage of high school and college sports. These are national newspapers and television addressing the topic directly and in detail, coverage of national teams in international competition, with long-term implications for national teams and international competition because these games affect FIFA rankings for four national teams in the most popular sport in the world. This is significant coverage, as would be expected. This AfD originates from a couple of Filipino soccer fans who are concerned that the PFF didn't send its strongest team (omitting players involved in professional league playoffs), and that the Philippines national men's team would lose to a team that is lower on FIFA rankings. This is exactly what has happened twice. In addition, the win by lowly Timor-Leste over the Philippines is a huge event for association football in East Timor. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - tournament is ongoing, coverage is still coming up. If this AFD was proposed a couple months for now with the situation on WP:GNG clearer than my !vote would be different, but for now to propose an article for deletion at this stage is frankly unneeded. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. It seems highly unlikely to me that this is non-notable, versus having little coverage in English. See whether there are corresponding articles at zh.wikipedia, etc., and someone who knows Chinese and other relevant language can also independently look for reliable news sources. An international pro competition in a major sport is almost always notable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 05:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- tournament matches are listed as "A" internationals on FIFA list of matches. I do not support merging as it is common practice to have one article for tournament and another for individual additions.

--Gri3720 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fundamentally, this is a friendly competition. Jack N. Stock's Keep vote, merely talks about mentions, I'm not sure I am seeing WP:SIGCOV, Inter&anthro#s view is little more than WP:ILIKEIT, and Gri3720's assertion that it should be kept because the matches are all FIFA a-list matches is not grounded in any guideline. None of the keep votes here are indicating any sources which are showing significant coverage of the tournament as an event, and I am not convinced, given that these are friendly matches, that there is anything out there other than routine match reporting. Whatever the outcome of this AfD, there is certainly no need for both an article on the tournament and an article on the 2017 tournament given that this is the one and only occurance of the tournament so far, so if it is decided to keep the main article, the season should, for now, be merged. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misintrpereted my !vote Fenix Down, it has nothing to do with me liking the article or not, rather I don't see how one can nominate an article for deletion saying that it is unscourced and hasn't received significant coverage when the tournament in question is still ongoing. Even if the tournament itself never happens again the two article can still be eventually be merged, but since this is supposed to be the successor of the Long Teng Cup I doubt that will happen. Also see 2011 Nations Cup for a nation's tournament that received significant coverage and passed WP:GNG, I'm sure given time this article will too. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that works, either the subject has received significant coverage or it hasn't. Where are the sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Fenix down (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage by national newspapers checks all the boxes for WP:SIGCOV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain, I'm not seeing much beyond trivial mentions and routine match reporting, but that may be a language barrier thing. Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the essay that you are using to argue for deletion refers to local newspaper coverage of high school and college sports. These are national newspapers and television from at least four nations addressing the topic directly and in detail. Coverage of national teams in international competition in national media is very different to coverage of high school football in a small-town newspaper. Furthermore, it is much more than routine coverage, such as box scores or even a game summary. There are analytical articles such as this. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're just examples of routine coverage. Bar the one source you have mentioned, I'm still not seeing significant coverage of the tournament as an event. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - main article and merge / redirect the 2017 tournament. With further thought, it does seem like there is some significant coverage of the tournament, particularly the aftermath of the final results, which goes beyond routine match reporting in third party sources in the 2017 article. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep of 2017 CTFA International Tournament and Delete CTFA International Tournament, you don't know if they will host the tourney next year, but the 2017 page has some merit. International matches do tend to have decent coverage and I am sure this has some interesting coverage in Asia, there are some interesting citations there. I don't see the need to have two articles. Govvy (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it should be the other way round? The tournament page kept outlining the 2017 edition and the 2017 page redirected to the tournament page? Fenix down (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down:, nope I think I have it the right way round, then after that's done, I would rename the page with the most information to the deleted one. Govvy (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though given there is only one iteration I don't think that we need clarify that in the article title just yet. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 8 December 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 America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. I've been going back and forth between no consensus and redirect for a while here, but I seem to have settled on redirect as the fairest option. As far as actual valid arguments go (and there are plenty of invalid ones to sift through), there is fairly even disagreement over whether the sources provided clear the bar of WP:ROUTINE (sources must be more than routine), and also whether WP:SIGCOV is met by the sources provided, some of which are regional roundups and some of which seem to discuss individual games - some not even in the tournament - as opposed to the entire tournament. (Note that WP:OSE goes both ways - while the existence of articles for other conferences' tournaments does not affect the suitability of this one for an article, nor does the non-existence of articles for other years' tournaments for this conference.) In the end, though, the vast majority of the scant information that is covered by the potentially notability-giving sources is already included in the redirect target, so the content is generally maintained anyways, just in a different place.

I would also encourage those inclined to start a discussion about tournament notability as Tim Templeton suggests; as Govvy says college sports (especially association football) are really in the WP:NSPORTS gray area. I note that several people have suggested that WP:NSEASONS applies, but it doesn't - that portion as currently worded is for individual team seasons, and tournaments in general aren't mentioned outside of specific sports on the WP:NSPORTS page. ansh 666 08:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

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

The previous season was deleted by AfD at the start of this year. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season.) This article fails the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NSEASONS, WP:GNG) for the same reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sir Sputnik:, with all due respect, how many citations to relevant, third party links are you looking for until you vacate yourself from the WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Quidster4040 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Per my comment above, the article meets the notability guidelines of WP:NSEASONS for the following reasons:
- Per WP:NSEASONS, "Team season (or in this case tournament) articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players". We should aspire for these pages to not fall under WP:NOTDIR. The following sources are cited to cover the relevant topics of information in this article, as in, where it is, who played, and who contested the championship, and what was the outcome for the finalists.

America East website, for official organization verification
Albany Student Press
Burlington Free Press
Baltimore Sun
Lowell Sun
I'm also confident if further citations are needed beyond these third party sources that covered the tournament, we could find plenty of information, analysis from the likes of the NCAA website, TopDrawerSoccer, SBI, SoccerAmerica, and other publications that exclusively cover soccer. Not having enough citations, and yes, only seven citations is quite a lowly number, does not constitute the article therefore fails WP:NSEASONS

- Next, the nominator believes that this article does not meet WP:GNG. The article actually does meet GNG for the following reasons:
  - First concern may be it does not meet WP:SIGCOV. A quick Google search of "America East college soccer" results in 1,950,000 pages. A news search brings back 3,970,000 results. A search explicity for "college soccer news" draws 8,400,000 results. The first pages of these results shows extensive coverage of the tournament from third party sources, newspapers, sports-focused websites and soccer-focused websites. Clearly, this meets the significant coverage criteria. So let's move on...
  - Reliable sources is the next concern potentially. So what is a secondary source? I think all the listed articles that detail and explain that are beyond the athletics websites are good barometers. So here are 10 links that focus or discuss on the A-East Tournament. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. I think this meets enough secondary sourcing beyond the main athletic websites.
  - Multiple sources expected. Article has seven sources, and could easily have close to 20. Meets criteria.
  - Independent sources. All these websites, sans perhaps the Albany Student Press (although it is not an athletics website), are independent on the tournament, meaning we might have just 19 sources in this discussion.
  - Final concern would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Are these just brief summaries? No these articles feature interviews, summaries on the season, perspectives and explain the match more than just a box score.

That being said, I strongly believe it is safe to say that this article easily meets WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. I'm deeply worried that the nomination was made out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than thoroughly examining whether or not the article truly meets GNG and NSEASONS. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment let's actually provide reasons for supporting a deletion, instead of a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE argument. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No independent notability but a plausible search term. Sourcing in the article shows individual matches get some local level reporting, but so does pretty much every league in countries where football is popular. I'm not seeing any specific coverage of the season as a whole event. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This article's about the tournament, not the whole season. Tournaments generally get more coverage. Smartyllama (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources clearly indicate significant coverage of the tournament. I too am concerned that this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. There are plenty of sources. Knock it off. Smartyllama (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Individual match reports =/= coverage of the tournament. Where are the articles on the tournament as an event in itself? Happy to accept the tournament is notable, happy to accept the teams are notable. This doesn't mean that individual iterations of the tournament are notable in themselves. They need to show GNG as an independent subject. For example, are there any articles from third parties previewing the tournament as a whole or summarizing the tournament post completion? Bringing together disparate match reports and saying that = GNG is too much like WP:SYNTH for my liking. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, per my reason above, if you take the time to read my post, you would see that there are more than just match reports. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I really don't understand why you are applying WP:NSEASONS to this, this comes under WP:SPORTSEVENT, also is the competition competitive or friendly, and where does it sit in the ladder, American soccer seems to do my head in sometimes for being so poorly organised. Govvy (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite organized, there is simply a lot of bureaucracy at this level of the sport in the U.S. that can make it look like a hot mess. This tournament that is being nominated for deletion is a competitive tournament, and part of college soccer in the United States. In the U.S., college/university sports (especially American football and basketball) are generally very popular and do serve as avenues for nurturing professional athletes. This tournament is the championship for the America East Conference, one of the 20 conferences that play in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's first division. (There are three divisions). Each conference at this level selects one team to receive an automatic berth in the NCAA Tournament, which is what this tournament's purpose is for. At the top collegiate division, there is normally significant press coverage, as these tournaments can exhibit future soccer players that may play in MLS or USL. Several professional footballers such as Clint Dempsey, Vedad Ibišević, Neven Subotić, Santiago Solari, Alexi Lalas and Alejandro Bedoya played college soccer in the United States before turning pro. Nowadays, many pro athletes in MLS go through the academy ranks, but college soccer does serve as a net for players that may have been overlooked at the academy level. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is an article that would otherwise be a redlink in the navbox (Template:2017 NCAA Division I men's soccer season) at the bottom of the page. No reason to delete it. PCN02 WPS 19:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then edit the link out of the template. Elapsed time, six seconds. Sheesh. Ravenswing 06:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think the above keep votes have some weight, I'll look for more independent coverage. Still a tad unsure of the tournament's long term coverage or if it meets WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A powerful lot of turgid and irrelevant arguments here. First off, this just fails SIGCOV and ROUTINE; despite airy assertions that sources exist that discuss this particular season of this particular tournament in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, none have been produced, and the article is free of aforementioned "well-sourced prose." It is not a valid defense at AfD to assert that qualifying sources may exist; they must be shown to exist. I'm unmoved (and hope the closing admin is likewise unmoved) by simple lists of the media outlets providing this tournament with routine sports coverage.
Beyond that, whether players in this tournament go on to professional soccer, is "part of college soccer" (we did notice that, thanks), whether pro players once played college soccer and whether this particular tournament was competitive are just plain irrelevant to the discussion. Was this a tournament that people played in, attended and followed? Seems so. Does any of this have anything to do with whether it meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article? No. Ravenswing 06:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument seems more fixed on WP:ATTP and WP:IDONTLIKEIT with assumption that the pro-keep argument is "turgid" or "irrelevant". If you read my argument it definitely follows under the WP:SIGCOV umbrella. The point that it receives coverage, especially from a wealth of sources certainly fits the SIGCOV narrative. Quidster4040 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A lot of non-notable players and this tournament imo is not notable. Also, Ravenswing's points are valid. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the tournament determines an automatic entrant into the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship, which makes it notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you link to the notability criterion that satisfies? Certainly not WP:SPORTSEVENT, which governs the notability of individual series. In any event, notability not being inherited, its connection with the NCAA soccer championship is irrelevant. Ravenswing 01:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSEASONS says:

A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.

This tournament sends a winner to a post season appearance. Division I is the top collegiate level. I'm interpreting that to show notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ravenswing is correct, sources must shown to exist. Yes, there's plenty of routine coverage, but in depth coverage of the tournament is required. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per my closing comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 November 30, so that a clearer consensus may emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Opining because I've reviewed the sources and the arguments here, but am now too deep into this to close it. After having read the sources in question, I do not see them as providing anything more than routine coverage of the matches and teams in question. I do not see them as going far enough towards establishing the notability of the tournament itself: they possibly establish notability for the seasons of the individual teams, but I'm uncertain about that, too. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm relatively new to this whole process, so I don't really understand why this was closed in the first place. Those advocating delete aren't really citing (or at least linking to) any Wikipedia policies that state why the sourcing is inadequate and what is required for the article to be notable. Could somebody clarify this? I too worry that the nature of the arguments made leans more towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than actually making arguments against the article. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep After re-reading a lot of the comments and earlier arguments, I'm weakly in favor of keeping the article. I share some of Ravenswing's concerns regarding WP:SPORTSEVENT but I'm wondering where the line gets drawn concerning the first bullet "The final series... determining the champion of a top league". WP Footy is already not very receptive towards college soccer and the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I'm not really sure where that somewhere should be. I think it's worth pointing out that since my previous comment three days ago no additional wikipedia policies or guidelines have been linked to dispute the article. I also find it off-putting that Quidster's arguments were not rebutted and were casually ignored, and that the article was initially deleted anyway. We need to do better to come up with a consensus. Jay eyem (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay eyem: I was subconsciously thinking the same thing, and I'm glad someone caught on. It's that type of potentially deliberate ignoring that continues to tempt me that it was a JDL, bad faith nomination, and bad faith deletion. I don't want to take anything away from Raven's comments, which I personally disagree with, but it is unsettling that one fleshed out delete argument is supposedly good enough for a deletion whereas three, perhaps four fleshed out keep arguments are disregarded. Baffles me that others would wonder why I would then be tempted that I feel it's JDL. As far as WP:FOOTY is concerned, I think part of it is they have a general ignorance to the sport of college soccer primarily due to many of them being from outside the U.S. and may not have an understanding, or willingness to understand for that matter, the relevance of collegiate soccer in North America. For now though, I think WP:CSOC is a decent task force to keep that JDL party in check. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguing in the alternative, I propose a Redirect to the page America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament as this is a plausible search term. Jay eyem (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, I got pinged because I commented on this earlier, my opinion is that GNG or not, it seems to fail NSeasons to me. But I am neither for keeping or deleting, because it's college soccer and not professional soccer I tend to stay away from these articles, it's a grey area in wiki-policy. Govvy (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was pinged as an earlier commentator, and voted to keep, but I also agree that the general coverage is weak. This is partly because of soccer's lower status in the US, and partly because this is not a "Big Five" type conference; correspondingly, members of this conference don't tend to win the NCAA tournament. The majority of the coverage is therefore institutional. Nonetheless, I hope one day we will see an agreed upon policy that any postseason tournament in the following major Division I sports (baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer) with a tournament that automatically sends the champion to the NCAA is notable. With the long tail of knowledge, there will always be an audience for this information, and that's what the encyclopedia is about. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much reinforces why I feel like this was a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, bad faith nomination. Quidster4040 (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Sources discuss specific games and teams at the tournament, but I'm not seeing a solid RS that covers the tournament itself. If someone can find one, I'd probably jump to a regular keep. But most (all?) the the tournament did see coverage--just very spread out. I think it's not at all clear from our rules. Oh, I think "routine" coverage is basically box scores etc, not high-prose articles in RSes. So I reject that argument at least. Hobit (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you @Vanamonde93: for re-opening the discussion to see if a consensus can be reached. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm shocked that the article was deleted in the first place, especially when there is one compelling delete argument, by Ravenswing, which feels partially WP:IDONTLIKEIT by their tone. That, and the remaining delete votes are WP:JNN (ahem, Snowman and Sports1234), WP:DIDNOTWIN (because it's a smaller Division I conference) and WP:VAGUEWAVE (nominator) arguments. The keep votes may point to a handful of suspect links, but the Albany Press, BFP, and Baltimore Sun bits show enough notability to meet WP:GNG: they're independent of the athletic website, they recap the tournament, and furthermore, they provide details on the tournament and what is at stake in the tournament. Plus, if we do some routine TopDrawerSoccer.com, CollegeSoccerNews.com, SBI and Soccer America coverage of the sport and conference is enough to also meet WP:SUSTAINED. Cobyan02069 (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep— It was deleted without due cause before, and it is more notable now... GWFrog (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm more tempted that the original admin's closure saying he "wasn't impressed" with the sources provided seems like JDL quip. I cannot continue to stress enough that routine coverage is met with these links, which Hobbit describes as websites showing box scores is more than enough to meet routine coverage. What is the admin looking for them to feel compelled to realize it meets GNG/SIGCOV? A freaking Sports Illustrated quadruple-page cover story on the depths of this tournament? Quidster4040 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of keeping it, but in the closing admin's defense, the fact that routine coverage exists is not usually used to support keeping articles but instead to support their deletion. Box scores are a perfect example of routine coverage. We usually like to see more than routine coverage. In this case, I'm basing notability on the tournament's linkage to the NCAA tournament. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. No material content other than stats and match results. Quidster4040 is encouraged to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. HindWiki^Connect 14:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that way, @HindWIKI:? I don't think WP:JNN is good enough. Cobyan02069 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I feel universally at this point there is NC (fair points from Quidster and Ravenswung both for and against), if the final call is Keep, that's fine and I wouldn't have any further comment. However, if the consensus manages to swing towards delete, we should instead consider to redirect to America East Conference Men's Soccer Tournament, because it's a plausible search term, but perhaps (I say this from an arguendo perspective), not plausible on its own. Cobyan02069 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To help reach a conseus, I will consult WP:CSOC members who haven't discussed in this debate, to see what their viewpoint is on this tournament: @GauchoDude:, @Swimmer33:, @US Referee:, @GauchoDude:. Cobyan02069 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobyan02069:-I understood. HindWiki^Connect 03:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I thought for long.And Vanamonde andf Stifle convinces me enough.Winged Blades^Godric 13:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create-protect 2018, 2019 and 2020 titles to save us from another AfD next year and for the following reasons: 1. Generally there is insufficient content and sources for both the Tournament and the season every year 2. The parent article itself has lingering {{onesource}} tag, (^{removed after this comment)}. There's insufficient content to write meaningful article and (in my analysis, even notability concern). 3. The Tournament page has been repeatedly created every year and every year get deleted, it is just not notable: * 2011 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; *2012 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; * 2013 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; *2014 America East Men's Soccer Tournament; *2015 America East Men's Soccer Tournament *2016 America East Conference men's soccer and now this year 2017. There is also intention for creating it next year as infobox of this has shown. Note that All these past versions where deleted via full AfD not speedy or PROD. In addition, after AfD deletion of the season 2016 America East Conference men's soccer season it was recreated record 3 times until the title was salted to sysop-create only. Even after that it was recreated with varying letter case and later redirected. I believe it is time to save editors' time and indefinitely sysop-proctect creation for at least 3 years to come. I have no doubt nothing will change. Because Notability cannot be created where it exist not.–Ammarpad (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit pointy, don't you think? Quidster4040 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume you don't actually understand what WP:POINTY is all about. Nonetheless, you were already given good advice by another user above. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume you don't actually understand what WP:POINTY is all about. If you read the details of the policy, you will see that placing the parent article/future events and lumping it with the main article counts as deleting from an important subject. Quidster4040 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems to me there is a small number of editors trying to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion without any one presenting sufficient independent sourcing showing non trivial coverage of this tournament as an event in itself. Ammarpad's comments are particularly convincing. Fenix down (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I genuinely am not trying to bludgeon, I'm new to this entire process. To me it feels like everyone assumes that they and everyone else knows how these policies work without linking to them. I just find it odd that those arguing delete haven't directly disputed Quidster's arguments (other than Ravenswing), they haven't answered Quidster's questions, and they haven't linked to any Wikipedia policies that demonstrate that it fails notability guidelines. The nominator made reference to a previous AfD without addressing what actual arguments they want to address from that AfD. Ammarpad and Ravenswing are the only ones to actually link to something, and even there they are essays and not policies or guidelines. ~~What exactly would constitute, as you put it, non-trivial coverage?~~ Totally missed your first comment on the page, my bad. Jay eyem (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG and SIGCOV via Quidster and Templeton. Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but the championship game itself was broadcasted on the ESPN Network family, which, in the U.S., is one of the premier sports coverage networks. That alone should easily meet the notability concerns Raven and Ampad are worried about. Twwalter (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the broadcast of the championship game indicate that the regular season was notable? Fenix down (talk) 07:53, 11 December 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. – Joe (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Etim[edit]

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

Another promotional bio for Elim. Has all the flaws of the version at Emmanuel Ishie Etim deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Ishie Etim. Pinging contributors from previous discussion - JMWt, Ammarpad, Ukpong1, Dom Kaos, Celestina007. Cabayi (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mm. this isn't quite the same as the previous page. And I think that at least some of those of us !voting last time were calling it a Procedural delete since similar draft exists. I've not yet come to a conclusion as to whether the subject is notable. JMWt (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article lacking sufficient non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article of non notable person. What makes it different from the one deleted in previous AfD is the huge unsourced and improperly sourced content this one contains. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an even worse article than the one that was deleted. No sign of actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page creator here. Is there anyone interested in offering editing help on the page to make it pass muster?Igwatala (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, the issue we're discussing here is not about whether the page will pass muster if it was to be improved, but whether the subject is deemed to be notable. If you could improve the page to satisfy the AfD, then that should be good enough. See WP:BIO. Other editors are here saying that the person discussed in the page is not notable, and not that the page is needing improvement. JMWt (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 7 December 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. – Joe (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Ahdieh[edit]

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

Author but with no evidence of significant notability. Sources quoted are sales pitch, press release and an interview. Searches reveal little better. Maybe just too soon for this article. Fails WP:AUTHOR Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2016/04/10/young-adult-e-book/. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a book listed as a best seller is not grounds for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, having one or more books that are bestsellers may show that the author's work/works are "well known" ie. point 3. of WP:NAUTHOR, of course the books also need to be the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", so being notable in their own right - meeting WP:NBOOK(?). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, oh look!, "someone"() has created articles on 3 of Ahdieh's books, that are notable, with plenty of references, so she meets WP:NAUTHOR and is a keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Coolabahapple and SarekOfVulcan. Passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:47, 5 December 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 Adrian Bejan. Actually smerge. Smerge away I did the redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constructal law[edit]

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

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

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

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

This article has had issues of WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and WP:COI from the outset. There are many references to primary sources, mostly from the person who coined the term. References by other authors either clearly attribute the "law" solely to Bejan (e.g. Quartz) or are WP:SYN, using the word "constructal" but not discussing or accepting the purported "law".

I think this article should go. There is no evidence here that the concept has any currency beyond Bejan and his close circle, and it is clearly not in line with mainstream scholarship. A smerge to Adrian Bejan would be acceptable. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Adrian Bejan, on the way cutting out all the bold generalized statements (The constructal law is a law of physics—the law of design generation and evolution in nature.), sweeping assertions (much of sections 2,3 amd 4), and special pleading and advocating (the entire "Responses to criticisms" section). For a little-discussed minority view, this article certainly tries its hardest to make the interpretation sound "accepted', which it isn't. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge into Adrian Bejan, with heavy trimming. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and remove the largely unencyclopedic sections. Natureium (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Collective work. It seems rather harsh to propose a deletion of an article which the "talk" page does not show any strong debate or controversy, and that its current standing form has been almost unchanged for years. If it needs improvement, let's work on it. Furthermore, the topic "constructal" shows the following indices:
- 792,000 hits in Google, 5,970 hits in Google Scholar;
- 16,028 citations in Web of Science, 6,186 of which without self-citations, h-index of 55, in over 4,511 qualified publications (out of which 3,603 without self citations) that was produced by over a 100 different institutions worldwide;
- And in the other scholar database Scopus, in addition to the nearly same indices, there are 91 patents related to "constructal";
- There are publications by American Institute of Physics (AIP) including press releases as well as by Scientific Reports by Nature Publishing Group;
- In the last 90 days this page alone was visited 4,388 times, averaging 48 times a day. It seems clearly there is demand for the topic;
- Recently it was the basis of one more important award by the community, the 2018 Benjamin Franklin Medal by Franklin Institute;^[1]
- As a law, it has been independently argued as such by ^[2],^[3] and ^[4] as well as by the Philosophy professor Prof. Jack Chun of Honk Kong in the 10th Constructal Law conference last May;
- Wikipedia is the result of collective work, nor mine nor anyone's exclusive point-of-view. The very principle of Wikipedia is that everyone is welcome to contribute, learn, and find a compromise, a common sense. Those pointed issues have been addressed along the years, even though in many instances they were just inserted (back) without the due discussion in the Talk Page. It was almost simply plain bashing or vandalism by competing researchers or the ones uneasy with the 21-year-old idea, or perhaps lay on the topic;
- The open user profile deals with any WP:COI issues, the WP:FRINGE and WP:OR can be removed after that volume of work that has been done and published around the world. Noteworthy that is progressively spreading every year;
- It's definitely much larger than anyone's "close circle". If there is disagreement, let us find common sense based on arguments, preferably scholarly;
- It seems wise, to say the least, to dismiss the AfD deletion right-away before it provokes any further damage and go back to civilised and informed discussions on the Talk page.Mre env (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mre env (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Mre env (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ Franklin Institute, The. "Announcing The Franklin Institute Awards Class of 2018". The Franklin Institute. Retrieved 1 December 2017.
^ A. Kremer-Marietti, J. Dhombres (2006), L’Épistemologie, Paris: Ellipses.
^ Bachta, Abdelkader; Dhombres, Jean G.; Kremer-Marietti, Angèle (2008). Trois études sur la loi constructale d'Adrian Bejan. L'Harmattan, HARMATTAN edition. p. 133. ISBN 978-2296055452.
^ P. Kalason, Épistémologie Constructale du Lien Cultuel (L’Harmattan, Paris, 2007).

- - There is nothing uncivil or damaging about this AfD. This is the normal process. Natureium (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I may, while everyone is entitled to opinion on how this is being conducted, the AfD procedure preconizes informed discussions based on arguments. Some undisputed indices, metrics and informations pro dismissal of AfD are presented above, whereas so far most claims favourable of AfD are vague or opinions. It follows that either one agrees with the claims or refutes the claims with new argumentation. The dismissal of AfD does not end the discussion, it just moves to another forum. Any further point-by-point discussion can take place in Talk:Constructal law in order to improve or build an acceptable article.Mre env (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a separate article and tone it down. A theory only needs to be notable by Wikipedia standards, not necessarily accepted by the physics community. Bejan is a popular author as well as a highly published engineer holding a named chair at a major research institution. His constructal law is highly cited and has been picked up and used by many in the engineering field. The concept has been written about in popular science articles in reliable media independent of Bejan. He has been awarded a 2018 Franklin Medal citing "...and for constructal theory, which predicts natural design and its evolution in engineering, scientific, and social systems."

This is not a basic law of thermodynamics or a "first principle of physics" as Bejan would like us to believe. It is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. As I remember from stellar structure classes in the 1960s, "energy flowing through a system tends to organize a system". Bejan has come up with a way of saying this that appeals to engineers. He has added a large dose of philosophy, but that and the engineering concept should be kept separate. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge and leave redirect. The concept is out there everywhere but I cannot find useful secondary sources with independent analysis. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As being deduced from any other law of thermodynamics, there is an argument it is not. Reis has showed that MEP (maximum entropy production), like its complete opposite (minimum entropy production) is a special ad-hoc optimality principle that is covered by the constructal law.^[1]Mre env (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed "the concept is out there everywhere". What does Wikipedia establish as requirements for a source to be considered "useful, secondary with independent analysis"? Doesn't it require clarification and more searching then ? Searching can be laborious since there are 792,000 hits in Google, 5,970 hits in Google Scholar, but a thorough search is fair and necessary. In addition to those independent sources cited above and many in the article itself, the American Institute of Physics press team made releases about some of the publications.^[2]^[3]^[4] There are also free press pieces such as in Forbes,^[5]^[6] STEAM-Register,^[7]National Geographic,^[8] other sites like the Washington State University^[9] and AstroBiology Magazine.^[10]
  - 'Due weight' for Constructal Theory is even acknowledged by the well-known Prof. Geoffrey West "Yes, I’m familiar with his (Bejan) work. Adrian and I sort of agree conceptually. If we disagree — I’m not even sure there’s a fundamental disagreement — (...) But I suspect that conceptually he and I are quite close. I haven’t talked to him for a long time."^[11] Prof. West has his own (competing) theory for cities and definitely not friendly to Constructal Theory.Mre env (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Reis, Antonio Heitor (2014). "Use and validity of principles of extremum of entropy production in the study of complex systems". Annals of Physics. 346: 22–27. Bibcode:2014AnPhy.346...22H. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2014.03.013.
^ News Staff, AIP. "The Evolution of Airplanes". publishing.aip.org. AIP Publishing. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
^ Media Line, AIP. "Why Celestial Bodies Come in Different Sizes | AIP Publishing". publishing.aip.org. AIP Publishing. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
^ Meyers, Catherine. "Improving Energy Storage with a Cue from Nature | AIP Publishing". publishing.aip.org. AIP Publishing. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
^ Kosner, Anthony Wing. "There's a New Law in Physics and It Changes Everything". Forbes. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
^ Kosner, Anthony Wing. "Why Nations (and Businesses) Fail, But They Don't Have To". Forbes. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
^ Gayle, Lola (7 March 2016). "Why Do Celestial Bodies Come In Different Sizes?". STEAM Register - Heating up S.T.E.M. and making STEAM. STEAM Register. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
^ Berlin, Jeremy (30 May 2016). "What's the Meaning of Life? Physics". National Geographic. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
^ LEACHMAN, JACOB. "How universities evolved tree-like hierarchies | HYdrogen Properties for Energy Research (HYPER) Laboratory | Washington State University". hydrogen.wsu.edu. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
^ "The Constructal Law - Astrobiology Magazine". Astrobiology Magazine. 28 August 2012. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
^ Mazur, Suzan (17 April 2016). "PART 2: A Wide-Ranging Conversation with Physicist Geoffrey West on Life, Evolution and US Presidential Politics". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

Mre env, this is a scientific concept. You don't need to search through everything on Google. Look for review articles in the scientific literature, not just summaries, at Google Scholar. Interviews or summaries in magazines, newspapers, and blogs are not enough. Maybe the Franklin Medal award will spur an analysis of this in the scientific literature. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:Mre env has no history on Wikipedia other than pushing this theory. I suspect that if any independent sources existed they'd have been added by now, as virtually every word Bejan ever wrote has been. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed StarryGrandma, Constructal Theory is a "scientific concept" and it should be addressed scholarly. Its scientific relevance, regardless of any controversy, is set clearly by the volume of independent and peer-reviewed work registered in Web of Science and Scopus (see indices above). Science welcomes controversy, but that too must be built on method and in a proper forum. In fact controversy is one of the pillars of the scientific method. Wikipedia is open. Those who can bring scholarly qualified information either pro or con are free to do so. Disagreements in the editions must be addressed in Talk:Constructal law not here. If all that is not enough to dismiss the AfD, there's more. It's good that you acknowledge the importance of Benjamin Franklin Medal, because that is one example of the very secondary, independent and credible source you seek. It is awarded by a committee^[1] formed by independent scholars who in turn follow criteria such as "The work must have substantial scientific value and/or proven utility. It must have provided significant direction for future research, solved an important technological problem, or provided great benefit to the public." It seems reasonable to assume it meets Wikipedia established criteria or those first pointed-out by yourself. On a personal note if I may, the way you express interest in the role of Constructal theory in Wikipedia has been productive and civil because you brought arguments with little of guesses, speculations and no personal insults. Worth stressing this article has undergone attacks, bashing and vandalism on many occasions. It was created in 2005 and I started to contribute on it in mid-2013. With the help of other editors we reached that current stand that stayed almost unchanged for years despite occasional tagging without the proper discussion. Hope that suffices, otherwise there is homework to be done.Mre env (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Committee on Science & the Arts". The Franklin Institute. 22 February 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2017.

Mre env, when you use references on a talk page add Template:Reflist-talk at the end of your comment to keep the references with the comment. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adrian Bejan seems like a reasonable option here. Unless someone can point to some other notable use of this idea, I think it is best that we don't have two articles and the biography seems like the natural option. jps (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered and checked the Collective work arguments above ? Isn't that enough ? Controversies are then addressed in the Talk page. Mre env (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'm faculty in comparative biomechanics, and the view from the ground in the field is entirely consistent with the label of "fringe" - literally nobody references this work, and anyone with familiarity with it dismisses it as a mix of trivialities, obvious errors, shifting goalposts, and general lack of knowledge about biological systems; it is Not_even_wrong. The only reason nobody has published a rebuttal/critique is that it's considered not worth anyone's time. It's produced no predictions of any meaningful accuracy or precision, and I have yet to see any genuine experimental test, nor have I ever seen a paper relying upon it which isn't written either by Bejan or one of his students. HCA (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I was invited to participate by Mre env because I have edited the page in question. This page has a history of POV edits that evidently has not improved in the years since I first encountered it. The topic is WP:NOTable only in the context of Bejan and it is WP:UNDUE to have a standalone page for it. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yield to merge - I grew to respect Jojalozzo for his/her balanced interventions. A redirect will deal with the 48 visits/day traffic. Thanks to all for considering my arguments.Mre env (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Fringe, OR, COI, POV, Undue, reffed to 38 works by a single author, not to mention dreadfully written and poorly linked. I concur that Bejan himself is probably notable (else we should delete both pages) so a merge, meaning a vigorous pruning down to a paragraph or two, is the best option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Constructal Law page must be maintained and augmented, not deleted. The constructal law is accepted and used as principle throughout physics, especially applied physics. This is widely documented by a growing and diverse list of authors in journals covering physics, biology and social dynamics. Must keep this page, it has a strong following. PheonixRo (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — PheonixRo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you cite a single biology paper for which it yields correct results that correspond to empirical measurements? And not "within an order of magnitude" - that's just physics for "wrong but we don't want to admit it". Or any papers which explain how constructal theory's required perpetual improvement can be reconciled with taxa which undergo long periods of morphological stasis (e.g. Horseshoe crabs), or even reversion to "flow-optimized" states (e.g. stonefish)? HCA (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am working in this area more than ten years. I got great proved results in this area. It is well developed issue. I would like to support in favor of Constructal law as scientist in energy field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amidpour (talk • contribs) 11:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Amidpour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment (moved from talk page - I believe this was supposed to go here --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)) Constructal theory is put forward on the basis on thermodynamic optimization, which provides a rationale for the unified explanation of the fundamental causes of the formation of various flow structures in nature as well as provides significant guidance for the structure design of various flow systems in the engineering field. I have been working in this aspect since two years ago. I have got a series of outcomes in this field.As a doctoral candidate, I would like to be a supporter back up Constructal Law. Jiang You (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Jiang You (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Constructal Law page should be strongly kept in Wikipedia. It gives a new point of view to all scientists and students. It is old, very useful and well established. It provides us to understand the patterns of animate and inanimate systems in the nature. With the help of Constructal Law, we can predict the other patterns such geological and physical processes, and social organization. Additionally, it shows us the evolution of the systems.Umitgunes1 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Umitgunes1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What's with the wave of new accounts attempting to keep this article today? Natureium (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the reason, I put {{notavote}} at the top. !dave 20:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should require COI disclosures from anyone making a "Keep" vote, to disclose whether they are Bejan's current or former students or collaborators. HCA (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Constructal law is widely used in many fields of nature and engineering, and plays a very important role in improving the performances of transport systems. In the world, many scholars carry out performance optimizations of transport systems by using this theory, therefore, the Constructal law existed in Wikipedia is very necessary.--Huijun 02:00, 7 December 2017‎ — 117.136.83.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Constructal Law page should be kept in Wikipedia. Constructal law has been used for many years in the field and my academic dissertation quoted Constructal theory as my dissertation's key word. Many people in my field have accept such calling and quote it in academic papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.103.154.252 (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC) — 119.103.154.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Four more named SPAs and an SPA IP have appeared on the article's talk page to support keeping the article. Meters (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've searched for non-primary sources, especially sources that don't contain Bejan's contributions. From conferences focused on constructal law (at institutions, for example like Duke University)[58] to independent scholarly papers on the subject from global repositories like those at Harvard and other institutions,[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] the topic clears Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. It'll be unfortunate if the article is merged with Bejan's profile, because clearly, as per my research, whether or not he propounded the term (I would wish that too be properly investigated), the topic is now significantly discussed in academic circles independent of Bejan. Merging it to his profile would be unencyclopedic. Of course, if the article is kept, cleanup is required. Lourdes 05:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things by Umberto Lucia, and some letters responding to it. Most of the cited materials are letters or junk journals, not peer reviewed articles. Some mention the word "constructal" but don't call it a law (rightly - it isn't, it's a conjecture, not even a theory). Virtually all the peer reviewed articles matching "constructal law" have Bejan as a co-author, and many of the balance are only one step removed (i.e. at least one author is a co-author of Bejan). This has all the hallmarks of a crank theory. To write a WP:NPOV article we need to include independent scholarly discussion of the status of the purported law. That is really hard to find. It is, as multiple comments above make clear, almost universally ignored. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guy's assessment here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JzG, XOR'easter, I can understand your point of view. If I can get some more clarity, it'll assist my understanding. For example, Physica A (which I sourced from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyA..392.6284L) is supposed to be peer-reviewed, have been set up in 1921, published by Elsevier. It discusses "constructal law" by full title, contents and exhaustive descriptions and doesn't seem to be a junk publication. Additionally, why would Duke University or Nanjing University hold conferences titling it "Constructal Law Conference" if the topic were a crank theory?[67][68] I also notice books like this and reliable media covering "Constructal Law" and Bejan's work; for example Cosmos,[69] Quartz,[70] Tech Times,[71] National Geographic,[72] South China Morning Post,[73] The Wall Street Journal,[74] etc. Where am I going wrong? I'm open to changing my opinion. Lourdes 18:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Duke is his home institution - if he's got money, he can have a conference on whatever he wants. That doesn't mean Duke endorses it, only that he happens to work there. I recently hosted a conference at my university, and the total process with the administration was "This will make us look good and like leaders in the field, based only on my say-so" "Ok, have some money to do it." HCA (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HCA, that's a good point about Duke. Would you say the same about Nanjing University? I'll also appreciate a review of the other sources I've listed here, including the mainstream media sources. I realize the question here which many editors including you are addressing is, if the idea is not accepted by the scientific community, should we remove the article? One possible guidance is provided in Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability versus acceptance, which describes: "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." It further mentions: "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." So the question I'm grappling with is, are the sources I've listed unreliable? If yes, I'll change my !vote. I'll request your review and of Guy's above of the said sources I've listed. Thanks, Lourdes 01:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find enough info on the other conference, sorry. I think your comment on notability vs acceptance is an excellent point, and the sources cited *do* speak to notability - I knew of the idea long before the WP page existed. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, constructal "theory" hasn't spread far beyond the "academic offspring" of Bejan, which seems to indicate it should be part of his page, and that there hasn't been a definitive takedown in the scientific literature (it's on my to-do list), which means that any page on it will be one-sided, which grates at me. It sort of falls into that weird range where it's not crack-pot enough to be funny to mock, but it's not meritorious enough to warrant formal responses. HCA (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as a consequence of that absence in the literature, it's not really possible to write a full article on constructal "theory" in an NPOV way. Such is the unfortunate failure mode of the in-between cases. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrative Example - Consider someone else and their defining idea: Alan_Feduccia, who opposes the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs (instead, he posits a non-dinosaurian archosaur as an ancestor). This idea is widely ridiculed in the paleontological community, with no good evidence or arguments, and correspondingly only appears on his WP:BIO page. However, by "traditional metrics" (journal articles, books, having students who continue to promote the idea, even occaisional popular press acknowledgement), it is "well published and well known". The key is that, however well-published, it's also horseshit. Simply being able to publish is not, necessarily, proof against WP:FRINGE. I could make the same argument against the Aquatic_ape_hypothesis, which only retains a page, really, because a) it's a useful central source for why the idea is wrong, and b) several editors and even an admin with clear violations of WP:AXE insist on keeping it. There are more, but the point is: while lack of publication is strong evidence of WP:FRINGE, presence is not proof against it - it also depends upon scientific merits.HCA (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary into the Adrian Bejan article. While reading the article, a couple of things struck me. One is that, though it claims to be a law of physics, there doesn't appear to be any actual physics in it (at least not as written - I haven't read any of the sources). It's just lots of vague claims, but they're not pinned down to anything concrete that you could write as formulae - and there's no derivation of or evidence for the claims offered. Someone above said that it's "not even wrong", and I can see why - I see no predictive capability and nothing testable in it, even though the article claims there are such things (and predicting trees doesn't count). Anyway, that's just my preambling way of saying it's obvious fringe (and in my view, with no apparent scientific validity), but what matters is notability - and as others have said above, I don't see there are enough supporting reliable sources for it to have an article of its own - certainly not one as lengthy, one-sided and uncritical as this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Maybe I can help you understand the point of keeping the article: constructal law (theory) has already been rooted in academic environments, and not only. Conference in the Aula Library of the Romanian Academy, Conference Roumaine de Thermotechnique, Galați (Romania), 2001, Publishing House: The General Association of Engineers in Romania, The constructional analysis of Romanian existentialism, Prof. PhD. Nicolae VASILE, Valahia University, Târgoviște, Romania, The General Association of Engineers in Romania, release of a book - AGIR, release of a book - AGIR, A Romanian physicist is among the top 100 scientists in the world. He developed a biology theory that amazed the world, Andrei Laslau, National Geographic Romania - The Nature is constructal, Descoperă.ro - The future will be constructal. PheonixRo (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have already !voted "Keep" above and you're not allowed to do it twice, so I have struck this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PheonixRo, if you want to convince me, tell me how the "improving currents" can be reconciled with the body shapes of the stonefish and Leafy_seadragon (both of which became LESS streamlined over evolutionary time) and taxa like the Horseshoe_crab which have been morphologically static for hundreds of millions of years. Because as far as I'm concerned, both examples prove constructal law false. HCA (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And just out of interest, as this supposed law of physics is all about something called flow, what are the units of flow? We have things like mass which can be expressed in kg, force in Newtons, energy in joules, entropy in joules per kelvin, but I can't see any such thing for flow and I'd genuinely like to be educated on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - The Constructal Law page must be maintained, not deleted. The Constructal Law is a most useful and established field in science.

--Awadm3 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC) — Awadm3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I don't often pay that much attention to AfDs, so perhaps all the posting here by SPAs is normal, but is there a list of entertaining AfDs somewhere? This must be getting close to making that list. Natureium (talk) 20:11, 8 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VOX Music Player[edit]

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

No evidence that this Ukrainian start-up app has any notability. The lack of in-line references doesn't help and the highly promotional text also impedes rational assessment. Searches reveal the same sales pitches and articles in the blogosphere. The refs that are quoted are blogs and press releases. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started editing the article because the product has changed its business model and added some features. I wasn't intending to make it look like an advertisement, but some changes are important for our customers' understanding of the product. This is my first time editing Wikipedia's page so I would appreciate if somebody could point out what must be changed or edited to make the article more neutral and reliable. I started editing the page yesterday and it takes time to make it look proper. Serhii Bohachenko
Delete: Primarily advertisement, it is written like a product placement page which can replace the software website. Subjects of Wikipedia articles must have impact and the article must be dedicated to explaining that impact. Only then, explanations of the product are justified to explain what we are talking about. —Codename Lisa (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. borderline notability and promotionalism = delete. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 9 December 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. bd2412 T 04:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hartslane[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable Artist-run space. Significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources. The article has been previously deleted and then recreated by the same contributor. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, partly on the basis that this nomination is fundamentally flawed. The article clearly isn't "advertorially toned" (unless you count its mere existence as being advertorial) and significant reliable coverage has been found and is used already to support the article. Admittedly I couldn't find a tremendous amount of online coverage, but if they've been written about in news sources as far away as Yorkshire it suggests they were more than just a localised phenomenum. Sionk (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The item cited from the Telegraph & Argus is worded in the classic local paper style. Its authorship is unclear, but it can also be seen re-published more widely. Rather than indicative of widespread interest in Lewisham activity, however, it is more likely symptomatic of the consolidations and de-editorialisation of the local press in recent years, with re-publication of syndicated copy replacing local journalism. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- From the article, cited to a blog: "It is an excellent example of a group of enterprising creatives working with the local authority to revitalise a building which had formerly been left vacant for many years."^[1]

References

^ "Adhoc: Exploring the German Offspace, Fiona Grady - Dateagleart". 15 September 2017.

This sounds "advertorial" to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been edited since the nomaintion; I do not see much advertorial writing going on. Based on existing refs, it appears to have some weak notability.198.58.171.47 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Beatrice Catanzaro[reply]

Here's another article by the same editor that acutally does deserve to be deleted: Beatrice Catanzaro.198.58.171.47 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)— Example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete no indication of notability. A few mentions in very local papers, as K.e. writes. I'm not seeing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. below the borderline for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 11:01 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete Promotional article about an art space fueled by local niche sources, and exhibition section is not notable in the slightest. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The exhibition section notability does not matter... per basics, material in the article does not have to be notable, just he subject.2607:FEA8:D140:8D0:C4F0:CEC9:B20E:82FC (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 7 December 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) 03:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Configure One[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH due to lack of in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. As far as I can tell, meaningful coverage is limited to a single article in a regional publication (Illinois Business Daily) and some coverage of the company's acquisition on niche websites.

Substantively, nothing in the article convinces me that the company is particularly significant. Rentier (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to keep up - According to WP:ORGDEPTH, “The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.” The Illinois Business Daily article seems significantly in-depth to me, as it covers most of the company’s information, what they do, how they got founded, etc. I find it the company and its industry interesting and useful to know about. I think it’s inclusion improves the encyclopedia and I don’t see harm in letting the article stay up and organically grow like the rest of the company articles on Wikipedia. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been covered significantly by at least one reliable source that's independent of the subject. That's the definition of Notability. It passes the test. Let's keep it up and keep improving it! --Allison Jean Paully (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One source is almost never sufficient to establish notability, per WP:CORPDEPTH. The article in Illinois Business Daily (itself a non-notable regional paper) is quite shallow, based largely on quotes from the company's employee. There is no in-depth analysis, no indication of the company's wider significance. Rentier (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the comments by the Keep !voters above, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Michael Powerhouse argues that the coverage in the Illinois Business Daily article seems significantly in-depth to him. That article relies entirely on quotations from Preston Stewart who is the company's Business Development manager, therefore the article is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Allison Jean Paully !votes to Keep and provides the reason that it has "been covered significantly by at least one reliable source that's independent of the subject. That's the definition of Notability." No, that it wrong on two counts. The first is that *two* sources must be cited. The second is that being covered by a reliable source that's independent of the subject is one half of that criteria - the other half is that the contents must be intellectually independent. None of the references are intellectually independent and they fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. I agree with HK that this fails WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 5 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falen[edit]

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

Does seem to be notable: talks about a former future product ("will make a full technical specifications list available on its website on September 1, 2008") and there are no mentions of it after 2008. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with nom it is notable: TopGear, MotorTrend, Core77, MotorAuthority, they don't just write about every little supercar project. They only report on the ones they think show some sort of promise. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assume the nom meant "not notable". None of the coverage is of the car, only of the promise of a car. If we can't verify that the car ever got past the pre-production hype stage, this should be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are a few people with "Falen" as a surname. If this article is deleted, a disambiguation page can be made in its place. bd2412 T 05:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON, end of story. Grapefruit17 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to disambiguation page – This is the only thing I could find arfter a short look. J947 Public (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After the initial surge of reactions to the initial announcement, there was nothing...buuuuut dipping a few pages into the Google search found this. Which basically says it was literally something that was made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced article states, "The next thing she said told me the project was unlikely to have legs: “Hang on a wee minute, he’s up in his bedroom at the moment…” " There is no date on the article, but the page source view gives 2017-04-15, with images newly posted in the same month. Unscintillating (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger since I don't see it, I am courtesy pinging you as an editor appears to have tampered with your !vote.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unscintillating, I don't understand your comments about the article - those are exactly the reasons to delete... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that notability is sustained into 20 February 2017, there seems to be a contrary attitude that the authors should be held accountable now because the topic should not have been on Wikipedia in 2008, written in present and future tense. Good pictures are available in Google images using [Falen "Concept 17.1"]. I noted that the detail in the images included reflections from an overhead showroom. One of the sources says that SolidWorks was used to create the images. While the article was previously at Falen (Automobile), I support a move of the article to Falen (automobile). Unscintillating (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, finding something from after 2008. However, if you look at the article you linked from February, it talks about (going by Google Translate) rumours from 2008, “Reason that he never came there: Eh, he never existed at all” and “Chance that he is still there: Less than zero”. At least, this link can be used to rewrite the article now, properly in the past tense, as a nonexistent project about which there were rumours in 2008. Whether an article about such a thing would be worth keeping is the question to discuss here. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have updated the article to the present date, using this very useful 2017 mention (thanks!). And as you said, we should vote based on whether an article about a 2008 rumour should exist on Wikipedia now, not on whether it should have existed on Wikipedia in 2008. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shreevatsa: Congrats on your major improvements to the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: - that's exactly the same article I found, just on the Dutch Top Gear site instead of the English one. The car was never built - it was CGI rendered. It appears there never even was a "Dowdeswell & Hardie" - there are no hits for the company name outside of the 2008 Falen announcement. I have no idea where you get "a contrary attitude that the authors should be held accountable now because the topic should not have been on Wikipedia in 2008" - the topic, based on what was known at the time, should have been on Wikipedia in 2008. However, now that it has been revealed to have only been a hoax, it's neither notable as an automobile or a hoax, and as such does not belong as having a Wikipedia now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your word in italics: "exactly". No, it is not exactly the same. You are making things up, including the speculation that this is a hoax. If this is or more accurately was a hoax, why did the "design consultancy" have a website and a working phone number? Nor do you have any evidence that the work on this car by this design consultancy took them one day, especially since one of the sources reports a four-year design time. Maybe you would have an interest in an essay I wrote regarding accuracy in the encyclopedia, WP:Inaccuracy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is, in fact, the same article, in Dutch, as the one that I found in English. And quoting:

There was a phone number at the bottom of the press release, so I gave it a bell. The phone rang and rang and was eventually answered by a hesitant middle-aged lady with a tentative “Hello?”. Clearly not a receptionist at a design agency. Anyway, I forged ahead, asking if I had the right number for Dowdeswell & Hardie. I did. And could I speak to someone about the Falen project? I could. The next thing she said told me the project was unlikely to have legs: “Hang on a wee minute, he’s up in his bedroom at the moment…”

...the phone number was someone's personal, home phone number, it was answered by someone's mother, and the person in question was her son up in his bedroom. Q.E.D., it's something a kid, or kids, made up one day and pulled the wool over peoples' eyes with for a lark. Why did they have a website and working phone number? You can make a website for all but free (even back then), and it was their home phone. And regardless of all of this, that article does not "sutain notability into February 2017". It was one retrospective that confirmed the vehicle in question never existed, and, in fact, was never going to exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD does not create license for BLP violations, as talk page claims about living people require citations, and AfD is a talk page. Our revised article mentions the Loch Ness monster, which your British article doesn't mention. You've had days now to check your facts, yet you still insist that the Dutch and the British articles are the same. Your "hoax" scenario is that a "kid" is upstairs in a bedroom in 2017, which, given a max age of 17, this means that in 2008 the "kid" was 8 years old. Surely the "mom" was fully engaged if she was publishing her home phone number for the use of her 8-year old child. This doesn't seem useful to speculate on the ages of the consultants. There is nothing unusual about a consultant working in his bedroom, nor do we know that the phone was in a home in 2008. Whether young or old, the design is not a hoax, because readers can verify for themselves a detailed design on Google images, credited by many sources. Unscintillating (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no car was ever produced, and there doesn't appear to have ever been a bona fide attempt to produce a car. Whether it meets WP:HOAX or not isn't clear, but the effect is the same. Delete. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until there is evidence of a hoax that is more than BLP violations, the hoax issue is clear. The essay you've linked to is WP:Do not create hoaxes. Unscintillating (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this part: Like everything else, hoaxes must be notable to be covered in Wikipedia—for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years. I don't think the coverage of this has risen to the level that it is notable as a hoax. If you're claiming this is a bona fide effort to produce a car, I want references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources indicate that there were ever any serious designs or intentions to develop a car. I don't know where all this nonsense about BLP violations preventing us from identifying a hoax came from but it is as I described it...nonsense. As a hoax, which this has been confirmed to be, it has not been covered significantly or at least believed by a large group of people; hence it is not encyclopedic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:27, 9 December 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. Inappropriate non-admin relist. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deogen[edit]

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

Non-notable, based on a single source. I can't find any info online that wasn't just copypasted from this article, and I can't even find any evidence that the cited source, or its author, even exist. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've searched for the title of the source book (in both the original and in English), and also searched for the author: the only hits post-date the creation of this page and, as DanFromAnotherPlace says, they appear to be based on the Wikipedia page. It's either a hoax page that's flown under the radar for nearly eight years, or Spankees has a very rare book ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 1 December 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avisheak Paudel[edit]

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

No indication of any notability. Not much covered in Nepali media. either. Winged Blades^Godric 08:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people such as film editors are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needs multiple reliable secondary sources to show impact, if any. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's insufficient sources for this to pass WP:GNG not talk of WP:DIRECTOR. Which he didn't met any of its points. 2 references now ar broken links and I can't find any other coverage about him in other sources. –Ammarpad (talk)17:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Less Than Jake. Note that redirects are required when merging content, so "and redirect" is not necessarily necessary. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep It Off Records[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Available sources are providing passing mentions and short, routine coverage, but not much else. Could be redirected to Less Than Jake. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Less Than Jake - There are a few sources to meet WP:V, but I can't see how this topic is independent of the band that formed it. Strictly a vanity label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Less Than Jake: simply a back catalog re-release label for a single band, so all sources are inevitably going to be tied up with that band, and it makes sense to redirect it to the band's article. Richard3120 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with above, I should have also said redirect. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:03, 1 December 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loci (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. AfD was closed as no consensus in 2008, but I think they just don't make the cut by today's standards. No reviews from reliable sources located, and the AllMusic listing appears to be for a different band. Ultimately I just don't think there's enough to pass WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBAND. The band's website is dead and I can't find any evidence that the band existed beyond the two self-released EPs mentioned in the article – as the nominator says, other mentions on "Loci" on AllMusic and other sites refer to a US electronic artist, not this band. The previous AfD survived due to supposed airplay on a local BBC radio station – I'm not sure that's enough to show notability (plenty of new bands get played on local radio stations, BBC 6 Music's "Introducing" programme, etc.), and the BBC Wales website that is linked is now dead, and no archive exists that I can find. There is a brief review of the first EP (mostly regarding its production than its musical merits) in a Sound on Sound review [75], but ultimately it seems what we have here is a band with just two self-released EPs to their name that's been defunct for nearly a decade. Aricle created by a near-SPA that only has three other minor Wikipedia edits not related to this band. Richard3120 (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked all 7 refs, they are all 404s or similar.Szzuk (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not meet any point of WP:BAND and no evidence (from search) that it can meet. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBAND. St0n3 BG (talk) 16:03, 2 December 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 07:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deepal Mathew[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NSCHOLAR. The key reference is used in the article is a biography on the University's website, which has been prepared by Prof. Mathew himself - WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The article previously stated that he was a Dean at the University of Colombo however a search of the University website clearly indicates that isn't the case (this has been subsequently deleted by myself from the article). Whilst he is a fellow of the Institute of Chemistry Ceylon, this is hardly highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (as indicated under criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC). His citations counts under Google Scholar are relatively low and many of his papers are co-authored however I acknowledge that WP:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics, warns against putting all your trust in Google Scholar. I've undertaken a web search and found no reliable independent sources that establish any degree of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing rises to the level of passing the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 7 December 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 Glossary of video game terms#Gib. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gib (video gaming)[edit]

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

The article is a rather short blurb of synthesis that has a list of videogames longer than the body. The current explanation of Gib's in Graphic violence is quite adequate. This should be deleted and have a redirect to that. Additionally, this topic doesn't have enough reliable sources or notability to stand on its own as an article. Jcmcc (Talk) 04:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of video game terms#Gib in lieu of any major notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the nominator in that the description in graphic violence is sufficient, and would suggest that as a preferential redirect target. I think this is a clear WP:NEO fail. --Izno (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of video game terms#Gib. There's not much of a concept to gib that notable sources are likely to write about; I think WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies here. Graphic violence would be okay as a redirect target, but since gibs are not exactly a central aspect of the article subject, we can't rely on them always being covered in the article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - in the interest of forming a consensus here, though honestly, I'm not even sure it's plausible search term. If it were up to me, I'd just delete it, as it doesn't really seem notable at all. But "redirects are cheap", so I'm fine with that too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 6 December 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. – Joe (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Kaylor[edit]

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

Non-notable college player, fails WP:NGRIDIRON as he didn't play in a pro football league. PROD was removed by Cbl62 due to the article claiming he was named an All-American, which would mean he passes WP:NCOLLATH. However, his name doesn't appear on two of the teams the article claims he was named to, and on the third he was simply an honorable mention: Sports Illustrated (honorable mention), CBS (not listed), ~~College Football News (not listed, and this selector gave seven honorable mentions)~~. Lizard (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the link to the CFN team was for 2007's team. I can't find the 2005 team. But even if he was named to that team, it isn't one of the "official" teams so it's given little credence. And this is a punter, one of the least glamorous positions in football. Bottom line is he isn't notable. Lizard (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the 2005 team, where he is an honorable mention. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [76] [77] (One source stretched to two pages: [78][79]), (One source stretched to two pages: [80][81]), [82][83]. From nl.newsbank.com: Reporter-Herald ("Kicking the Habit", "For Colorado State, Jimmie Kaylor stands alone" - the title of the second article just said "C", so I put the first few words of the article instead), Rocky Mountain News ("RAMS DUO ENDURING BOOT CAMP, KAYLOR, MARK WILL GIVE CSU A NEW LOOK IN KICKING GAME WITH BABCOCK OUT OF PICTURE", "Friendship is added plus to boot, CSU kickers rely on buddy system during up-and-down season"), Longmont Times-Call ("Kaylor a bright spot for Rams Sophomore punter ranks 2nd in nation with 45.87 average"), The Denver Post ("Colorado State football Punter commits to Rams") WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by WikiOriginal9 and those in the article. These sources comprise significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so as to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my first reaction was delete as well, but after digging in to the sources I think there's enough here to pass WP:GNG. Sure we don't normally keep articles about college punters, but this one seems to have at least some unique press coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is routine and does not rise to the notability levels required.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 4 December 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 Culture change. Overturn clearly improper NAC. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 02:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation of culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I hope I'm not breaking any rules with this nomination. Last time, we ended up with a no-consensus closure on account of an active merge discussion for this article and Culture Change. However, it seems that it's been decided the content of the articles are too different for salvaged pieces of this one to got into the other one. This article is pretty deep into essay territory and I think it would be easier to delete it and start over than try to fix it. TheDracologist (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT (first preference) or redirect to Culture change (second preference). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Culture change, merging anything that can be salvaged. We obviously don't need two articles forking the one subject. The article is hopelessly ambitious, taking on a very large and nebulous subject with little more than opinion and WP:OR as structure for its wild generalisations: it needs a total rewrite. The Rochon reference might lead to something, given some work, but the article is absurdly under-cited. Essentially the theory section is one sentence, and the division into Western and Indigenous is untenable, being at best hegemonic and at worst utterly unacceptable. If people prefer to Delete, I'd go along with that, just ping me if so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Culture change. Do not delete, but make it a redirect to keep edit history and content for reusing if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 1 December 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) ^{Babymissfortune} 01:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shout: The Very Best of Tears for Fears[edit]

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

Album fails notability as per WP:NALBUM in all respects. It is a minor, budget-priced compilation, released without the artists' involvement, it failed to chart in any country, was not nominated for any music awards, nor has it sold enough copies to be earn a certification in any country. The only third-party reference given is a review from AllMusic.com that is more of a description rather than a genuine critical review. The other reference given is simply the album itself, which is neither independent or relevant. MassassiUK (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not so dismissive of the Allmusic review - it is not as if they review every compilation album, and the review includes at least some critical commentary - and there are other reviews, for example this one off the first page of the Google web search. Rlendog (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rlendog. I'm not sure if a proper link for the Popmatters review was provided, so try this. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tears for Fears were a fairly well-known musical duo. Vorbee (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because it's a Tears For Fears compilation doesn't make it notable by itself, as WP:NALBUMS clearly states ("That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."). This is a minor, cheapo-priced album released only in one country, put out by the band's old record company long after they had left. The company have released about a dozen of these cheapo TFF compilations over the years, with no less than four in 2001 alone (including this one). It wasn't successful and isn't noteworthy in the slightest, and even if we can find one or two more reviews for it, this article is never going to be much more than a tracklisting. It's already listed in their discography under miscelleanous compilations, which is more than enough. Guidelines state that "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". TFF's major compilations have their own articles because they meet the notability threshold, but since there are so many minor TFF compilations, keeping this one would be opening the door for inappropriate and virtually empty articles on all of them. I think a single article covering the basic details of each of them might be an option (though even that would struggle with notability), but this one certainly doesn't warrant an article by itself. Soultruck (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I take your point, but would the right course of action be to merge with the article on Tears for Fears? Vorbee (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't think merging it into the main Tears For Fears article is the right way forward, but Soultruck does offer a couple of interesting alternative solutions. On the band's discography article page, there is a list of "minor compilations" underneath the main ones, and perhaps each of these could be fitted with hide/show drop-down boxes that expand and provide the basic details for each compilation (tracklisting, year, relevant notes, etc). Using the hide/show system would keep the page uncluttered while still providing basic details for these releases for those who actually want to read them. A single article dedicated to all of the minor compilations is also worth thinking about but, as pointed out, it may not pass notability because there is so little to write about them. MassassiUK (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 1 December 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 07:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jigsaw (UK game show)[edit]

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

Admittedly, the generic name doesn't help, but I haven't even found the slightest indication this ever existed, let alone is actually notable. I've tried searching "Jigsaw", "Jigsaw 1986", "Jigsaw 1987", "Jigsaw Dickie Davies" (the purported host), and "Jigsaw Channel 4" and come up with absolutely bupkis in terms of reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Usually I'm all about keeping anything which transmitted on a national channel, but this one has me stumped too. I'd support a weak redirect to the presenter Dickie Davies with a mention of the format sourced through the ukgameshows link so it has somewhere to go, but it only aired 20 episodes so it's a coinflip here. Anyone with more sources would be welcome to expand this. Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find out anything about the show. I went on Youtube to look for clips to remind myself of the show, but couldn't find any. Canned after a month, so can't have been up to much. Szzuk (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My Google search wasn't completely fruitless; [84] suggests this isn't a hoax, and [85] says was scheduled to air on Channel 4 at 4:30PM on Jan 22, 1987. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 8 December 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. Inappropriate non-admin relist. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yolato[edit]

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

Is not notable enough to have an article see Wikipedia:CORP Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 1 December 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 04:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kawana Shoppingworld[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. a small one storey shopping centre. gnews reveals just routine localised coverage that fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i wouldn't necessarily call this a small shopping centre (maybe a medium one?:)), as gmaps shows it is around 45,000sqm, and it has over 150 outlets (according to shopping centre directory), i note that WP:NPLACE (yes i know it isn't a policy:)) has larger shopping malls often being notable while very small ones deleted, maybe this one could be merged/redirected to Buddina, Queensland if not found to be notable for a standalone? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is by far the largest shopping centre in the electoral district of Kawana and features regularly in the Sunshine Coast Daily and other local free papers, but also occasionally in the Brisbane Times, and as part of the Mirvac portfolio, in The Australian. On balance, Keep. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article itself looks quite borderline, and needs improvement, but as the editor above notes, it gets plenty of usable coverage in a variety of notable media outlets (as a Google News search will reveal), so I think it's worth keeping and expanding, as long as it doesn't get promotional. SunChaser (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (company). Not opposed to merge, but I don't think it is necessary, this is pretty much spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive coverage in the media (WP:SIGCOV). This shopping mall has one floor but it is not so small and is near to the seafront. Per WP:NEXIST: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" (big fat policy header). gidonb (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can you please give examples of this significant coverage? LibStar (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Google News. The list is long. I have stopped providing examples as it puts both unreasonable and unfair burden on keep sayers based on their honest analysis of data available to everyone. I will say this. Given the amount of WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV it is very difficult to reach any conclusion but keep. If you will start arguing with anyone who doesn't agree with your proposal, this discussion is going to be very time consuming for you. gidonb (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are,they are not verifiable. It's quite a reasonable and fair request to ask a keep !voter to list sources. That's unless you can't. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

secondly trying to dissuade me with "time consuming " arguments is lame. If I see faulty keep arguments they take no time to point out. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as I said: my opinion is keep as I saw the resources that justify this, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. I further indicated what (newspaper articles) and where (Google News) the sources are so there is absolutely nothing faulty about my honest opinion. I am done, however, with referencing each and every article for which I say keep as Wikipedia is becoming an unfair institution where people will just nominate any article, and I'm not saying you did this, in the hope that others will reference these or they can "score" yet another unjustified deletion. The sources are ready available through Google News, through the links that you provided above. Just stop the silly nominations and arguments and reference yourself. There is an abundance of very valid sources out there! Per WP:NEXIST's big fat header: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. gidonb (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing off-topic discussion - Please do not modify

These are a few of the sillier recent nominations:

Zwart-Wit '28 (honest disclosure: I did write this article) – per WP:FOOTYN the article is notable if the club participated in the national cup. Nominator nominated a club that actually won the national cup!
Alexandra Kluge – One of Germany's highest decorated actresses. Nominator clearly didn't look left or right and just nominated her. (Note the bio deletion regular who says" "Delete just plain not notable in either career.")
Espresso House – huge company, the Starbucks of the Nordic countries.

I'm not saying that this nomination is as bad but it is definitely out there in the sense that there is a large amount of fine references which the nominator could have added to the article, instead of nominating for deletion. gidonb (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ironically in the time spent writing the above response you could have easily listed sources. LibStar (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It had crossed my mind but I'm also educating others not to come up with unreasonable demands. On the long run it may safe time. Plus I take referencing serious and do it elaborately. See for example Evelyn Young. I want to encourage everyone to take their editor tasks serious and not pose inappropriate demands to those they disagree with. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on WP several years and participated in thousands of AfDs it's certainly reasonable to request sources when a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument is presented. Let me guess you'll keep on replying... LibStar (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, I did NOT make a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Also, did you make such requests of others in this discussion? Where is your attempt to reference this article? There are many sources in the link that you provided. gidonb (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate that in depth sourcing exists. That's how AfD works. LibStar (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that such unreasonable and unevenhanded demands have been made before, I agree. However not all that has been done before at Wikipedia is desirable. Hoaxes and vandalism, for example, are not. gidonb (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you accused me of being time consuming with arguing (when my initial response was one question). How much time have you spent arguing here? WP:KETTLE. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your questions and demands of other people's time. gidonb (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How much time have you consumed arguing here? LibStar (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than I like but 14 years at WP have made me patient. Or maybe it's just me getting older ;-) gidonb (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sealed off the digression above as this AfD belongs to all. My opinion is just one of six. Hopefully there will be more feedback. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This is a pretty clear case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES - yes I can see trivial mentions in google news (and google books), however I do not see indepth coverage, nor coverage from national newspapers. Only sunshine coast daily covers it. 18:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Actually, just merge a bit of content into Buddina, Queensland and redirect to Buddina, Queensland#amenities Galobtter (pingó mió)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ^{Babymissfortune} 01:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shantilal Muttha[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as the article's creator, the article meets WP:GNG due to the presence of reliable, independent sources. For example, this source is reliable, as an article from a major news website, is independent of the subject, and as an article about his hometown and his links to it, constitutes a non-trivial mention. -Hazarasp (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. MT Train^Discuss 14:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 7 December 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 List of universities in Pakistan. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inter University Consortium for the Promotion of Social Sciences Arts and Humanities[edit]

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

We don't cover such topics which have no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of universities in Pakistan. No significant coverage found. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment redirect per James. Störm (talk) 08:07, 8 December 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 07:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Bosc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept in 2008, and has gone steadily downhill since. The only active editor is pretty obviously the subject. the 2008 AfD was in a climate of much less robust policies on biographies and sourcing. This has a coupe of sources, but none pass the twin test of reliable and independent. "Keep and clean up" is fine, but when, years later, it hasn't been cleaned up, and the subject has added more cruft, I think we should pull the plug. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the past nine years we have not managed to grow participation in Wikipedia, but actually saw it decline. This has combined with a realization that we need to focus on a level where verrifiability applies. This has lead to specific requirements for notability of such people as musicians which go above and beyond the general notability guidelines and require meeting something more than minimal coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost a decade is such a long time. And for borderline notability things do change. Not sufficient independent coverage both in the article and from search. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:09, 6 December 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 07:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Amemiya[edit]

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

This article has been notability tagged since 2008. Non-notable manga artist who co-wrote on 07-ghost and battle rabbits No Japanese Wikipedia article. Recommend merge to 07-Ghost her most notable manga. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after being tagged for 9 years with no improvement, it is time to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all. The length of time an article has been tagged for improvement is not a rationale or reason for deletion. 104.163.154.101 (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that the artist hasn't produced any other notable works besides the two mentioned. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WatchDox[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. All the sources are standard business stuff - directory listing, notices of acquisitions etc. The rest appear to be press releases or reported interviews with key staff. Nothing here is independent, reliable and speaks to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is evidence of notability. WatchDox has received significant coverage in reliable sources^[1]^[2]^[3] per Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Also, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives_to_deletion, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page", "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input", and "A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem... they are intended to warn the readers and to allow interested editors to easily locate and fix the problems." Thinker78 (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of those three sources confer notability. All are about a buyout of the company by Apple. None give the company itself and its products any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although WatchDox may be just a little notable, I think it may qualify to be notable for Wikipedia standards. I found other reliable sources where WatchDox receives significant coverage -other than the Blackberry acquisition: Integration developer news, Wired and another article of Forbes. Thinker78 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources by Thinker78 are more than mere mention and do indeed show meeting GNG. Only 2 of the sources can be called mere mention but summing the remaining will pass WP:GNG and is clear sign that more may exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/blackberry-in-advanced-talks-to-buy-watchdox-1429620393
^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/maribellopez/2015/04/21/blackberry-acquires-watchdox-boosting-content-security/#4fd5756f38a5
^ https://techcrunch.com/2015/04/21/blackberry-watchdox/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deuchar Gordon[edit]

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

A person who was the president of a social club. Apart from that he was a small businessman and was on the committee of some community organisations. Flagrantly not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The social club mentioned is the Australian Club. Quoting from the Australian Dictionary of Biography from the bio on William Morrow (physician) may help others understand the notability of those who have served as its presidents. "Sir William had numerous friends and acquaintances outside his profession. He valued his membership of the Australian Club and served as president (1973-75) at a time when the club's premises in Macquarie Street were demolished and rebuilt. The governor-general, Field Marshal Sir William (Viscount) Slim, periodically sought his opinion on public issues by asking 'what does the Australian Club think of that?'" Castlemate (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Australian Club is notable, but it doesn't follow that any person who ever headed it is - and this is a discussion about Gordon. There is nothing else in his bio that would suggest notability: he seems to have been just another pastoralist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TROVE shows many hits. A lot of it routine, the equivalent of social media of the day. However, there is also sufficient "out-of-the-ordinary-citizenary" activity across several types of activity across more than a few years for there to be sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thank you Aoziwe for showing rare insight into how the world, in particular post-colonial Australia, actually works. The intro states "he was born into a socially prominent New South Wales rural family and was president of the Australian Club." Before reality TV a family like the Gordon clan had a place in society that made them notable. Membership of a club such has the Australian speaks to the notability of people of the era. To be the President of NSW's oldest gentlemans's club gave you a position in society. This is clearly something that today' amateur editors clearly don't understand and it holds Wikipedia back from being a useful resource. Castlemate (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per many of the above. Clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Request. As Gordon is not an academic or educator could someone please move this vexatious AfD to an edition sorting cat that is more appropriate than Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. As the nominators many attacks this month on my bios are now being "speedied" into history I'm sure this notable Australian will go the same way if viewed by appropriate editors. Castlemate (talk) 14:32, 5 December 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 06:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Murphy (mayor)[edit]

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

Non-notable local council politician. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter (commercial artist), members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of rural Mayor, MBE, failed candidate nor Newington old scholar are sufficient claims to notability without other evidence of significance. None of the references or text make any wider claim to notability, and I cannot find mention of him in the biographical dictionaries or first few pages of Trove searches. The contemporary Victorian lawyer seems to have a better claim to fame from that. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I could quickly find only one TROVE I was reasonably sure of here, and while definitive is still essentially only a mention even if a key one. There looked like more, reporting routine mayoral activity, but I was not about to spend the time working through all the struggled OCRing. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and as per Scott Davis above, fails to meet notability standards on any other criteria mentioned in the article. -- Longhair\^talk 05:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable due to his membership of the Centre Party at a time of political turmoil in NSW. Whilst nobody from that party was elected it is an important part of the state's history. The Blue Mountains is not just a rural area but an important tourist precinct at the time he was mayor. He received his MBE because he held that role and in his first term was host to Queen Elizabeth on her first visit to Australia. Katoomba was an important stop on that tour. Castlemate (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I went and read the Centre Party article. While the main figures in that party got about 20% in their district, this fellow got 2% in his electorate. Clearly his political profile was highly insignificant to the locals. Further, the local councillor's job is to promote local small businesses, so simply lobbying for some ornamental things to be built is no evidence being above the run-of-the-mill council politician Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, and no other claim to notability; sources are nothing close to WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The strongest potential notability claim here is the MBE, but that's not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt a person from having to be more reliably sourced than this is — and exactly none of the sourcing here is adequate, as it's referenced entirely to primary sources like the city's own website and the private internal records of his childhood high school and a civil BMD records database. So I'd be willing to revisit this if somebody could actually show some evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media, and hold no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody's willing to put the necessary amount of work into sourcing it properly — but nothing here is enough in the absence of solid reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Is he looking more interesting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castlemate (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. I still only see two sources (Lithgow Mercury and Sydney Morning Herald...did you really think a Blogspot blog was going to help?) that count for beans toward passing WP:GNG, but (a) they're both short blurbs, not substantive coverage, and neither of them has actually added any substance to the article besides nominally reverifying the basic fact that he served as mayor. If all it took to make an article about a mayor keepable was just two blurbs in the local newspaper verifying the election results themselves, then we would always have to keep an article about every mayor of anywhere. The key to making a mayor of a place this size notable enough to be kept is to add enough substance and sourcing to demonstrate that he's significantly more notable than most other mayors of places this size — all mayors always get local coverage, so just showing a couple of pieces of local coverage isn't evidence that he's special. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. It's snowing and notability has been very clearly demonstrated. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 10:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Cathro[edit]

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

A medium level public servant who is one of the deputy directors at a government organisation. Half of the 'sources' are broken or internal links to WP articles. Part of a series of non-notable articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) who writes heaps of articles on non-notable people from Newington College a high school.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Trove, eg Trove development. The subject here is (only) notable due to their (important) involvement in Trove (notability is not inherited), and about half of the current article is about Trove. The rest of the article, while referenced, is biographical but does not instill anything sufficient for notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considered the founder of Trove; and a number of awards are listed in the Honours section. SunChaser (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the merge argument were to be accepted then we would merge Harper Lee with To Kill a Mockingbird as she has inherited her notability from her one (important) novel. Near the end of her life she wrote another but Cathro was notable throughout his career for his involvement in the Australian Bibliographic Network, Kinetica and Libraries Australia. Please not that this AfD on a distinguished Australian librarian is part of an attack by a user with a highly suspicious eding record. Castlemate (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- When we can write an article as in-depth and as referenced as Harper Lee's is about this subject... Aoziwe (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps when our time isn't wasted on pointless deletion proposals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. The claim that he's considered "the founder of Trove" is not borne out by the sources: he's just one of many public servants who worked on a notable project. I'm not beyond convincing that he might be notable as a librarian, but the article doesn't try to make that case: it just rabbits on about Trove as if being a dude who supported its development in the course of his (non-notable) job results in inherited notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the article creator that this is a suspicious and bad-faith AfD nomination. The only editing this user has done is to AfD articles created by Castlemate: [86]. SunChaser (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is what the National Library of Australia says about "this dude" after his retirement. "At the time of his retirement in 2011, Dr. Cathro held the position of Assistant Director-General, Resource Sharing and Innovation at the National Library of Australia. In a career spanning over 30 years, Dr. Cathro played a leading role in the Library's delivery of innovative network services to the Australian library community including the Australian Bibliographic Network, Kinetica, and Libraries Australia. He was pivotal in the development of the Trove resource discovery service." [87] Hardly what I would call a "A medium level public servant who is one of the deputy directors at a government organisation." Who exactly has brought this AfD and why? Castlemate (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - At my government agency, of similar size to the NLA and therefore not of a full department size, the deputy/assistant DG is on the second rung, and would be the third rung on a full-size government department (SES 2). In a government department there are typically about 20-30 people of SES2 level, often they supervise 150 ppl. This is a medium level public servant, and overseeing the creating of a database is something routine for such public servants, and in no-way compares to developing eg a new tax/spending/foreign policy etc. Further it is routine each time some medium-high level manager retires, the govt website has a thankyou retirement bio on them on their contributions. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said in my !vote, I'm not beyond convincing that he might be notable as a librarian, but the article doesn't even try to make that case: it merely tries to claim inherited notability through his (not-founder!) connection to Trove. His position at retirement doesn't get close to notability. His limited connection to Trove doesn't get close to notability. If you want to make an argument that the middle bit gets him there, then it needs to actually go in the article with sources to back it up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect: The living people article most of the reference sources are used Wikipedia article for citations as source it seemed to be non-notability to the WP:SINGLEEVENT, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But Warwick Cathro is a founder of Trove, some of the materials it should be merge and redirect. SA 13 Bro (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cathro is an internationally known librarian and his work is quite important and influential. This stub should be kept and expanded. Merrilee (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have upgraded the references and none of them are to Wikipedia itself. Castlemate (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But some of the WP:FOOTNOTES need to be citations for improving the living person article in the future. SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Castlemate. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the work folks have done, Sadads (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trove is much more of an achievement than a "routine database" as it was mischaracterised above. I had some professional interactions with the National Library in the period prior to his retirement, when Cathro was acting National Librarian, so he was very senior in the library. Kerry (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many of the above. Clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep GNG. Queen-washington (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep With reference to "Castlemate who writes heaps of articles on non-notable people from Newington College a high school" - an editor's affinity to a school should not necessarily make their articles deletion worthy - *any* old high school could have noteworthy students passing through. Trove is certainly a highly used research tool and knowing its creator is a definite net positive addition to Wikipedia. Influence counts for more than departmental rank (this is an unfortunate criterion that ails AfDs for academics too because great teachers often fail in publication metrics). Shyamal (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scott Fletcher[edit]

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

Non-notable priest/headmaster. While he was a professor, no achievements are disclosed. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter (commercial artist), members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro, and local council members such as Aubrey Murphy (mayor).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Not notable. -- Longhair\^talk 06:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let's all stop and read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. First, I note the remark "no achievements are disclosed" seems to overlook the obligation on those who wish to delete on the grounds of notability are required to have made "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" as article content does not determine notability. For example, do we lack reliable sources that he founded Kings College (which I think is one claim of notability)? My quick Trove search seems to show the man to be constantly in the historic newspapers, so I feel that "thorough attempts" were not made. Secondly, the criteria for deletion is given in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for deletion and says nothing about the motivation of the creator of the article; users are free to create articles relating to their special interests and this is not spamming. I believe the nominator should withdraw this and other proposed articles for deletion based on the same invalid rationales and take the time to consider whether these proposed deletions are warranted on grounds of notability alone after thorough attempts have been made to find reliable sources and without unproven allegations about the motivations of the article's creator. Kerry (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He did not found Kings College. 1.124.108.125 (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was the foundation master though, being appointed in 1912 with the college opening in 1913 ? Aoziwe (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than sufficient in TROVE to support WP:NEXIST to support GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that a targeted search of "M Scott Fletcher" brings forward 2,683 newspaper reports via Tove I believe it is fair to say that this minister (not a priest) university college master (not a headmaster) and professor (surely of its self a distinction) has a level of notability and that this spurious AfD should be brought to a speedy close so that we can deal with the nominator who seems to have a new cover as User talk:1.124.108.125. Castlemate (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kerry et al. Clearly meets GNG. The shameful ad hominem attack on the article's creator, in this and the OP's other nominations, is irrelevant to the subject's notability, and suggests the lack of a more cogent rationale for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:00, 5 December 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 06:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Phillips[edit]

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

Non-notable school headmaster. No achievements disclosed. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter (commercial artist), members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro, and local council members such as Aubrey Murphy (mayor).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Not notable. -- Longhair\^talk 06:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see anything that makes this subject notable. Aoziwe (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. School principal is no claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable school headmaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly not an ordinary schoolmaster or headmaster. When no less an Australia icon than Max Dupain is moved to say "Thanks to my English sixth form master, Sandy Phillips, I learned to love Shakespeare and can still quote numbers of salient extracts which we were required to learn by heart".^[1] This was not published in an alumni publication but is part of his own biographical notes in a major retrospective exhibition of his work by the State Library of New South Wales. Based on Phillips publications alone he is notable. Unfortunately as those calling for deletion are in places as remote as Detroit Michigan I doubt that they can understand the role of Headmaster in an historic and notable Sydney school. Please note that this is one of many AfDs brought against my work in the first week of the nominators arrival on Wikipedia. Fortunately many of them are being seen as unworthy and being dismissed with speed. Castlemate (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Max Dupain Modernist Retrieved 6 December 2017.

- Irrelevant and illogical argument. A famous photographer happened to have this guy as his English teacher (totally unrelated to the actually notable person's achievements), therefore the non-notable schoolteacher becomes notable because the famous photographer found him interesting/fun. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure why someone went to all the trouble of writing about a non-notable school headmaster. Article author needs to read WP:N. 104.163.154.101 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Headmasters will require extraordinary achievement to meet WP:GNG talkless of WP:ACADEMIC. And the weird attempt to inherit notability based on single comment by former student/photographer is another reason for delete. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Social Security number. Sandstein 06:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Social Security Area Numbers[edit]

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

This article is hopelessly out of date and offers nothing useful that isn't covered in the main Social Security number page. It should be deleted or merged. Zerbey (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-encyclopedic and original research (see the last paragraph in the article). Pburka (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Social Security number. This is in fact accurate and not original research. The social security administration has the same list on their website: https://www.ssa.gov/employer/stateweb.htm --Rusf10 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This part is OR: "Table above though it has been duplicated from a social security web site has been proven to be inaccurate. Multiple real world observations have verified numbers in the 590s were issued out of Florida in the late 1980s into the early 1990s." Pburka (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence either needs verification or removal.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This website supports the claim, but I think we need another source: https://stevemorse.org/ssn/ssn.html

Keep But trim the OR below the table. Useful, appropriate information, would be too big when merged into any other article, and partial merge is useless. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the table with Social Security Number and delete the rest. –dlthewave ☎ 04:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see much purpose in having a page that is essentially just a republication of an on-line listing. And a link to this list already appears in the External Links section of Social Security number. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging DGG (talk · contribs) who accepted the draft for Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
Pinging Talk:List of Social Security Area Numbers participants: Hux (talk · contribs), RoseHawk (talk · contribs), and AndrewAllen (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. It's not obsolete, just historical, and WP sdoes and should retain historical data. But I agree there's no reason for a separate article.I'm not sure why I didn't suggest a merge back in 2014. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the entire table and all sourced content to Social Security number or keep.
Sources I found about Social Security area numbers:
1. Chappell Jr., Robert P. (2013). Child Identity Theft: What Every Parent Needs to Know. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 130–131. ISBN 1442218649. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
2. Crow, Jerry; Bennett, Barbara. "Structure of Social Security Numbers". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 2017-12-04. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
3. Hammond, W. Ed (1997). "The Use of the Social Security Number as the Basis for a National Citizen Identifier". The Unpredictable Certainty: White Papers. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. pp. 286–287. ISBN 0-309-06036-2. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
Cunard (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard Those quotes seem excessively long - I've removed them as copyright violations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These quotes from book sources or articles are fair use. These are not copyright violations. Cunard (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the spirit (if not literally the letter) of WP:NOTMIRROR - imo, a verbatim copy of data from some other source is not encyclopedic. -- Hux (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Social Security number because it is not mere copy of external sources; it is in its current form because that's necessary to retain its factual accuracy. @Hux: Even in Copyright issues when you copy factual/invariable tabulized data, comparison softwares/copyvio check will reveal high matching but it is still not copyright once the data cannot be converted to prose without losing its essence. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this list differ from the external source? What changes were necessary "to retain its factual accuracy"? Pburka (talk) 20:28, 7 December 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] Franklin Institute, The. "Announcing The Franklin Institute Awards Class of 2018". The Franklin Institute. Retrieved 1 December 2017.

[Kremer-2] A. Kremer-Marietti, J. Dhombres (2006), L’Épistemologie, Paris: Ellipses.

[3] Bachta, Abdelkader; Dhombres, Jean G.; Kremer-Marietti, Angèle (2008). Trois études sur la loi constructale d'Adrian Bejan. L'Harmattan, HARMATTAN edition. p. 133. ISBN 978-2296055452.

[Kalason1015-4] P. Kalason, Épistémologie Constructale du Lien Cultuel (L’Harmattan, Paris, 2007).

[Reis2014b-5] Reis, Antonio Heitor (2014). "Use and validity of principles of extremum of entropy production in the study of complex systems". Annals of Physics. 346: 22–27. Bibcode:2014AnPhy.346...22H. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2014.03.013.

[AIP1-6] News Staff, AIP. "The Evolution of Airplanes". publishing.aip.org. AIP Publishing. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

[AIP2-7] Media Line, AIP. "Why Celestial Bodies Come in Different Sizes | AIP Publishing". publishing.aip.org. AIP Publishing. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

[AIP3-8] Meyers, Catherine. "Improving Energy Storage with a Cue from Nature | AIP Publishing". publishing.aip.org. AIP Publishing. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

[Forbes1-9] Kosner, Anthony Wing. "There's a New Law in Physics and It Changes Everything". Forbes. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

[Forbes2-10] Kosner, Anthony Wing. "Why Nations (and Businesses) Fail, But They Don't Have To". Forbes. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

[STEAM-11] Gayle, Lola (7 March 2016). "Why Do Celestial Bodies Come In Different Sizes?". STEAM Register - Heating up S.T.E.M. and making STEAM. STEAM Register. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

[12] Berlin, Jeremy (30 May 2016). "What's the Meaning of Life? Physics". National Geographic. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

[WSU1-13] LEACHMAN, JACOB. "How universities evolved tree-like hierarchies | HYdrogen Properties for Energy Research (HYPER) Laboratory | Washington State University". hydrogen.wsu.edu. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

[ABM-14] "The Constructal Law - Astrobiology Magazine". Astrobiology Magazine. 28 August 2012. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

[HP1-15] Mazur, Suzan (17 April 2016). "PART 2: A Wide-Ranging Conversation with Physicist Geoffrey West on Life, Evolution and US Presidential Politics". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2 December 2017.

[FI2-16] "Committee on Science & the Arts". The Franklin Institute. 22 February 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2017.

[17] "Adhoc: Exploring the German Offspace, Fiona Grady - Dateagleart". 15 September 2017.

[18] ttps://www.wsj.com/articles/blackberry-in-advanced-talks-to-buy-watchdox-1429620393

[19] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/maribellopez/2015/04/21/blackberry-acquires-watchdox-boosting-content-security/#4fd5756f38a5

[20] ttps://techcrunch.com/2015/04/21/blackberry-watchdox/

[21] Max Dupain Modernist Retrieved 6 December 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]