Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 December	16 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic Search Engine[edit]

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

Spammy article on a community project of no objectively proven notability. Created and edited by apair of accounts that specialise in writing spammy articles on minor commercial entities, a lot of which get deleted. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- With Google really dominating the search engine market over the past decade, there are only a handful of other search engines that have widespread use (or at least they did in the past). This one is clearly not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Yeah, sorry, but I'm inclined to agree with that. There are not enough non-primary references to justify keeping it (Not notable). ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 16:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree with Rusf10 and MattLongCT. The Queens Award Magazine prize seems the most notable secondary source mention, but not much information is given in the reference. As the article currently stands, this could be a web crawler developed as a class project - interesting for sure, but like Rusf10 said, there's nothing to establish widespread use. Google search seems to bring up a lot of SEO spam - not seeing much useful.

I did do a Google Scholar search. Filtering through other uses of "Majestic-12", this patent and this paper (behind paywall) look like the best potential of a week keep argument... but someone would need to do the work to find more reputable references and explain notability. I'll stay with my delete vote unless persuaded otherwise. = paul2520 (talk) 16:32, 19 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 Draftify. ~~If you want a copy moved to your user space please let me know~~ The article can be found at Draft:They Are Billions J04n(talk page) 17:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They Are Billions[edit]

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

This article was un-redirected to its developer. The game is unreleased, meaning it is very unlikely to have multiple reliable sources covering it in depth. At present, the WP:VG/SE pulls up a PCGamer announcement, a GameStar early access announcement, a Gamestar beta announcement, Gamestar announcement, Bluesnews announcement. None of this is WP:SIGCOV, so the article should be deleted per the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Move to draftspace as WP:TOOSOON. I'd suggest redirecting to the dev article, but that's also at AfD. --TL22 (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to move to draftspace per Ferret's vote below. --TL22 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 11,553 viewers watching 100s of streamers streaming this game right now on Twitch. That is a wide enough release to not be too soon. We can always delete it later, if this quite huge audience (for Twitch) turns out to be a complete aberration. Thue (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Twitch is not a reliable source for the design and critical reception of the game. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can see actual gameplay. Which is obvious enough for a basic understanding of the game design, for a basic article. For critical reception, I don't see how that is required for a basic article. Thue (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actual development and design information, and reception, are what establish notability for a video game. --Izno (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, plenty of development and design information is available just by looking at the published gameplay. And view numbers is part of reception. Also I don't accept that only articles establish notability for a video game. Thue (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the game in depth? (For this domain and a game which is not in the mainstream, that's basically articles.) If not, the article misses our bar for notability. Popularity on a streaming website is not a secondary source and inference of development and design from gameplay is original research, which is verboten. I have provided what I believe to be actual sourcing, which is weak, at-best. Do you have anything to show? --Izno (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:TOOSOON per nom. Popularity =/= notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify There seems to be some new coverage since this AFD opened. RockPaperShotgun and GameRevolution both covered it in the last two days, BluesNews has covered it again when Early Access began, as well as several other sites. With TOOSOON being quoted, draftification would be better than delete, as TOOSOON indicates a general expectation that it will become notable if it isn't yet. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or alt. user draft. Definiantly way too early with only one reference. One of the extra sources from above states the game is in an initial early access state with further developement due in the Spring of 2018. Please note: So there is no confusion; the article is not ready for coverage yet and my alternative to delete, of placing in draft-space, can in no way be construed as to mean "keep" as an article. Otr500 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace per WP:TOOSOON. Multiple sources for the coverage of the game haven't been provided. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:10, 22 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) 16:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rotterdam[edit]

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

This article appears, on the face of it, to have been started by a spammer, re-created after deletion by a different spammer who edits all the same articles, and buffed up by the subject's PR. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What reason for deletion are you proposing?104.163.155.42 (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comment as to notability right yet, but the bombs are going to start falling. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see some stuff, it appears a lot of it will be in German. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books has lots of entries. It helps to search under "Paul Zwietnig Rotterdam". I saw one monograph published by randomHouse in Germany, and another entry was for "who's Who in Art" . The sources are certainly there to establish at least WP:GNG, even if the article is currently nauseating.104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty in Google Books to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be started by not-good -editors but the person is indeed notable in many respects. I have added his entry from German National Library, and found this source and another one from Leopold Museum, one of the most important Museums in Austria. The article's external link section also has many valuable resources when expanding the article. In addition, the German version of the article has valuable referenced content –Ammarpad (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Page needs cleanup and more/better references, but this artist is notable. = paul2520 (talk) 16:23, 19 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. ansh 666 00:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numantian Games[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Remover of the template asserts the existence of sources, but a search with the VG search engine drags up nothing covering the entity in depth, much less multiple or independent sources. The article should be deleted per the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As failing WP:NCORP. -- ferret (talk) 14:45, 20 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) 16:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Swami[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass the notability tests for his field. Article was created by a user whose name matches the subject, so a likely autobiography. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. FITINDIA 17:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is not LinkedIn. Good luck on the job search. Quis separabit? 17:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI. Definitely does not meet GNG/PROF. South Nashua (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Sandals1 (talk) 20:37, 21 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. For the record, that a term is widely used does not mean that it is notable enough for an article - we need discussion on the term specifically to establish that per WP:GNG. Also, we have Wiktionary for term definitions. Also, most people arguing against deletion appear to be single-purpose accounts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data-constrained modelling[edit]

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

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}}.

I'm astonished we still have this article. It was written by the person it claims originated the term, the early revisions are deleted as copyright violations of his published work, and virtually all the sources are his papers. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "data-constrained modelling" has a high hit rate in Google keyword search, and has been published by a range of rigorously peer-reviewed journals and other publications. These are indications of the community acceptance. It would serve as a helpful reference if the term is included in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yangys au (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Yangys au (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Yangys au (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete As written, it's vanispamcruftisement for a topic that is far, far more narrow than the title would suggest (most scientific models are constrained by data in some way!). The most highly-cited paper on the topic that I can find ([1]) has only 43 GS citations, which is well below any reasonable standard of notability (recalling that GS casts a pretty wide net for what counts as "published"). XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'data-constrained modelling' appears widely in the literature (Measurement Science & Engineering, Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering, Modelling & Simulation in Material Science & Engineering, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, Advanced Materials, Journal of Thermal Spray Technology, Physical Review E, Fuel, Materials & Corrosion, Materials Characterization, ...). A Web of Science search indicates the term 'data-constrained modelling' refers exclusively to the approach described in the article.The software that embodies the technique is available for download from the CSIRO Data Access Portal (CSIRO is Australia's main government research organisation). It has been downloaded and used by researchers in Australia, China, Europe and the USA, including RMIT University, Monash University, Melbourne University, Deakin University, several institutes of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Stanford University, Manchester University, Shanxi University, Tinjing University, China University of Petroleum and North University of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murphy Tony Dr (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — Murphy Tony Dr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Actually, I've seen the term used verbatim in ecology, in a sense that has nothing I can see to do with 3D microstructures. Also avalanche dynamics and paleoclimatology. (It's a very generic-sounding term.) Availability of the software for downloading does not count towards notability, nor does the fact that the authors have themselves published repeatedly. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly see a compelling reason why it should be deleted. For people like me, it is a useful source of reference. For those people who don't need it, it is harmless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.26.34.65 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — 218.26.34.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:USEFUL and WP:HARMLESS. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misleading attempt to appropriate a widely-applied term for one person's output. If the described approach (setting modeling bounds based on available data) is sufficiently rare in microstructure research for the author(s) to specifically dub it with an acronym, good for them, but it doesn't merit an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Piggybacking on what others have said, this pretty much falls into WP:NEOLOGISM territory for the way the author is trying to stretch the term. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is widely used, a constructive action is to add the missing information. A widely used term should not be deleted. 61.157.136.229 (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — 61.157.136.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hilario P. Davide Sr.[edit]

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

Unref. No notability other than being a father. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED. Considering it's an unlikely search term, I'm against a redirect at this point. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not Inherited--Rusf10 (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, so we do not create an article about someone just because he was the father of a notable person. His name can be mentioned in his son's article, and already is — but nothing here entitles him to have his own standalone biography as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited,. If okay, the article could be redirected to his son's page instead. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people do not become notable because their son is a chief justice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 17 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 last two keep arguments are not offering any rebuttal to the GNG based deletion arguments. Also, a lot of references mentioning a term in passing is not evidence of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infonomics[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)

Article on a Gartner-coined term of art, rather obviously created by a Gartner staffer (update: the editor self-identified on-wiki as Doug Laney, the coiner of the term). I just pruned 48k of web links from this. Calling WP:NEO given the absence of academic sources to back up the Gartner coinage. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:GNG through reliable 3rd party sources. At best it is a POV-fork from the legitimate Information Economics article. MarginalCost (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - This article references dozens of sources including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Forbes, various research organizations and universities, and others involved in and helping to develop this new economic concept. Is not about any individual or company. No one owns the IP or other rights whatsoever to the infonomics concept. Doug_Laney (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)EthansDad — Note to closing admin: Ethansdad (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment I really like this Google Scholar search result:

Herring, Benjamin L. "Join our Tribe and you could win an Infonomics Hoodie!." Infonomics 35 (2009): 4.

And I also like this claim:

The term is a portmanteau of "information" and "economics" but should not be confused with information economics or economics of information which refer specifically to how information is used in decision-making, rather than how information behaves or can/should be treated as an economic asset itself.

But only because the very first reference in information economics is to a paper titled "Information as an Economic Commodity". XOR'easter (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was not a neutral encyclopedia article before it was radically cut for good reasons. Rather, it was a brochure written to promote a neologism, and written by the person who coined the neologism. This person has been edit warring to keep in crappy promotional content rife with promotional external links. The conflict of interest is obvious for all to see, and if the self-promoter had good sense, he would cease and desist immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is "vanispamcruftisement" a portmanteau or a neologism.? David in DC (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both, I guess. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's either one or the other but not both, XOR. E Eng 22:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. Great essay. David in DC (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable neologism masquerading as a field of study blantly violating WP:NOR. No reference that defined the term as such level of "academic discipline" or study field. Add to the apparent conflict of interest with editor who want promote the term using Wikipedia violating WP:NOT again. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources are provided discussing this term. Therefore it fails according to our notability guideline. As stated above, at best this is a POV fork from Information Economics. Also, the blatant self-promotionalism of this article, and the edit-warring by its creator, ought not be rewarded. David in DC (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipeida is not a Gartner marketing blog. Billhpike (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it stands is the mere shadow of the grotesque self-promotion it once was. Don't forget to review the creator's edit history, and What links here, to root out the tentacles extending elsewhere in the project. E Eng 05:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note for completeness this discussion at ANI. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't said a thing about my XOR joke. E Eng 15:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it until just now. But I like it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley you know you're a sitting duck with a username like that. E Eng 22:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - As usual, Wikipedia self proclaimed guardians are trying to get rid of content they don't understand...Ydemontcheuil (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time Ydemontcheuil (talk · contribs) voted to retain an article, she also invoked Gartner’s coverage of the topic. [2] I hear a quacking sound Billhpike (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - as Research Director at Bloor Research - a competitor to the Gartner Group - I think this article should be retained and, indeed, expanded. Infonomics does not, in my opinion, represent a subset of Information Economics. In particular, the latter doesn't have the granularity I would expect from Infonomics. For example, determining the value of a particular dataset to a specific business objective within a single organisation. Yet that is precisely what some vendors are doing (even though they don't call it Infonomics - and probably won't if the term gets too associated with Gartner).InfoPhil (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — InfoPhil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's actually an argument to delete. You basically said that it's a neologism whose currency is likely to be reduced because Gartner tries to "own" it, as we have seen here. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InfoPhil (talk · contribs) has indicated that he joined Wikipedia just to make the above comment. See [3] Billhpike (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've opened a sock puppet investigation. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ethansdad. Billhpike (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. But, I now have a burning desire to start an article on vanispamcruftisement. Ifnord (talk) 14:24, 22 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) 22:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sapience Analytics[edit]

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

WP:PROMO. Strongly promotional article. Persistent and obvious issues with COI editing of the article. Looks like the encyclopedia has been mistaken for a business directory. Dolescum (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam against WP:NOTSPAM. Lacks coverage in independent and reliable sources. Careful analysis of the sources will show they are all one (in substance) promotional materials themselves. They are: "Sapience is promising start up" (7 instances); "Sapience is ranked this and this..." (7 instances also) then the remaining are "Sapience partners this and adopts this" This is prime example of WP:SPIP generated by press releases and some references are merely called (duplicated). No real independent coverage of the company per se to meet WP:CORPDEPTH–Ammarpad (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 22 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. Disambiguated title makes a redirect perhaps less useful, but I wouldn't object to it. ansh 666 00:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unstable molecules (comics)[edit]

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

"Unstable molecules" are mentioned in several books on comics, but only as a term and never going into any significant depth on the subject beyond the fact that they prevent superhero costumes from ripping. The article is entirely WP:OR and more fitting for Marvel Wikia, but fails WP:GNG on Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Fantastic Four: Unstable Molecules. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:27, 18 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana[edit]

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

Not notable. Deprodded with "If counties in general have lists of cemeteries, this is a legitimate geographic entity". No, if there are other lists of non notable elements, they should be deleted as well. Lists of non notable elements in general shouldn't exist. "Geographic entity" is not a get-out-of-jail-for-free card, we don't have list of all streets, all library buildings, all ... If none of the cemeteries are notable (like here), and the topic in total isn't the subject of indepth significant attention either, then it should go. Feel free to nominate all other such lists which meet the same criteria of course. Fram (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN; as a stand-alone list, if the group hasn't been discussed as a collective by reliable sources "(...a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source)," then it has failed WP:V, or likewise, withi that, per WP:CSC, that every item within the list has demonstrated its notability and has an article. Unfortunately the items on this fail that criteria; there is no body of work (in news or literature) on the cemeteries as a group, and per WP:WRITEITFIRST, the list items themselves are redlinks. I hate to say it, but that seems not surprising: they are all stated to be mostly around a few hundred metres in size. Further, regarding the geographical articles they link to, in only one is the cemetary actually mentioned; of the other six, three are not mentioned in the relevant article, and the other three places they are linked to do not even articles. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 22:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, non-notable list. Do you know about the existence of the Category:Lists of cemeteries in Montana by county? These all seem to be similar articles and I'd recommend deletion of those too. --Rusf10 (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The division of a series of lists of places by county is not one for which LISTN has any meaningful application, because it's an obvious and clearly factual basis for splitting up what might otherwise be a very large list. The statement above that failing LISTN means failing V is simply false (though the converse would be true; if it is not verifiable then it cannot be notable), as we don't need sources to describe a group for us to independently verify for each entry that it belongs to that group. If the cemetery is verifiable, its location must be.
The question here is instead whether there are enough valid entries to merit the split generally rather than maintaining one statewide list. We do not have many articles in Category:Cemeteries in Montana, FWIW, which may mean that there are more left to write or that there isn't much potential, I don't know. Incidentally, the essay WP:WRITEITFIRST is contrary to the consensus-supported guideline WP:REDLINK, and so provides no authority to cite "per" even if it wasn't also bad practice (really, if you wanted to kill article development, removing all redlinks would be one of the best ways to do it).
But a good argument could be made that documenting cemeteries, whether or not they merit standalone articles, is a valid part of our function as a gazetteer per WP:5P. Cemeteries are a significant part of a landscape and the communities they have served, both physically and historically, and I certainly see no conflict with policy or other downside to documenting them in lists such as this so long as they are verifiable. And it is not necessary for individual entries in lists to be notable (see WP:CSC), though I think once the research was done we would find plenty of sources on most of a certain age and/or size. So keep. If you feel strongly to the contrary, a general discussion on cemeteries may be the way to go rather than picking a random test case. postdlf (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A cemetery can be a significant part of the landscape, many are not though, and it looks like most (or all) of the ones in this list (and in many similar ones) are not. Feel free to actually do the research and show us wrong though, instead of claiming that "plenty of sources" exist. Fram (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good thing that "claim" wasn't my argument or all that I said. postdlf (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that wasn't your argument for this article, then why raise it? Keeping this article because plenty of sources may exist for other articles doesn't really make sense. Fram (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, that's not my argument, nor is it what I said. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not necessary for individual cemeteries on this list to be notable, but WP:GEOLAND suggests a redirect to a parent article is appropriate where we don't have enough sources that give us verifiable information beyond simple statistics. If it's felt that Powder River County, Montana needs a list of cemetries in it, then redirect to there. Otherwise delete unless someone finds sources suitble for WP:GNG that allow us make this list something more than a copy of co-ordinates from USGS.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A better redirect would be to List of cemeteries in Montana. Delete this and we've just punched an arbitrary hole in the state given that it's all subdivided by county. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Jesus, let's delete all of them. Or perhaps you think we should copy that entire USGS database to Wikipedia because "Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer"? We could have List of streams in Hot Springs County, Wyoming and List of slopes in Spink County, South Dakota and List of Post Offices in DuPage County, Illinois and don't forget List of gaps in Coffee County, Tennessee. No need to stop there though if sources can be found we can do the same for every country in the world.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share your concerns about figurative and literal slippery slopes here. Cemeteries are geographic and cultural features for which we should develop our coverage even if we do not ultimately keep every item presently listed, regardless of what we may decide on other geographic features. And there's no reason we shouldn't take the time to do so rather than frantically clicking the delete button. I'm going to rank your first comment in which you mention redirecting as a possibility as more constructive than your second one. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It makes sense to look at List of cemeteries in Montana and the county-level lists as a whole, since the whole set was created systematically in 2010. I'm also concerned that the massive number of redlinks in these lists may be doing us more harm than good. Many cemeteries have very common names such as Valley View, and most of the bluelinks that I've come across in the county lists have led to a different cemetery with the same name in a different state. –dlthewave ☎ 19:08, 20 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) 17:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Matthew McCarter[edit]

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

This article, written by a WP:SPA with an obvious WP:COI is close to A7 material. The subject has written a small number of books with very minor publishers, and is namechecked for some activism, largely with his wife (the same SPA wrote her biography too). The claim to notability appears to be WP:PROF, but that looks like a fail. As does WP:NAUTHOR. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His academic work other than his principal book (Homo redneckus : on being not qwhite in America)is utterly trivial, and the book is not so important as to justify an article, especially considering the coi DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete books insufficiently notable to carry him past WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROFESSOR; fails to show much in either news archive searches or in searches of books and scholarly literature; books are out form a minor press. Being a nominee for a Pushcart Prize, while not sufficient to support notability, may be indicative of WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 17 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) 17:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed music videos in the first 24 hours[edit]

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

The information is almost identical to the List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours, as most of the videos on that list are music videos. Unlesss there are many non-music videos that make the normal list (which already excludes music trailers), this article should not exist. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Duplicative, and even if it wasn't, would fail WP:IINFO. James (^talk/_contribs) 22:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list very subject to furious F5'ing by fans and bots, plus where are these stats from; YouTube, Vevo, iTunes, MTV, Music Choice, some random Polish chartfan? We have zero idea and this uses several references from disparate ranking bodies, not one universal number. Nate • (chatter) 04:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough videos on the list. List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours exists. Excelse (talk) 11:07, 21 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. ansh 666 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cymmetria[edit]

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

This article had a WP:PROD but it was removed by a SPA so I am copying the PROD reasoning here:

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP not found. Recently graduated from Y Combinator startup accelerator, which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. Created by Special:Contributions/Thedm with no other contributions outside this topic. Article cited to routine corporate news, funding announcements and WP:SPIP sources, such as Y Combinator itself. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Insufficient reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Rhadow (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC) -- And what's with the See also list?[reply]
Delete -- confirming my PROD above. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. borderline ntoability and clear promotionalism, which = delete. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This page now shows that the company has been featured in multiple legitimate news sources/publications, confirming WP:GNG and disproving WP:SPIP, this includes Infosecurity Magazine, Dark Reading, and Business Insider. Additionally, the company has made multiple important strides in innovation for cybersecurity, being the first the use a commercial deception product to capture a targeted threat - which was covered widely across the industry - proving it is not simply an advertisement. 07:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.212.91.7 (talk • contribs)

— 162.212.91.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep.The list of sources has been further fleshed out to include all relevant and notable company converage, thus eliminating WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP as issues. 09:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allijfried (talk • contribs)

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

Keep.Recent edits to the page show that there is plenty of relevant coverage on the company and its achievements from a wide variety of reputable and verifiable sources, therefore countering the WP:TOOSOON argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annatw96 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Annatw96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment -- looks like this AfD has been attacked by SPAs... K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the SPAs are more likely footwear. Ifnord (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as failing WP:NCORP. Ifnord (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Depth of coverage is limited to related business sources, and promotional. WP:GNG states: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and that is just not evident on a Google search. The article is also referenced by the company website concerning "security operating center" (ActiveSOC or ISOC) content against WP:ORGIND. More than one reference uses only passing mention, and some unreferenced content "Since its inception, Cymmetria has been recognized multiple times by the global cyber security company for its innovation.", is either WP:OR or WP:synthesis. Content "Globes named Cymmetria one of Israel's 16 most promising startups in 2016", proves existance among many and not notability. We have a company article that is just an indiscriminant company profile listing. ---- Otr500 (talk)

Additional comments: This is just an internet security startup company, of which there are many. A long list (only partial): Illusive Networks Ltd., TrapX Security Inc., Arctic Wolf, Arxan, Awake Security, BitGlass, Carbon Black, Claroty, Crowdstrike, Cybereason, Cylance, Deep Instinct, DuoSecurity, Druva, Forescout, Illusive, Microsoft, Netskope, Okta, PAS, Perch, SecurityPhantom, Qadium, Recorded Future, ShiftLeft, Stratozen, Strayspark Lab, Swimlane (Phoenix DataSecurity), ThreatConnect, ThreatStack, and Vectra. The vast majority of these are recent startups, and notability sourcing is almost exclusively limited to the tech-business reporting world, that make their money advertising for these companies. Pick any one and Google "(name) + cyber-security". We already have a fairly new orphan article Deep Instinct and others like Fidelis Cybersecurity, Accumuli Security (orphan stub), and Impermium (2014 orphan stub survived AFD with a comment "We can make exceptions when it helps the reader". Most articles like these, and the can of worms allowed because other stuff exists serve no real purpose but dictionary listing of companies. *Many of the "sources", like Cision or Tech Insider, or TechCrunch just provides company press release information that does not support notability.

Creating these company profile type articles, where notability is limited to one field just adds relatively unknown corporate listing articles to Wikipedia, and of those that are not bought out, the vast majority will just sit around as a stub article never making the level of Fortinet. They are more often than not (like this one), incubated startup companies, sources often just brag of the "millions" of new cash they raise, and they are generally not "worthy of notice". However, if some closing admin thinks Wikipedia needs these I have provided a long list of other not notable companies we could then add. Otr500 (talk) 15:07, 22 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. ansh 666 01:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Ali[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill model/actress. Edwardx (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources Agricola44 (talk) 06:19, 18 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. Fails WP:V, which means it even fails the old SCHOOLOUTCOMES test. *cough cough* ansh 666 01:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges[edit]

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

Because it is private, for-profit business so it has to pass WP:NORG which it fails. Störm (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't disqualify articles just because a school has a for-profit model. You've previously nominated this article and it was closed with a procedural keep; no improvement in this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 18:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just copied and pasted your comments without doing proper research. They are business ventures and can't be kept based on the fact that they are high schools. Störm (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what you've done, you've spammed the AFD list with schools with exactly the same comment for each one. If you are interested in improving quality, you can research the school, you can also post this school to relevant geographical, cultural and education Wikiprojects. You can also leave a message on their talk page. Have you done any of these things?Egaoblai (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ article has a few minor grammar errors, a few of which I have corrected. Otherwise no evidence of a problem. Disallowing non-government schools would be geographically systematic and ideological bias. Egaoblai (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egaoblai Provide a single source independent of the subject before repeating your comment. Störm (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of adequate references to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references show verifiability not notability. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as secondary schools per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why the nominator thinks it makes a difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Why not? Winged Blades^Godric 04:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)This !vote was struck after Ritchie's relisting.Winged Blades^Godric 14:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as your premise for deletion over the profiteering nature of the school/business is flawed because an educational institutions isn't subjected to deletion over its nature, regardless private or non-private. As for the lack of references, adding additional sources will just do well. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failing our core policy WP:V. Störm (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sufficiently significant chain. For those who don;t like school articles, keeping this has the added advantage of providing a place to merge or redirect to. Of course being private is irrelevant., and "why not" is not much of a deletion arguments--to be fair, it wouldn't be much of a keep argument either. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of independent sources. I have searched for sources using the term "Laureate Group of Schools", which is what the group's website uses, but haven't found anything reliable. The consensus that secondary schools are kept is breaking down (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School‎), but even if we continue to take that as a guide, the consensus was never to keep articles without independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG, WP:V and WP:RS. Even fails to mention in the article in what country they are working... The Banner talk 20:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this AfD as "no consensus", but as new information has come to light that this article may be a hoax (see User talk:Ritchie333#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges (2nd nomination)), I am re-opening and relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To briefly emphasise the points I made in the discussion Ritchie mentions, the subject's website states that the school or group of schools is "affiliated with Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education & Cambridge University of London". Cambridge University of London does not exist, of course, and checking the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education website led me to this list of affiliated schools, which doesn't list any schools with the name Laureate. I conclude from this that the school/group is either a hoax or is not officially recognised. As I argued above, it should in any case be deleted due to a lack of coverage in independent sources, but I believe that this makes the case for deletion even stronger. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:V. Try finding any address in the contact list. Don't confuse the company with Laureate Education of Baltimore, with holdings all over the world, but none, apparently, in Multan. I'm not sure if they teach English at any of these schools either. It's a mystery to me why they would include a letter of congratulations from a Prime Minister whose election was overturned retroactively by the Supreme Court. And to all y'all who voted to keep, I see now that investigation of the particulars is not necessary to a discussion. Rhadow (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree it fails WP:V. I was able to find a few buildings from their contact list (see the discussion on Ritchie's talk), however the lack even one reliable source on it makes it unsuitable for an encylopaedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--I have selectively informed all the keep !voters of the re-opening of this discussion.Winged Blades^Godric 14:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete--CLarry has hit the nail on the head.Even iff we keep schools, just because we are fond of schools, we don't need be their sole credible companion in such gargantuan promotion coupled with a farrago of distortions & outright lies.Period.Winged Blades^Godric 14:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When the allegation of HOAX is made, are you saying that the school does not exist, or that there are questionable things on its website? because that's a big difference. According to their website they claim to have students winning honors from BISE MULTAN http://laureategroupofschools.com/?page_id=54 I did a search for a 2011 winner but got nothing except a page that won't open for me: https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/314874 The records awards only seem to go back to 2013, So I don't know if the school is defunct. A search on the BISEMULTAN website seems to have no record of it, so either they are defunct or they have left BISE MULTAN.

Next I did a search for a student mentioned on the awards page and got these results that appear to confirm the existence of the school: "Laraib Jameel (Roll No. 6,914) of Laureates Girls High School, Multan, secured the third position with 1,009 marks." (https://www.dawn.com/news/481621) and while "...Laraib Jameel of Multan Roll No 6914 grabbed third position respectively..the position holders were students of ... Laureates Girls High School Shah Rukn-i-Alam Colony Multan respectively." (http://fp.brecorder.com/2009/08/20090802944295/) So it does seem as though the school existed in 2009 at least. Egaoblai (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the subject is supposedly a group of schools rather than a single school, Egaoblai. It may be that some of the schools listed on the website exist (or did exist), but I'm not convinced that they all do (see the comments about addresses above and also the very clearly photoshopped images here), and some of the details on the website and in the Wikipedia article (such as about affiliations) are demonstrably false. So, there are various aspects to the hoax possibility. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Egaoblai:--I can't speak for others but as I said, it seems that there exists at least one school (this was verified on Ritchie's t/p too to physically exist!) with near-nil media coverage.But, much of the entire website fits my last line of my !vote.Where do you currently stand?Winged Blades^Godric 16:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a firm supporter of schools on this wiki, but in this case, we don't appear to have WP:V (the most important rule on the website for this "collection" of schools, even if one has been proved to exist. So leaning towards Delete for now. (although this doesn't endorse future AFD or CSDs if more sources can be found for individual schools)Egaoblai (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- if a chain of schools has been graduating kids for 25 years, how come the addresses fail to bring up the site of a school or more than a mention of a single graduate in a newspaper? This entry in Google maps doesn't convince me 30°11′50″N 71°30′56″E / 30.1971722°N 71.5154846°E / 30.1971722; 71.5154846 Color me a skeptic. Rhadow (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ I'm glad to see that the nominator accepts that we use a special guideline for public schools at least--for that was in fact the conclusion of the RfC on SCHOOLOUTCOMES that there was no consensus to change that practice. But it dosn't make sense to just say government-operatedschools, for in many countries private non-profit schools(Eton, Harvard, etc. have the same status). So I suppose what was meant in the nomination was private profit-making schools, operated as a business. But this makes very little more sense, for in some countries like India and the US, these are important segments of the educational system and can have similar standings (that some of us may not particularly approve of them in general is another matter, for we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of that sort of political preferences). :the argument for deletion must therefore be that this is not a school at all. It of course is not an individual school, but a group of schools, but the argument for keeping such groups is even stronger, for we use them as redirect targets for primary schools and the like, school districts for example, but sometimes also cchains of proprietary schools. As for being real, the evidence presented above confirms the existence of the group. It's not unusual for institutions in India and Pakistan and in South Asia generallyto have erratic web presence-- especially 25 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing here with DGG in regards to the bias against private schools. This is a very western-centric notion that private and or independent schools are a vulgar breed of schools. We shouldn't be using this in deletion discussions.Egaoblai (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence are you referring to specifically, DGG? I agree that the nomination rationale doesn't make much sense, but I've still not seen an independent source confirming the existence of the group, and the group's own website contains demonstrable falsehoods, so I don't see how this passes WP:VERIFY. Also, you have already made one keep comment above, and you're not allowed two. ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

internet penetration is not bad, but it is erratic. A very small number of Indian and Pakistani and neighboringcountries newspapers are accessible on Google, and for even 10 years ago, even in the US/Western Europe, the availability of material on the internet remains variable, and remains a problem here for all older material. It's going to remain a problem indefinitely, because the need for preservation was not really recognized. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that we should keep the article despite the fact that no independent proof of its existence can be found, because not many Indian newspapers are available on the internet, when the subject is in Pakistan? I'm starting to wonder whether you even look at school articles before voting keep these days. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I fixed my omission. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your first part isn't much relevant.Also, it's in Pakistan.And I would take the claim of 25years ago with a grain of salt.And, internet penetration is definitely not so bad, that it does not feature in the list of affiliated schools on board-website.Also, to avoid potential putting up of more strawmans, this AFD isn't currently focused on the rationale that this ought to be deleted because it's a private school.And, as much as that wasn't any good argument (Public schools are quite popular in SE Asia:)), pseudo-hoaxes about schools with zero verifibiality about the group must be kept because schools are always kept is not one either!Winged Blades^Godric 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - at first, I thought it was part of Laureate International Universities but I couldn't find anything that links them directly. I'm not quite sure why the Pakistani group chose "Laureate" for their name. Perhaps they are an accredited group of schools that utilize their own curriculum but I think it warrants further investigation to be on the safe side. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Atsme -- The name could be a coincidence, or a ripoff. Try these two: Okan University in Turkey. Okan International University in Florida. Rhadow (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cordless Larry, unless substantial independent reliable sourcing is found to demonstrate the existence (at the very least) of an entity named "Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges". A group of private schools is not a school but a corporation or organisation; this one easily fails WP:CORP. The three references in the article are all to a website which may, or equally may not, actually be the website of a group of schools – anyone can create a website. Weak evidence of the existence of a "Laureate Girls' High School" has been cited above, but that is not the topic of this article. DGG, what sources persuade you that this group exists? Atsme, I made the same mistake – I came here to propose a merge with Laureate International Universities and a possible move of that to Laureate Education, but found the topic was quite another. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In as much I agree with DGG's argument, there is fundamental issue of verifiability around this "school". Cordless Larry's comment below the second relist is particularly insightful. That said, private high schools are more for business than education entities is generally true. So without independent sources, no reason for this article to exist. We should shouldn't keep CORP because they attached "school" to their brand –Ammarpad (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm on the same page as Ammarpad. If it was a public school, or government funded educational institution - different story - but they are a private organization and as such, they fail organization. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally, I wouldn't see how public/private is at all relevant, but in this case it does invite further scrutiny due to the article's peacock wording/promotional nature. —cnzx 00:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme and Cnzx, surely WP:VERIFY applies equally regardless of whether the group of schools is public or private? Promotionalism can be fixed, but a lack of independent sources is the real problem here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Larry - thanks for pointing that out. I cited WP:ORG because the first paragraph in the first titled section, Decisions based on verifiable evidence, addresses that concern without having to mention all related PAGs individually. Verifiability of legitimate public-government funded schools is different from the in-depth, multiple RS verifiability needed for private institutions/organizations that may not be accredited institutions of learning/higher ed. I suck at brevity - perhaps I should have mentioned the key points in that guideline. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - for what it's worth, I emailed a professor at the University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan for verification of this group of schools, and the response was "haven’t heard about these as a group or chain of schools and colleges. The name “Laureate” has been used separately by a few though." ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case this should be speedily closed as delete of hoax. The article creator (whose talkpages reflects his problematic Wikilife) has ceased editing since early 2017. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:45, 21 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. ansh 666 01:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arpan Srivastava[edit]

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

No reliable sources are available to support the subject's notability. The sources given in the article are predominantly unreliable. Would recommend a delete here. Lourdes 15:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of those refs seemed to be about him. If notability can be established, I'm happy to change my viewpoint, but this seems like another GNG failure. South Nashua (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a journalist with insuficient coverage about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I did some research and found that this journalist has written more than 3000 articles for news websites. He is one of the most widely read authors among those who read political content on social media. He seems to write for SatyaVijayi which is a leading political news website in India. Here's one link of his too : https://satyavijayi.com/author/arpan98/Indianath (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Should Not Be Deleted There are enough sources to bring me to the conclusion that we should not delete this page. This is one such: https://www.modikhabar.in/entrepreneurial-success-arpan-srivastava-editor-chief-satyavijayi-com/Gurubram (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Striking !vote by sockpuppet; see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Indianath. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Renowned Author " The journalist's news stories get a huge readership among politics lovers in our country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhinchchuza (talk • contribs) 10:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Striking !vote by suspected sockpuppet; see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Indianath. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:10, 18 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 withdrawn. Seems to be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avaza software[edit]

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

Paid for spam. The subject does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT, WP:CORPDEPTH or the GNG: the references are to press releases or advertorials in low-quality sources, and I can't find any more substantial coverage. The more over-the-top promotionalism has been edited out by Melcous, but let's not give the spammers a buy one get one free offer on this non-notable software/company. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 15 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 and recommend the proposed RfC. I do note, however, that Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines states clearly that standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline., which is already being discussed. ansh 666 01:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Sandanayake[edit]

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

Fails GNG, relies on routine statistical coverage in Cricinfo and CricketArchive. Per this RfC, SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. Dee 03 15:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thank you at least for bundling these rather than treating them separately. There's no point arguing individual names if it's felt that they all (by whatever "policy"/"guideline" you wish to choose/invent) fall short of WP standards rather than separately. I still personally believe that discussion was one of the messiest, most hacked-together discussions I've ever seen on Wikipedia and the fact that anyone draws consensus from this discussion is nothing short of deceptive to the aims of the encyclopedia. But... you know. The fact that such a solution is pussy-footed around without being an absolute is the precise prognosis and diagnosis of the problem and is indicative of the disgusting nature of this whole business.

I have no business voting here. WP:CRIC is already being destroyed beyond all recognition. What's the harm in doing so further? Bobo . 16:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Notability,

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

Whether or not these articles meet GNG is irrelevant, as they meet the SSG, as specified by our overarching notability guideline. Harrias ^talk 18:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- The subject specific guideline in this case is just plain absurd, giving notability to a person who appeared in one game at some time, when in academics for example even being a tenure-holding professor who has had multiple books published by top university presses does not grant notability. For example I have been debating creating an article on Carl J. Christensen, who was dean of the College of Mines and Mineral Technology at the University of Utah and later Director of the Engineering Expereiment Station at the University of Utah. He was before joining the University of Utah factuly in 1946 (and taking up the post of dean) a researcher at Bell Labs, involved in developing SONAR. Christensen was the first dean of that college at the University of Utah. I am still weighing if there is enough to show he is notable. My main point is that the notability threshold we have for cricket is just unworkably too low. I think it is too low for several other sports as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the policy is wrong, that needs discussing elsewhere. Harrias ^talk 13:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Guidelines", with respect Harrias, not "policy", but in principle I agree with you. The fact that GNG is as much a "guideline" as CRIN is apparently irrelevant. It's a shame that all these people who claim CRIN is too low have not had enough influence on the project over the last 13 years to alter it. Bobo . 18:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --This article has insufficient references to support the biography of a (likely) living person. A WP:BEFORE search turned up another statistical database entry, but no other coverage that would provide basic biographical details, including first name or year of birth. Rhadow (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG is entirely relevant for (presumably) living persons. These BLPs fall under what Wikipedia is not, more specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All I see here are poorly-verified articles created by interpreting stat databases. As I have said in similar discussions, if there is one significant source that can address the BLP issues, I will gladly change my !vote.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can get what everyone is saying. I still believe deletion is a more accurate conclusion based on our policies but an RfC to confirm that first would be beneficial. Keep for now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All pass WP:NCRIC, which is the core SSG of which WP:CRIN is the fuller version. Johnlp (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all It is time to scrap the junk notability guidelines for cricket players. If people have not bothered to even record an individuals first name, this shows no one has really ever felt they were notable enough to merit indepth coverage. The general notability guidelines is the minimum, area specific guidelines can tell us that we need to go beyond GNG (such as the guidelines for politicians indicating that the routine coverage all candidates get is not enough for notability), but they cannot trump the general notability guidelines. There guidelines are general and apply everywhere. This is especially true when it is just statistical database entries. Wikipedia is not a directory, and articles need to be supported by more than directory listings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "junk notability guidelines" are identical to the "junk notability guidelines" in every single other competitive team sport on Wikipedia. Bobo . 09:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all- These articles all have the same unsurmountable problems. They're all just a few spreadsheet cells from a statistical aggregator inflated into a semblance of prose. It's not even possible to determine the full names of the subjects, and the single source has been demonstrated to be occasionally vague about unambiguously identifying the people it lists. Since most or all of these players are probably still alive, the sub-minimal sourcing is a problem from a BLP standpoint. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I do not understand why notability is being cited as the reason to delete when it is only a guideline and all of these short articles fail verification – a fundamental policy. To my mind, without verification there is a risk of original research – another key policy. Arguments about notability – a subjective issue – will vortex into a never-ending circle. I do not know if these articles should be kept or deleted, but I think the case as it stands is invalid. In law, it would be kicked out of court.

I have read the site rules about short articles and they are acceptable (as "stubs") given verification. There is a lot of steam about missing first names but that is a non-issue. Convention in cricket scorecards is to use initials and surname for non-Islamic players. Tongue in cheek, how would you add single-appearance Islamic players to your list when you cannot spot the initials? Waj (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is as much a "guideline" as any subject-specific notability guideline. Bobo . 09:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- (ec) I'd say notability is being cited as one reason to delete, with verifiability being the other. Yes, I know that it is the custom for scorers to use only initials and surname for most players, but that does not excuse the lack of coverage. It also introduces the potential for ambiguity. For instance, is it really possible to tell if the J. Bloggs who played one match for Herplingshire in 1909 is the same person as the J. Bloggs who turned out once for Derpleswick in 1915 based on two scorecards that both list just "J. Bloggs"? Or are they two different people with similar names? This problem has actually turned up, but the defenders of these wretched microstubs seem to think it doesn't matter about getting peoples' identities right in biographical articles. I think it's fair to say that CRIN no longer enjoys community support, can no longer be used to trump WP:N, and definitely cannot overrule WP:V. Reyk _YO! 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works by quoting secondary sources. If our secondary source suggests that the two players are different, how are we to argue otherwise? Bobo . 10:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see notability as any reason to delete because a case must rest on objectivity. Notability is highly subjective. The "J. Bloggs" example proves the necessity of verification, that is all. My argument here is that those seeking deletion must cite non-verification as their argument on the grounds that the articles as written are potentially original research. That is the only proper way, logically and logistically, to proceed as otherwise you will (if you have not already done so) descend into a pantomime argument of "oh, yes, it is notable" and "oh, no, it isn't". Please do try to be objective and if there are available sources then put them into the articles. Waj (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies need to be both verifiable and notable for inclusion. I could verify the headteacher of every local secondary school in this area through a range of substantive, secondary sources. Barely any of them would, however, be notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. In cases such as the articles under discussion here, we need to do more than verify that they exist - we need to also be persuaded that it is likely for us to be able to go beyond the mere statistics through the existence of the sorts of substantive sources necessary to build a more complete biography. That requires a degree of subjectivity, just as it does in many other cases regarding notability. The fact that articles such as these are at AfD suggests that there is likely to be some doubt about that. AfD is generally for articles which are in the "grey area" between notable and non-notable - if the subject is obviously notable then they won't be at AfD. This almost certainly brings us into the realm of subjectivity - which is why I generally need time to research and think about each case and which is why it is often entirely reasonable for perfectly sensible and rational people to arrive at slightly different conclusions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing. No, your argument is cart before the horse. Verification is a fundamental policy and notability is a guideline so it is a matter of precedence. If an article has no sources, it fails verification and, subject to the time limit I have already asked about, it must be deleted for that reason. These articles are all what are called "stubs". They are very short but, potentially, could be expanded. If verification is provided and the articles do not breach any other policies, it is then and only then that notability considerations come into play by reference to guidelines such as the NCRIC and GNG. For example, let us suppose that we have verification of C. Fernando's appearance for Kurunegala against Singha in 1992–93 but then, with notability in mind, it is realised that Kurunegala were not a first-class team at that time and the match was a friendly. In that eventuality, you may now delete C. Fernando for failure to comply with the NCRIC guideline. Can you not see the essential difference here? You cannot equate a policy with a guideline. It is like saying that a white paper proposal is equal to a statute. It is ridiculous. Waj (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said a) that both were needed and b) that it was entirely possible for perfectly sensible people to hold different opinions about such things. Thank you for suggesting my argument "ridiculous". Unfortunately notability cannot always be objective. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly such is the problem with apparently no longer being allowed to stick by bright-line criteria. Which has become a disgusting blot on this project as a whole. Bobo . 09:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, it is entirely possible for perfectly sensible people to hold different opinions about such things. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of any notability. As per the nom. Wajidshahzeed - notability is key simply because it is Wikipedia policy agreed by a consensus of editors. This is not debatable here, it is the standard by which articles are judged. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Velella. It is worrying that someone with such a high edit count can state: "notability is key simply because it is Wikipedia policy". It is not a policy of any kind, let alone a key policy. It is a guideline. You are entirely wrong. A policy and a guideline in any sphere of activity are two completely different concepts. To say that there is "no evidence of any notability" is meaningless. There is evidence of notability, unless all of these articles are hoaxes, in that each one says the man played first-class cricket. I play cricket but I will never play first-class cricket and so I am not notable, but I have a colleague who has played first-class and he is notable (he therefore has an article on this site). If you had said "there is no verification" your contention would make sense. Waj (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Waj comes up with a good point. How can GNG trump SSG if GNG is as much a "guideline" as SSG? This is misleading. The policy in question is NPOV - which is being severely overlooked. Bobo . 10:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is that, true, but I think that is a general concern. The specific concern in these articles is verification and, from that, the risk of original research. Waj (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at C. Fernando, there is an external link to CricketArchive. That is a subscription site which I cannot access. It is a statistical database which culls its information from scorecards. If C. Fernando took part in a first-class match and CricketArchive has this in one of its scorecards, then the man is a notable cricketer. An external link does not, in my opinion, verify a source. It simply directs the reader to "other information" where there may not be any specific mention of C. Fernando. The site link might be about his team, for example. Waj (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ (changed to keep below) per WP:V, but these are presumed notable per WP:NCRIC. The problem isn't notability; it's verifiability. Cricket Archive allows its members to add information to its site, meaning it is not a reliable source. See here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rob. You are the first contributor who has recognised my argument that the problem here is verification. Notability is at best a red herring and at worst a false premise. It beggars belief that people here think a mere guideline carries more weight than a policy – and verification is fundamental among policies. The NCRIC guideline does confirm the presumed (currently) notability of these people if they DID play first-class cricket. It is therefore essential to provide appropriate sourcing in each article, as has been requested. Is there a time limit for compliance with a citation request notice? Notice was served on C. Fernando, for example, on 10 September this year. Is three months long enough or is a longer period acceptable? I assume that interested parties must be deemed to know about the notice via their watchlists and so they must be expected to take action within a reasonable time span. I am beginning to think I should vote for deletion but I would like to know if the formal notices carry a set time limit or, failing that, a "norm" established by consensus or general usage. Waj (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Membership" of CricketArchive by a cricket club means a club may make scorecards of its own matches available through the site. That is part of Cricket Archive's plans to move further into local club/grassroots cricket. At the levels where WP might be interested in teams and individuals in terms of notability (first-class, List A and T20 games), scorecards are handled by CA's own staff and fully verified before publication, and always have been. As far as WP is concerned, we can be confident that CricketArchive is a reliable source (though not, of course, infallible). Johnlp (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Bobo . 18:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP itself is not a source but instead depends on other sources. Störm (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192: Of course, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and this is documented in core Verifiability policy. I am actually surprised, you asked this question and your have been here for over a decade and an Administrator. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, just pointing out the irony of "reliable sources" on a source not considered reliable... Bobo . 19:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but sincerely your statement above is a polar question –Ammarpad (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. Both WP:CRIC and WP:NCRIC guidelines have one important caveat. "Presume". Passing CRIN, NCRIC and even GNG only make the subject presumably notable, in plain languauage "Temporarily notable". Only existence of significant coverage about the subject in multiple independent, and reliable sources can guarantee permanent notability. All the above topic are parmanent stubs because the subject are not really notable –Ammarpad (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not even close to how we define presumed. Presumed is defined at WP:GNG to mean that it is suitable for an article unless a reason other than notability is provided to delete it; merges, WP:NOT, etc. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See similar nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CE Holkar. Störm (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is reasonable to believe that these people are all living and I am advised by administration, pursuant to my questions raised above, that "the existence of an unreferenced BLP is a serious policy violation and it can be deleted on that basis alone". I would therefore support the deletion option if referencing had not been done. I am not qualified to comment on notability.

If I might make a suggestion about this sort of article, would it not be better to have a line about the player in a club list? For example, there are lists of all players for English county clubs which state name and years of activity. For a one-off player, why not expand his line in the club list to say he only played in one match, which was against Anyshire in 1999, and he scored x runs? Waj (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the light of the comments by User:Wajidshahzeed, I have provided three inline citations for each of these seven first-class cricketers; two relate to the CricketArchive site which is behind a paywall, but the third relates to the free-to-view (so far) espncricinfo.com. Johnlp (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a difference as all the articles have verification now. I have therefore removed my deletion vote and converted the above entry to a comment. Thank you for adding the citations. Waj (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I've struck my above !vote and am changing here now that Johnlp has provided inline cites to a website owned by ESPN, which has a history of fact-checking. That is a WP:RS, so WP:V is now satisfied. These meet WP:NCRIC, so notability is presumed in the absence of significant reason to believe these articles violate policies other than notability. One of the delete !voters says it best when they say "It is time to scrap the junk notability guidelines for cricket players." Perhaps, but that requires strong community consensus far outside the realm of individual AfDs. If your goal is to scrap a specific notability guideline, take it to an RfC, per WP:TALKFIRST. We don't do that at an AfD of all places. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Same reasons basically as Bu rob. And I find the serial lame commenting of a certain editor here to be unconstructive. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as articles which are (now) cited to verifiable, reliable sources. AfD is definitely not the place to "scrap...junk notability guidelines", but rather a place to work within existing ones. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that the newly added citations are once again statistical profile/scorecard which fall under routine coverage and provide us with zero new information about the players from what the original source (CricketArchive) did. GNG requires significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", and these articles are still a long way from satisfying the "significant coverage" criterion. Dee 03 03:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second the point made by User:Dee03 and therefore suggest the low profile bios to be taken down (Delete). Also on the basis what User:Johnpacklambert said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CE Holkar: "If people have not even bothered to record the full name of an individual, and if the coverage is only in statistical databases, there is a total and complete failure of the GNG". Well Existence ≠ Notability and It is evident that we need to revisit the WP:CRICKET bios criteria. --Saqib (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also endorse Dee03 and Saqib's comment. The sources added are mere statistical records that shows existences and verifiability but never meet minimum guideline for biography. I wonder at some keep votes whose reason are solely based on " they are verifiable " Verifiability is never reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, millions of things are verifiable but unencyclopedic. Despite Notability being guideline it is the first in inclusion determination, then verifiability. If something is not notable even if it's verifiable it cannot be included in encyclopedia. The Verifiability policy itself makes this clear outright, WP:ONUS.–Ammarpad (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD should remain open for 14 days as I and other WP:CRIC members need time to find the sources. Will vote in the end. But clearly AfD is not a place to scrap WP:CRIN (i.e. they should start RfC). Störm (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rob13 speaks sense. If people want the wording of all NSPORT guidelines to change from "presumed" to "likely", they can start an RfC. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has the AFD nom followed the steps in WP:BEFORE? That is, to challenge the presumption of NSPORT / NCRIC here, you must show that there are no other sources available for these athletes to meet our content policies. That includes searching local print sources. I don't see that. Just because the article is only sourced to statistics sources doesn't meant it fails the notability guideline, the AFD nominator must show that it likely would fail by reasonable absence of sources. --Masem (t) 17:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong appeal for speedy keep - I know that the people who have proposed for an AfD may not be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. One of the goals of WikiProject Cricket is to write all the cricket related biographies who have played in First-class cricket, List A cricket and T20 cricket. Just assume, a footballer playing for a club team is considered to be notable under WikiProject Football. I think just for the sake of a missing given name it could have been nominated for an AfD. Cricinfo is a reliable database similar to Soccerway, which is a football database used as a primary source in creating football biographies. Like Soccerway, people should think websites like Cricinfo and CricketArchive are also reliable cricket databases when referring or extracting information. Abishe (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! How I enjoy these discussions. WP:BEFORE is an excuse to send others on snipe hunts. Prove there is no such thing as a purple squirrel. ... And interpretations that sound good. Speedy keep. There was no error. The nominator didn't change her mind. Nothing that qualifies it for a speedy keep, except that it sounds good. Rhadow (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development. New initiatives are taking place at WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. I believe a hold should be placed on these discussions where notability is the issue but not where WP:V is in question. Regards, Waj (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep while there are still some significant conversations going on. In order to stop our project from being completely destroyed by bored deletionists, we need to have proper conversations in the correct places, and individual AfDs are not the right place. Bobo . 17:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All- Very difficult to establish notability and keep when we don't even know their full names.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- for lack of significant coverage that discusses each subject directly and in detail. Wikipedia does not aim to create an exhaustive directory of all athletes who played in a given game. In the case here, WP:SIGCOV is sorely lacking, to the point that the full names of the subjects are not known. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Sources are just not adequate fro WP:Sport or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Partisan deletionism should not be a factor in considering the contributions of our content contributors as precious. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 21 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 defaulting to keep. Mixed on whether subject meets Wikipedia:ACADEMIC. ansh 666 01:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Howard (academic)[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. No achievements disclosed unless being the brother of a prime minister and voting for the opposite political party makes him notable. 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 Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Not notable. -- Longhair\^talk 06:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Does criterion 8: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." no longer apply? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot see anything that makes this subject notable. Aoziwe (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as a former editor of the Current Affairs Bulletin, as a current member of the executive council of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Australia’s oldest think tank, and as a Fellow of Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS) at the University of Wollongong. His brother and voting passions are irrelevant even though the press report on them and the same would be true if his notable brother Stan had a bio on Wikipedia. In bringing this AfD and supporting its call for deletion all involved should read closely Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Castlemate (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Academics are judged on their research notability eg research papers, new theories, awards etc. Simply being on a state-level committee (of a dozen ppl, which is around 100 committee members across Australia doesn't mean anything). Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see required claims and sources to establish that this person is notable. 104.163.154.101 (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Suspicious activity. This last 'vote' has been cast by an editor who joined Wikipedia a few days ago to support the activities of the nominator Adsfvdf54gbb (talk). In a sock puppet investigation the nominator admitted that they were a past editor but refused to say when, where or how. The last time this sort of attack occurred against the creator of this bio was 2007 and the person responsible was @ExtraDry: who has long been blocked. Castlemate (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: editorship of Current Affairs Bulletin (a journal published by the University of Sydney, so of good repute) satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that a journal is published by a university does not mean that the editor(s) is/are automatically notable. Many journals are edited by undergraduates. Secondly, I checked the online archives and most of the articles are 3-4 pages and don't even say which uni the author is from, hardly typical of a serious journal article. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not notable as per nomination.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rusf10: please can you explain why point 8 of WP:ACADEMIC, discussed above, does not apply? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assume you are referring to him being "a former editor the current affairs bulletin." The source does not say he is the head or chief editor, just an editor (there are probably more).--Rusf10 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Rusf10: Every source that lists him as editor lists him, and only him, as the editor at the time. Or do you have evidence for your supposition? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could find no academic works published by Howard, nor any citations from the Bulletin since 1998. It ceased publication June 1998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadow (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ceased publication is irrelevant. we do need to clarify the position, but that's no reason to delete the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrary to what was claimed above, the editorialship that this individual held is not the type that leads to notability for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see much for WP:GNG. As for WP:NACADEMIC, the guideline specifies a "major, well-established academic journal". The Current Affairs Bulletin appears to be, from what I can tell, a fairly minor publication (it seems unlikely to be notable itself, in fact). Frickeg (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He objectively meets Criteria #8 and arguably meets # 3 of WP:Academic. I don't understand the assertions to the contrary and, therefore, I see nothing that meets the criteria for deletion. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as a former editor of the Current Affairs Bulletin, as a current member of the executive council of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Australia’s oldest think tank, and as a Fellow of Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security. WP:Not paper. The history of the original editor of this article is an Ad hominem fallacious argument. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was all ready to close this as a keep, following DGG's comment and taking into account that the "delete"s aren't too specific, but looking over the article and the sources again I am just not convinced. #8 of NACADEMIC is met only if the journal is indeed notable, and that is not yet proven; neither is it proven that ANCORS is "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". So, sorry, but I'm going with delete. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:7&6=thirteen, are you serious? Of course that's fluff--"he's a noted researcher": what does "noted" even mean? Who noted him? How could such a vague statement stand, and where are the secondary sources that confirm this? The "reference" was his faculty page! We should not just jot down people's interests based on their own say-so; rather, it takes secondary sources to verify those statements. So yes, fluff. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is almost more information in the wiki article on the subject's family than on the subject himself, which would offhand seem to be a sign of either poor wiki-article writing, or lack of notability. On the other hand the very common name makes for great difficulty in researching him, and, in addition, the article creator has previously proved to be not very good at article creation or researching. Rather than dismiss this article out of hand, I would recommend allowing Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia to improve it, and see if they can come up with more targeted sourcing (given the common name) and notability. SunChaser (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term "major, well-established academic journal" in clause 8 of WP:ACADEMIC does not equate with, nor logically imply, notability in Wikipedia's technical sense (WP:N). A journal's status as "major" can be established by reference to citations, impact, and editorial policy, even if we can't find sources specifically about the journal, such as we would need to write a Wikipedia article about it. We can't confirm the impact of Current Affairs Bulletin quantitatively through, e.g., SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), as we could for a contemporary journal; but we can observe that in Google Scholar, it's easy to find scholarly citations to Current Affairs Bulletin, although it's not easy to find accessible full text for this journal that ceased publication in 1998.

As to very short articles, lack of indication of affiliation, etc.: Current Affairs Bulletin underwent a change over its history, from its origin in 1942 as an educational publication for the lay public or to educate soldiers, to its later role as a journal. Compare early issues from 1949 or 1951 with articles from 1995 or 1998.

—Syrenka V (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I don't see this meeting WP:ACADEMIC. Current Affairs Bulletin is not a significant publication; I don't think editorship here would confer notability under PROF, and there's nothing better. Accomplishments are not significant; does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 21 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. ansh 666 01:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loxie & Zoot[edit]

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

Non-notable web comic strip. Has no sources, likely is entirely original research. Rusf10 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for same reason as stated last time (published in Australia, unique concept). Is there anything new in the nomination that wasn't covered in the previous one? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources, which are non-optional. It is irrelevant if something got a publication deal, a "unique concept", or a long runtime. It's all about whether independent publications consider the topic notable enough to write articles on it. Back in 2005, this guideline was either completely ignored, or did not exist. Wikipedia has evolved. ~Mable (chat) 12:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ – There exists at least one really good source on this topic: this Webcomic Examiner article. Crowley has also won a Ledger Award, which is a notable achievement. Lastly, there is an interview in Comixpedia. I'm still not sure if Comixpedia is considered reliable. The issue is that this is all, and this isn't very much. It would be impossible to create a "reception" section based on this, for example. If more reliable sources pop up, I would happily change my vote, but this is just too little to work with. ~Mable (chat) 12:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to ~~Neutral~~ – I missed a second link to Comixpedia on the page, not that it is much [4]. Through some Googling, I found another interview, however! This one is by Comix Talk: [5]. I still think it is weak, so I'm not going to !vote "keep" just yet, but, well, I really don't know. Of course, if Comixpedia were deemed unreliable, this would be a "delete" vote. ~Mable (chat) 12:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I started a draft for rewriting this article, I noticed that the Comix Talk and Comixpedia interviews are mirrors of one another, basically decreasing the number of sources by one and making me switch to a "weak delete" !vote again. It doesn't seem like it matters much either way, with the number of "keep" !votes that followed my analysis, but oh well. The sourcing is weak, so I don't think I can bring this article to C-class as I had hoped... ~Mable (chat) 08:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Maplestrip but the lack of sources is a sell off. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The web-comic features non-sexual full nudity by various characters, from children to senior citizens, both male and female, drawn with fairly realistic style with no shame or focus on any particular body parts; this is not something that most media is comfortable promoting without linking it to porn, which this is not. There are several other web-comics that have frequent or even constant displays of nudity, but these are usually in sexual contexts, so not in the same vein. This puts this comic is a pretty rare strata.

Grace has not updated the web-comic in over a decade, so there are very few, if any, new articles covering it. Most of the articles that covered the web-comic a decade ago have been taken down by their publishers over time, for one reason or another, leaving very few articles about it still accessable. So it makes sense that it will get harder to find third-party "reliably sourced" articles about it. Unless the author puts a promotion push on this web-comic, I do not expect to see many new articles covering it, which seems to be the sticking point of this AfD.

The website where the sequel The Bare Pit was hosted has been shut down and that web-comic has not been posted to another web-comics host as yet, Wayback Machine not withstanding. The author is concentrating on the superhero comic Magellan of late, but even there not consistently. It is not unusual for the once-a-week schedule to slide a week or two, so I do not expect that any attention will be paid to this comic in the near future, but at the same time, I do not expect it to go away either.Nutster (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really nice if some of those old sources (if they exist) could be dug up through the Wayback Machine or Web Cite. I know some other sources of this time, like Sequential Tart and T Campbell's A History of Webcomics have never mentioned it. I have hardly read everything, though. ~Mable (chat) 22:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:WEBCRIT since the creator won an award (The Ledger Awards) for the material. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Agree with Argento. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:58, 15 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. Seems like we don't have evidence of notability here; the other article was kept not because of Alexa rankings but because the delete arguments were much weaker. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TamilFunda[edit]

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

Non-notable website, fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG and just about everything else. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listed on Alexa as one of the top website. --AJITHKUMAR (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being listed on Alexa is not a notability criteria... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the top Tamil websites on Alexa rankings. Alexa is an independent source that has no vested interest in the given Wikipedia topic. So, Alexa can be used for web notability.--AJITHKUMAR (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AJITHKUMAR Please see this link to see why it's really not...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had created articles based on Alexa rankings. I created the article for India Study Channel in 2013, it was India's largest educational website during that time but recently it has moved to the seventh place. The article still exists. You can also read its discussion, Articles for deletion/India Channel Study. M.K.Dan (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crunchbase is well established as not counting towards notability by now (based on consensus in virtually every AfD of the past year). Alexa rankings are primary sourcing, and thus do not count towards the general guideline found in WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither Crunchbase nor Alexa are worth anything when it comes to meeting the GNG. There are no other references in the article, and I found none. The site itself looks like churnalism or even just a parked-domain with ads. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:53, 22 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) 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of Commons Recess Dates[edit]

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

Unclear why the recess dates of the British House of Commons would be a notable subject. We have them listed now since 2012, we are only lacking some 700 years or so of these dates... Fram (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a calendar, nor is it a indiscriminate collection.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't really seem to have any encyclopedic value and isn't notable in its own right. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:INDISCRIMINATE fail.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a calendar. Missing huge amounts of information. AusLondonder (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Dunarc (talk) 16:57, 19 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 St. Vincent–St. Mary High School. An explanation as to the reasoning behind the close is clearly owed. There were ultimately no substantive policy-based arguments to keep the article in its current form, and, indeed, none either to delete it. The (second) nomination states baldly that they "would not in any way oppose a redirect" to the school (although in the event, no argument along this line was presented). There was only a single !keep vote (made, mind you, twice), and that was cogently dismantles via reference to WP:V. The remaining !votes proposing the merge were policy based as well as dovetailing WP:ATD. For the record, I think the reason Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability did not find much traction was not only the fact that (as noted in the discussion) it is an essay, but also that - notwithstanding the questions raised as to whether at least one of the hosted teams is actually notable - but it also says itself that notability rests on its own criteria "and if they otherwise fulfill the requirements of WP:V"- which, again unfortunately, the community has decided the article does not. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LeBron James Arena[edit]

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

the only notable thing about this facility is its benefactor, ~~which means this fails WP:1E~~ and the coverage in detail seems to be all related to the fact that LeBron put up the dough. There seems to be some question as to whether the presence of minor league professional sports teams at the facility somehow elevates it to notability; I do not believe it does. I would not in any way oppose a redirect to the school, where most of the needed coverage of this facility seems to already be in place. John from Idegon (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. The tenants (specifically the Cardinals) are also notable, given as the NAPB is supposed to be a more prestigious league. Besides, it is home to two pro basketball teams. I might also add that WP:1E refers to people, not places. --Sparkyb10123 (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:1E applies to people, and this is not a person; @John from Idegon:, do you have an alternative rationale? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw this, as it seems you are both saying that the presence of a minor league basketball team elevates this facility to notability. Query For The Bushranger and Sparkyb10123: If not for the connection to the basketball teams, would you consider this a notable place; and if not what rationale would you use? Also, feel free to close this. I will if I have time (@ work) John from Idegon (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- *wobbles hand* I'm not sure it's notable, per se, just that WP:1E shouldn't be used for subjects that are not people. This may be something best WP:BOLDly merged into the school article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
Comment - I've struck my withdrawal and amended my rationale. Let's just let this run. John from Idegon (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I do believe that professional sports elevates it to notability. For example, most minor league baseball stadiums wouldn't be notable without their teams, because otherwise they don't play host to anything notable. I do not believe a redirect would be sufficient, because it would not be detailed enough about it in the context of said teams (and LeBron's donation) without taking up a significant portion of the article. So at that point there might as well be a separate article. --Sparkyb10123 (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Sparky, you only get to vote once. Please strike one Keep. And while I am here, what is it you are basing your belief in? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry about that. I guess what I am trying to say is that a two professional sports teams use this place, and it is the only pro sports arena in Akron, so I think it warrants it's own article --Sparkyb10123 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So I'm going to take that to mean you know of no guideline that indicates the use of an arena by a minor league franchise is indicative of notability. Here's my problem with that: Coverage of minor league sports is generally strictly local in nature. That meager coverage will generally not include any discussion of the venue other than name checks. The fact that this facility was built at by and primarily for a private institution by nature limits the coverage it has received. A public facility will garner ongoing coverage of its construction, funding and the various political issues that go along with it. This facility is not very large (my alma mater in Indiana has a much larger gym and it isn't even a big basketball school), it isn't architeurally significant. Perhaps I'm wrong but I haven't found much on it beyond its connection with LeBron. And IMO, that's much more about LeBron than this building. John from Idegon (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability does say that pro sports makes a venue notable. --Sparkyb10123 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St. Vincent–St. Mary High School. I'm not convinced it meets WP:GEOFEAT on its own. I also dispute that the Ohio Cardinals should be considered notable at this time; however there's no point in an AfD now when we can wait to see if their first match happens on schedule. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I just think there's too much to be merged, especially considering Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability. I know it's not *technically* a guideline, but I think it's solid. --Sparkyb10123 (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see WP:WEIGHT issues at all for a merge. The facility is primarily for the school, it would take one line and references to add that the minor league teams play there, and simply a change in dates and source when they leave. (Which if they are successful, they will - this is a tiny venue.) If the minor league teams have footer templates, they don't push WEIGHT much in an article as long as they are defaulted to collapse. John from Idegon (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, who mentioned anything about WP:WEIGHT? --Sparkyb10123 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You did, Sparkyb10123...if "I don't know, I just think there's too much to be merged..." didn't refer to WEIGHT viz the school's article, what were you trying to say? John from Idegon (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see what you mean --Sparkyb10123 (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on the high school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming, since nobody else has mentioned it, that none of you believe that Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability is applicable here. While I understand that it is not an official guideline, I am curious as to why you don't think it is applicable. --Sparkyb10123 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:50, 15 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. Consensus that subject passes GNG, which overrides SNGs. ansh 666 01:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Hodge[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Hodge passes GNG, which overrules him not passing NHOOPS. PBA players get a lot of coverage from the local media. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I just want to note that all but a few of PBA players fail NHOOPS because local players don't enter the NBA draft, which makes them impossible to be drafted. Unless they're some kind of very young local superstar, Filipino basketball players play their whole career in the PBA since they have no chance in playing in the NBA (or in European leagues). So they fail NHOOPS, but they definitely pass GNG. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The biggest problem is that no sources exist on the article. If you add some demonstrating that the player meets GNG it would help. I believe you that he meets GNG, but we can’t have unsourced articles out there. Rikster2 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lots of coverage in reliable sources, like Spin.ph and the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The nominator should have checked for sources first to see if at the very least WP:GNG was met. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete When someone is only notable as a sports figure, it is the sports notability guidelines and not GNG that is the controling one. So in this case we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Yes, but our notability guidelines do say that as long as there is sufficient coverage for the person, the person is notable. WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT complement, not supplement each other. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, for people known only for being sportspeople, the specific sports guidelines trump the general notability guidlines. If GNG was the controlling issue in all cases, then it would be the only thing needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is NOT true - If a subject meets GNG it does not matter if they meet the sport guideline. As someone who has contributed to the basketball guideline I can tell you that it would included many, many more leagues if it were the final word on which players are notable. We assumed that GNG would catch any players not covered in the relatively few leagues covered in WP:NBASKETBALL. The sport guidelines exist to make it easier for non-experts to gauge who likely meets GNG and who does not. Right at the top of WP:NSPORT it says “The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.” Rikster2 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, which is sufficient, contrary to Johnpacklambert's ridiculous assertion to the contrary. Smartyllama (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My assertion is not rediculous, if you are going to ignore subject specific guidelines and then use lowest minimum GNG to pass an article, we should just scrap subject specific guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 22 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. ansh 666 01:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaypee Belencion[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete No significant coverage and meets no basketball notability criteria.Sandals1 (talk) 20:17, 21 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tinworth[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. I'm not seeing anything in reliable sources to indicate this person is notable. --Izno (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although Tinworth is not a businessman, but an editor and journalist, maybe at times bordering on being a publisher. There is a lack of significant coverage to show notability though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to WP:DRAFT. BOZ (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to find more sources, but none of them constitute WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 11:11, 19 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Guirado[edit]

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

Once I trimmed the promotional content that was uncited for many years, there wasn't much left. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not notable as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' nothing in NZ about her NealeFamily (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real coverage apart from being reality-show/tabloid fodder. SunChaser (talk) 11:11, 20 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nilo Haq[edit]

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'- lacks coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS; it's all webcruft. Agricola44 (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a garbage pile of promotional junk. Who is listing makeup artists in the artists deletion category? please stop that.104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:13, 16 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, and I will deal with the requested pagemove. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Technology Law & Policy[edit]

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

The disambiguation page is not needed/overkill, and hijacks the main topic.

This should be deleted, and Journal of Technology Law & Policy (University of Florida) moved to Journal of Technology Law & Policy. Hatnotes are sufficient to redirect whoever was thinking about the Pittsburg JT&LP. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:2DABS. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:33, 22 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. ansh 666 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Montero[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). None of the criteria met. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was written 12 years ago and seems to be in need of an update. The subject is now holds a named professorship and their work on decentralisation in Latin America has been reasonably well cited for political science, both of which indicate a pass of WP:PROF. I also found several detailed reviews of his book, Brazil: Reversal of Fortune [12][13][14][15][16]. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton College is not "a major institution of higher education and research". Being reasonably well cited or having detailed reviews of a book are not criteria. Those do not come close to satisfying criteria 1 or 7. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnnlaxer: These criteria are somewhat subjective I'll grant you, but Carleton College is a high-ranked liberal arts college with thousands of students. I would say the citation metrics are more marginal than a clear keep, but in my experience, in a low-citation field like poli sci, having several papers with more than 100 citations usually passes the threshold. Having 2+ reviews of a book is usually taken to pass WP:AUTHOR, which is a lower bar than WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are stretching the criteria past the breaking point. Carleton has 2,000 students and is not a major institution, especially with regard to research. Schools like it focus on teaching, not research. There are thousands of profs with named chairs at small liberal arts colleges. Again, citation metrics are not a PROF criteria. As for AUTHOR, none of the criteria are anything close to having 2 reviews of a work. Can you point to some examples of professors with similar credentials passing AfD with either PROF or AUTHOR? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation metrics are our usual way of assessing WP:PROF#C1. Reviews satisfy point 3 of WP:AUTHOR. It's hard to think of examples off the top of my head, but some similar previous AfDs from recent logs include: Ernest R. House, Andrew Manis, Tom Paradise, Richard Padovan, and Lawrence A. Alexander.

It's not unusual to disagree on where exactly the bar is with these criteria. Like I said, there's a degree of subjectivity in them. Let's hear what other editors think in this case. – Joe (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sounds good. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, mostly per WP:PROF#C5. There are also a few published reviews of his other books [17] [18] [19] which together with the reviews for the newer book listed by Joe (which should be added to the article) are probably enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Carleton is a major institution of higher education and research? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think our criteria should not be interpreted as stating that faculty at smaller colleges are automatically non-notable. Carleton is a well-known, high-quality liberal arts college with over 2000 students. That's very different from the junior colleges and tiny ingrown religious academies that clause was intended to filter out. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR. Reviews provided by Joe Roe are sufficient for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 15 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 with limited sourcing. Withdrawing my nomination but can be revisited later. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wasiullah Khan[edit]

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

Nothing in my searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the subject seems to hold a notable role in a notable institution, it doesn't pass WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything from the searches to establish the subject's notability, doesn't meet WP:V. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since then, I found 5 different references including 1 from The New York Times for Wasiullah Khan and the East-West University he founded and heads. Went ahead and converted 1 existing external link to a reference and added 4 other references. The article had 1 non-working reference which I fixed during my edit. I also agree with the above comment's phrase: Though the subject seems to hold a notable role in a notable institution. The notable institution mentioned above is East-West University in Chicago....Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge The subject meets minimum WP:GNG rule because he has been covered in RS. However because I don't see the subject has notable career (except being the founder and chancellor of a University) and since most of the coverage is focussed on East-West University therefore I can suggest weak keep for now. One option is to merge this BLP into East-West University. --Saqib (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be better. Störm (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I didn't find anything that other's haven't, but I think the limited sourcing is enough for WP:V and there is clear significance of the position. With limited sourcing, however, WP:NPOV is an issue. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. founder and chancellor of a university is sufficient for toability, regardlesso f other weaknesses in thearticle. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 16 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. Sandstein 11:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upton, Pembrokeshire[edit]

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

I was unable to find any source noting this as an actual town or village in Pembrokeshire. Upton Castle is of course real, but all sources about that castle only note the nearby village of Cosheston. The 10K population figure is absolutely false, the whole community of Cosheston has under 1000 people. Jujutacular (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One Google hit ([20]) and multiple Google Books snippet views indicate the Upton is a hamlet in Nash Parish.[21] It appears to be a populated place recognized since at least the 19th century. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm wondering if this subject can really be separated from Upton Castle/Upton Chapel. Many of the hits I'm seeing are hard to distinguish. Jujutacular (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Exists, was formerly a parish (albeit wit a very low population) even if it isn't now. --Michig (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a presumption of notability for existing towns; do we have one for formerly-existing small villages? It's certainly a borderline case, given that we have articles on the two surviving buildings already. What would help the article's case would be a few substantial mentions in reliable sources for the village (not the castle or chapel). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the one hand "lost villages" may be more notable than minor surviving villages in England and Wales. On the other hand, there's no obvious evidence for the previous existence of a village, which would lead us to the question as to whether historical parishes are by default notable. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclining to Delete: I don't see why they should be, we're not talking about any sort of substantial place. This is worth an article if there are decent sources discussing its history, archaeology, or cultural resonances (medieval history-dramas or whatever). Otherwise, it's worth a footnote in the existing articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND states places don't need references they need to be populated and legally recognised either in the past or present. This place was a former parish - a legal designation requiring residents. Google maps says it currently exists as an entity - today it is a working farm and unless the farmhouse is empty it has residents. This policy is informally stated as "It exists". Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists, google maps say it exists. I think WP keeps every two bit place, no matter how two bit. Probably there are only two bit people there - that is enough. Szzuk (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Upton was a parish, see the listed building entry on Upton Chapel.[22] Upton is also named as a parish in BBC Doomsday Reloaded and in A Topographical Dictionary of Wales (1833). Is it shown as a parish on the OS Six-inch Map (1869) and on the OS 1:25,000 map (1948). Upton as shown as a place independent from the Castle on the current OS 1:50000 map, although not on the 1:25,000 map. WP:GEOLAND says that

* Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history.

The general rule is that notability is not lost, if something was ever notable then it still is, see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Verbcatcher for turning up this additional information! The only problem I have with these references to the Upton Parish is that it appears parishes in Wales are only administrative divisions of the Anglican church, not local government (although historically, perhaps there was no difference!). At any rate, it does appear to be some sort of named populated locality, so I'm essentially OK with keeping this article. Can't really withdraw without Chiswick Chap agreeing from above. I'll leave it up to those more knowledgeable of the subject to get the article in good shape. Thanks. Jujutacular (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable suffices. --Doncram (talk) 03:00, 20 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. With weakish arguments, IMHO, but there is clearly no consensus for deletion. Sandstein 11:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbie Eaton[edit]

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

No evoidence of notability. Prpoded in 2016 but prod removed by Cirt stating "easily able to find lots of secondary sources" but none were added. Searches yield all the standard social media stuff and a staff profile from Silverstone but nothing independent or reliable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's about to become much much better known now she's the new equivalent of The Stig on the second series of The Grand Tour. If this gets deleted now it'll only get recreated again in a few weeks. Ged UK 12:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that being the test driver for The Grand Tour is notable enough. Plus, she's a female racing driver (notable in itself, considering how few women are racers) who has won quite a lot of competitions and championships already. It's only the first 24 hours since she first appeared on the show; give a few weeks and there's bound to be more information about her. We might not want to rush things too much, too soon. Besides, as Ged_UK mentioned, the article will probably just get created again anyway. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 15:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Having a TV debut on The Grand Tour IMO is notable enough. Nightfury 23:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 23:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would the 2016 British GT Championship count as meeting WP:NMOTORSPORT #1? She finished fourth overall in that series. She also raced in the 2017 Blancpain GT Series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources added to refideas on the talk page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusive and clear notability guidelines for racing drivers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, Abbie Eaton does make the guidelines for WP:NMOTORSPORT, since both British GT Championship and Blancpain GT Series can both be considered as meeting #1 and #3. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 10:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't see anything prior to 2016 that was a notable racing circuit with its own article, unless someone can find the appropriate link for "Mazda MX-5 Supercup" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter really whether she meets the NMotorsport criteria, she seems to meet the GNG now anyway. Ged UK 11:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her role as not!Stig aside, she passes WP:NMOTORSPORT #1 and #3 with the last two years of competition. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep fair deal of coverage, although more independent coverage would be welcome. Seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from Digital Spy, Metro UK, International Business Times have come out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pageviews for The Grand Tour vs. Michael Schumacher vs. Abbie Eaton.
10k+/day. More daily pageviews than Michael Schumacher. More pageviews on Friday than the main The Grand Tour had for the first episode on Friday a week earlier. Earliest cite is a two page newspaper article from 2008. Johnpacklambert, are your concerns addressed with the current Special:PermanentLink/816024582 revision of the article? If it wasn't for this, would probably be headed for a WP:SNOW keep. —Sladen (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking for this article is the first idea which comes to your mind after watching The Grand Tour. Hektor (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, that was what I did after watching the last episode lol! Nightfury 13:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Does she have a recurring role, or is that just a one-off guest role? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure she'll have a recurring role, it doesn't seem to make much sense to hire her as the test driver for just a single episode and then scrap her right afterwards. But at this point, we can only specluate about her role (if she's just gonna be confined to the track and having a non-speaking role with none of the presenters really directly referring to her, or if she'll have a character developed and maybe participate in some challenges/races, or maybe something else); it might be better for us to wait a few weeks to see if and how she appears, before making any guesses or conclusions. Weslam123 (talk • contrib) 05:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm dreaming of a White Christmas. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 21 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 11:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho de Guzman[edit]

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

A non-notable bench player who gained attention as a former practice player who was signed and gained a roster spot for the team. He has been released recently. Fails WP:NHOOPS/WP:GNG. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete No significant coverage and fails all the standards for basketball player notability.Sandals1 (talk) 20:15, 21 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 11:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HitPoint Studios[edit]

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

Current references seem to fall short of WP:NCORP. A preliminary WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons given, I agree on deletion. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even near passing WP:CORP, no reliable independent sources WP:ORGIND, and no significant coverage as well WP:CORPDEPTH. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:55, 17 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 11:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mamidi Sai Akash[edit]

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

Promotional article , non notable proprietor of non-notable company, based on press releases, and part of a promotional campaign apparently written by a paid editing firm see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Another_Karishma_Rawtani_editor DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 07:48, 15 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 11:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aidem Ventures[edit]

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

another promotional article on a non notable advertising firm, entirely based on notices and press releases, and appparently written by a paid editing firm see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Another_Karishma_Rawtani_editor DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much. Client lists and the lot. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and no significant gist. Content are all fairly promotional. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:43, 15 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 11:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Blood Bank[edit]

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

Promotional, non notable, based on press releases, and appparently written by a paid editing firm see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Another_Karishma_Rawtani_editor DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally fails our notability guidelines for organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:06, 15 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 11:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aircloak[edit]

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

The company has not received enough significant independent coverage in reliable sources; most of what I could find (and indeed, including the sources in the article) are press releases, promotional sites, directory profiles, or passing mentions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, pretty much. WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH exclude all the sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready enough to have its own article. I would suggest moving to draft for the time being as the company might further expand in the near future. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree. Unlikely that will happen in the next six months, and it's vaguely promotional. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. References are press releases or routine coverage. Slideshow Bob (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added four new unbiased, reputable sources. I believe this article should not be deleted because the technology is very relevant ahead of the coming GDPR regulations. It is very similar to the page Privacy Analytics. Lelascottmacneil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - provided sources are: 1) Forbes source: this is just an opinion piece by an external contributor. 2) Computerwoche: passing mention. 3) Politico: passing mention. 4) cpomagazine: self-promotion by the founder. 5) peru21.pe - passing mention in promotional context. 6) cisco press release - press releases are not independent sources. 7) www.derbrutkasten.com - PR platform with the stated goal to "support the Austrian startup scene" (per their about page). On a sidenote, Privacy Analytics is a bad role model here - the article is full of likely COI-written nonsense and needs work (or maybe even an AfD) as well. GermanJoe (talk) 04:35, 19 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 11:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sapienza Travel[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable tour operator. Only found [23] reliable source. – Train2104 (t • c) 05:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the promotional tone. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertisement...Modernist (talk) 13:09, 15 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 11:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eso Sadiković[edit]

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

To begin with, this article falls way, way below the general notability guidelines. The one source is not even clearly a reliable sourc,e but in any case it is all about another individual, and makes passing references to Sadikovic in a way that does not even support much of what is written in this article. I did find this article [24] which at least tells us a little more of Sadikovic, but I do not think moves him anywhere near passing any notability guidelines. Sadikovic would seem most likely to need to pass the guidelines for academics, and nothing here suggests any approach to even getting close to passing those guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no notability that I can see, but when I Google search his name there are a lot of hits (almost none in English though). If more sources were found I'd change my mind, but then again its been tagged of notability for 7 years and no one has bothered to come up with anything.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:27, 15 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sniatkowski[edit]

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

has been tagged for notability issues since 2012, fails WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete We do not even have the years Sniatkowski was mayor listed. Verona peaked at 15,000 people in 1970, and has declined by about 2,000 since then. The list of the mayors of Verona also should be deleted. It is quite distressing that such a sub-par article on a non-notable local politician has survived for five years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wondered what this was when I saw it on my watch list. Oh, it's because I was the one who added the notability tag five years ago. I should've followed through with the AfD nomination myself, I don't know why I didn't. Good catch finding this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verona is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but this is not referenced well enough to clear WP:NPOL #2 — the "references" here are two dead links to the local pennysaver, one deadlinked primary source list on the website of the local public library, one deadlinked source (Omnipelagos) that I have no idea what it even is or was, and one glancing namecheck of his existence in a federal government report. This is not how you demonstrate a mayor as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 16 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Sisco[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, not notable. Don't be fooled by "one of the longest serving mayors in NJ", the longest serving is Gerald Calabrese (I looked it up) Rusf10 (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have an absurd number of articles on mayors of minor places in New Jersey. In no state would a place with 10,000 people (when Sisco left office) be notable. For example, Saratoga Springs, Utah has over twice the population of this place, but the only mayor of there who is notable Mia Love, is a member of congress who has spoken at the Republican National Convention (an then missed the next one to show that she in no way endorsed D. J. Trump), has been a key voice in urging those accused of sexual harrassment to resign, a sponsor of legislation to end government paying settlements in sexual harrassment by members of congress cases, a key advocate of over-the-counter birth control, one of Susan B. Anthony's lists top endorsed candidates, the first Haitian-American in congress who has pressed the current administration to not end coverage, and as the first elected politician of African descent in Utah County was getting covered in Utah's two top dailies from when she was first elected to the city council, and even in her first unsuccessful run for congress managed to get nation-wide coverage. On the other hand, Sisco gets one article in an extremely local paper when he retires. This is all the more worth noting since New Jersey more than any other state has an over abundance of small cities, so places with populations from 5,000 to 25,000 are even less notable than they would be in any other state, not that any state would a city of this size be one that would propel its top politicians to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really looked at some of the other states yet. The problem is certain editors throw notability out the window when it comes to their hometown or some place they lived. There really should be a standard based on population that gets applied here, but there isn't. A mayor of a city of 1 million is certainly notable and a town of 100,000 or less certainly is not, anything between is debatable. Of course, there are exceptions as you pointed out when someone get national coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:POL as expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES regarding mayors of small jurisdictions. --Enos733 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not automatically accept every mayor of everywhere as notable enough for a standalone article, but apply standards of substance and sourcing to distinguish notable mayors from non-notable ones. A population test isn't really the best way to do that — a small-town mayor can sometimes be significantly more notable than the norm for small-town mayors (e.g. the person attains an unusual depth of sourceability, or they become a prominent advocate for a wider political issue), and a big-city mayor can be less (e.g. if the city's mayoralty is a ceremonial weak-mayor position that merely rotates annually among the city councillors rather than being directly elected). Rather, the ultimate test is whether they can or cannot be referenced to sourcing that goes above and beyond what could merely be expected to always exist for all mayors — such as a higher than usual volume of coverage, or coverage that expands significantly beyond the purely local. But neither of those is in evidence here: the article just states that he existed and cites one piece of coverage in the local pennysaver. But that's a depth of substance and sourcing that any mayor of anywhere would always clear, so it's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 16 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge E. Meneses[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as non-notable mayor (I'm not even sure he served a full term) Rusf10 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that an article on such an utterly non-notable politician has survived for a decade shows that Wikipedia needs better controls on article creation, and an easier process of article deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Utterly non-notable"??? Uh, he was an elected mayor of a city of 43,000 people. I would not call that "utterly non-notable" nor be in favor of an easier channel for ultra-deletionists to eliminate stuff they don't like. Carrite (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strictly speaking, it's not relevant whether a mayor served a full term or not — what's relevant to making a mayor notable enough for an article, regardless of how long he did or didn't serve as mayor, is genuine substance about his mayoralty and quality reliable sourcing. But this article just states that he exists, gives a minimal profile of his prior background, and references just one piece of media coverage — but every single person who was ever mayor of anywhere would always qualify for an article if this was all that was required. To qualify, a mayor has to be shown as significantly more notable than most other mayors for some genuinely substantive reason, not just to be single-sourced as existing. To be fair, we were a lot looser about the notability of mayors a decade ago than we are now — there was actually once a time when the simple fact of being a mayor was commonly seen as enough, even in small villages of just a couple hundred people — but the standards have been significantly tightened up, and old articles that predate the tightening of the inclusion criteria for mayors are not grandfathered just because they met the standards of their creation time: if they can't be upgraded to meet the standards that pertain now, they go away. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He has a credible claim of notability based on his elected role but would need more reliable and verifiable sourcing to meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Close call, having been elected mayor of a city of 43,000 people. A tad too small for an auto-keep as an elected official. Your mileage may vary. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 21 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 11:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Jackson[edit]

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

Non-notable mayors from Montclair, NJ. All fail WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing more than local coverage for this politican. Total failure of the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely local coverage always exists for everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere at all, but we do not automatically accept that everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere at all is always automatically notable per WP:NPOL #2 — to make a mayor notable enough for inclusion, what needs to be shown is coverage that goes significantly above and beyond what could merely be expected to exist: either wider coverage than just the purely local, or enough work having been put into the article that it's genuinely substantial and cites a lot more than just two pieces of local coverage. But neither of those are in evidence here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 16 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 11:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Dwork[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO as notable for one event only. Only source on him is article about his suicide. Rusf10 (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand the stub with info from his obituary. Generally a NYT obit is the defacto mark of notability. > 6,000 people die each day in the USA, The Times might write obits for 5 of them each day. --RAN (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I've heard this argument before. Although technically I don't believe that NYT article is an obituary, it more of an investigative report about his suicide. Regardless, I still believe "notable for only one event" applies--Rusf10 (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not news. The only reason the New York Times reported the news of this mayorial suicide is because the location is within the circulation area for the New York Times. This is a local news story, nothing more, and Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG makes no mention of the "circulation area" rule. The GNG does not require national level or international level recognition only "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --RAN (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're making the assumption that New York Times article = guaranteed notability (this assumption should not be made about any source). We have to use some common sense here and ask what was the intended audience of the article? And if a subject is really notable shouldn't he deserve an article BEFORE he dies?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does require that if a person doesn't clear any subject-specific inclusion criteria (e.g. being a state legislator or a congressman), but instead you're going for "notable just because media coverage exists", then the coverage does need to expand, in either volume or geographic range, significantly beyond what could merely and routinely be expected to exist. Every mayor of everywhere always gets local media coverage, but every mayor of everywhere is not always notable enough to have an encyclopedia article — to make a smalltown mayor notable enough, we require either wider coverage beyond the local media, or at least an article that's extremely well substanced and referenced to a lot more than just two sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An obituary in the New York Times is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, particularly for a person who lived and worked and died inside the New York City media's local coverage area. (Just as an example of why the "NYT obit = automatic notability" argument doesn't fly, allow me to remind you that the NYT obituaried every last one of the nearly 3,000 people who died in the 9/11 attacks — but we decided against maintaining biographical articles about all of those 3,000 people just because an NYT obit existed, and deleted everybody who wouldn't have already passed a notability criterion for some other reason as of 9/10.) Every mayor of any place that exists at all would always clear GNG if all you had to do was show two or three pieces of purely local media coverage — what we require for mayors is that either (a) they serve as mayor of a major city, or (b) they can be referenced to a lot more and/or wider coverage than most other mayors of small towns could also show. And this article neither contains nor sources any actual substance about his mayoralty, either — it simply states that he served as mayor and committed suicide, the end. That's not enough; the NYT coverage, as it stands, just makes him a WP:BIO1E. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E is not an argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mahwah, New Jersey Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 17 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 11:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehbar Development Foundation[edit]

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

No coverage found in my searches. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HindWiki^Connect 02:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be found. Based on the information on the page (20k members, hundreds of km^2 land managed) it seems like the organization could be notable, but I can't find any sources at all. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 00:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Cyberxperts created this article in his effort to cover Jehlum articles. His almost all other articles got deleted due to notability issues. Nothing still found. Störm (talk) 18:02, 21 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Sue Webb[edit]

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

Fails notability, WP:BIO, WP:CRIME. She been arrested a number of times, but being nude in public is not notable and she doesn't seem to have a large following. Rusf10 (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

--Rusf10 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The user who created most of these pages is User:Dandelion1 who identifies as Daniel Johnson, the real name of Jacob Gabriel above, therefore WP:AUTO and WP:Conflict of interest also apply--Rusf10 (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this whole interlinked set of unnotable articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get more opinions about this mass nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all of the articles listed above for it fails WP:BIO and WP:CRIME Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 00:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To add to the above, this was created by SPA whose only edits are to service this article. Seems to be either vanity or fanpage, given all the OR. Agricola44 (talk) 17:16, 15 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) 00:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Allen (dancer)[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill dancer. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent coverage that I can find. Just a routine working ballet dancer. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 00:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- coverage is routine or in passing; does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 16 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. A lot of confusion over what exactly this article is about. That being said, the content is essentially identical to Agra Municipal Corporation#List of mayors (which I note is closer in scope to San Francisco city government than San Francisco), and this is an unlikely search term by most accounts. ansh 666 01:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agra (Mayoral Constituency)[edit]

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

Winners would fail NPOL, it's hard to see how this is notable on its own. Merging into a related article or outright deletion is probably the best route here. South Nashua (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not an expert in Indian politics, so I can't speak to whether these mayors would pass WP:NPOL or not — its population is over a million, which would certainly seem like they should, but we've historically had problems actually finding adequate sourcing for mayors of many cities in India and mayors don't get an automatic "no sourcing required" inclusion freebie just because they exist. But what I did want to share is that this is part of a pattern of lists of mayors of places in Uttar Pradesh (see also Varanasi (Mayoral Constituency), Kanpur (Mayoral Constituency) and Lucknow (Mayoral Constituency)) that were all recently created by the same user under an incorrect and entirely nonsensical title format — places have mayors because they're cities, not because there's any such thing as a "mayoral constituency". And when I've attempted to move them to the correct titles, "List of mayors of X", the creator has moved them back to the "mayoral constituency" forms again without explanation — and then when I escalated it to WP:RM discussions instead, two of them got moved to the correct titles and one's still pending, but even for the ones that did get moved the creator moved them back to the "mayoral constituency" forms again, still without actually explaining the action anywhere. I've actually had to entirely move-protect them to get that to stop. And the Lucknow list, further, isn't even actually complete, and simply reduplicates a portion of another list we already have in another article — so I've listed it for AFD too. So I have no strong opinion either way about whether this is keepable or not, but if it is kept it has to be moved to List of mayors of Agra, and the creator is definitely being disruptive and unresponsive to feedback.
As well, I'm fairly certain that the list is incomplete — again, I'm not an expert in Indian politics, but I strongly doubt that a city that's old enough to have been mentioned in the Mahabharata has only had mayors since 2006. The value in retaining lists of mayors, even if they don't have individual BLPs to link to, is in a complete list — a list of just the two or three most recent holders of an office that has had more than two or three holders is not better (actually it's arguably worse) than having no list at all — to maintain a list like this, we should normally wait until we can find adequate sources to list all of the mayors, rather than just listing the two or three recent ones that some editor happens to remember off the top of their head. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- normally mayors are not notable. WP:NPOL However, if the area includes over 1 million people then it is like being mayor of a large city which would be notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the mayors are notable or not, the value of a list of them vests in its completeness. But this is a list of just the three most recent mayors of a city which has had mayors for much longer than just the past ten years alone, and there's no encyclopedic value in that. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an argument to expand, not delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which we can't do without the sources to expand it with. Lists of mayors should not be created at all until the list is already complete right off the bat. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The incomplete list of mayors is here Agra_Municipal_Corporation#List_of_mayors--DreamLinker (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no such thing as "mayoral constituency" in India. In India, the mayor is head of the municipal corporation, which in this case is Agra Municipal Corporation. The mayor is not head of a city. Any information about a mayor should be mentioned in the municipal corporation article. Agra is also not a major city (population wise) and is largely known for tourism and keeping a separate list of mayors is not required.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Agra Municipal Corporation Delete- based on information provided by DreamLinker, I am changing my vote.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any value in merging. What is the content that could be merged? The redirect is also not useful here.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right there's not much there, delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 00:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with no opposition to moving to a better name. I am reminded of our article Mayor of San Francisco because Ed Lee, mayor of that city in recent years, died unexpectedly two days ago. No one would consider deleting that article. The Wikimedia Foundation, after all, is headquartered in that world famous city, along with many major corporations. But Agra has a population almost twice that of San Francisco, is also a major tourist destination, and if the current article is correct, the Agra constituency has an order of magnitude more voters than San Francisco. If the article is now incomplete, then it should be improved rather than being expanded. As for the argument that winners of this post fail WP:POLITICIAN, I would believe that only if an editor fluent in the leading Languages of Uttar Pradesh, and the newspapers and magazines of Agra was to tell me so, after a diligent local search. This is precisely the type of article that allows us to include information about mayors of cities of 1.5 million residents in this case, when we do not yet have enough information for freestanding biographies of those mayors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my previous comment and change of "vote", I assume it was an accident. I believe this article should be deleted but not for the same reason as the nomination. I do agree with you this is large enough in population for an article. However, that article already exists here: Agra Municipal Corporation. --Rusf10 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any inadvertent deletion of your comment, Rusf10. I am using a new smartphone and still learning its quirks. However, I disagree with your reasoning. Deleting this article about an elected political position because we already have an article about the political entity would be the same as deleting Mayor of San Francisco because we already have an article on San Francisco. These are different topics even though they are related topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328. The position of "Mayor" in India is slightly different from those in the US. In India mayors are not heads of the city (nor the head of the city administration), but rather heads of the municipal corporations associated with it. For example, Delhi is ruled by a state government and the head of this government is the Chief Minister. Inside Delhi, there are multiple municipal corporation and each such municipal corporation is headed by a mayor. The area of jurisdiction of municipal corporations is also not always fixed. Elections for local civic bodies in India are a low key affair as compared to state elections or national elections. The so called "Mayor of Agra" is actually the head of the Agra Municipal Corporation. I had previously added the names of the mayors to Agra Municipal Corporation and also added references. At this time, deleting this article will not lead to any loss of information. Finally, the term "Mayoral constituency" is not used in India and I have never seen it being used in any newspapers or official documents.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added an "incomplete/expand list" tag to the section listing the mayors. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hi Bearcat, you state in your comment above: "places have mayors because they're cities, not because there's any such thing as a "mayoral constituency".", the thing is according to the Agra wikiarticle the metropolitan pop. was 1,585,704 in 2011 (the Agra district had a 2011 pop. of 4,418,797), and yet according to this "mayoral constituency" article the no. of voters were 12,67,595, (1,267,595) so unless there aren't many youngsters in the city of Agra (isnt the proportion in India around 55%kids to 45%adults?) and/or there has been a massive pop. growth in the last 6years, this appears to be bigger then metro Agro. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple I don't know how reliable the no. of voters is or even where they got it from. I was not able to find it in any database that I know of. India's also doesn't have any such thing as "mayoral constituency".--DreamLinker (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article is badly named, but isn't the Mayor's position independent of the Municipal Corporation, whose leader is a typically commissioner that is expected to collaborate with the mayor? I would have thought that an article simply on the Mayor of Agra could be valid, and would be the best place for the list of past office-holders. Batternut (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In India mayors are not appointed to a city per se. A mayor is the head of the Municipal Corporation. If a city has multiple such municipal corporations, there will be multiple mayors (such as in Delhi).--DreamLinker (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are insufficient to make its content verifiable. Sandstein 11:46, 22 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Powell (radio personality)[edit]

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

Non-notable radio presenter who appears to fail WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Currently sourced either to his own website or his previous employer's website – the best I can find regarding independent sources are an out-of-date news item [25] and a passing mention in a press release [26] which don't amount to substantial coverage. I'm sure Mr. Powell is very good at his job and has his fans, but I don't see anything to distinguish him from any other local radio presenter up and down the UK. Richard3120 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article has been given almost two years to improve, with nothing compelling added. Trivial details such as ability to drive a bus suggests this is a CV of a non-notable individual. Sionk (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too can't find any in-depth independent WP:RS. Narky Blert (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 00:39, 15 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 01:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boxycharm[edit]

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

I'm not sure that these sources have enough WP:CORPDEPTH to them. If they aren't a repeated press release about securing more funding, then they are simply featured in 'seven best beauty subscriptions' articles, which indicates some notability, but they are not the exclusive subject of the source. A Google search doesn't come up with with anything convincing either. WP:TOOSOON, I'd say. !dave 19:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 20:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as stated above. Trivial, and does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Kierzek (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,,, as corporate spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 00:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not sure why this got relisted. Should have been deleted already: pure corporate spam on a nn subscription service. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per nom. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These reference sources seemed quite like WP:SOAPBOX to me. SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:36, 21 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 11:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boosweet Records[edit]

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

Sources given fail WP:CORPDEPTH, or are primary, or don't discuss Boosweet at all, rather the CEO, Vernon Neilly. The article is advert-y, and has more WP:PEACOCKs than Brownsea Island... !dave 20:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 00:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn indy label and promotional article / directory listing. WP:NCORP fail. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 21 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 11:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Webcrossing[edit]

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

Not a notable software product for web forums; no sign of GNG being met. None of the existing inline references work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 00:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable service, no good sources. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 20:39, 17 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) 01:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mater Dei Hospital (Bulawayo)[edit]

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

Cannot see why this is notable. Actually this nom is a result of fat finger syndrome, since I believe the article could be speedied as an unremarkable organization.TheLongTone (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HindWiki^Connect 23:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:AUD and WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Another secondary option is to merge to Bulawayo, which presently has no mention of this hospital. This latter option would improve the merge target article, as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per NorthAmerica1000. RelaxedTim (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 00:34, 15 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) 00:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kothandan[edit]

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

Does not meet notability for actors and no credible sources can be found. Seven of ten sources cited in the article lead to videos. MT Train^Discuss 13:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per lack pf substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Seems to be an aspiring performer who has yet to secure major roles or coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HINDWIKI • CHAT 19:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 00:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as inadequately/inappropriately sourced bio; TOOSOON (professionally), at best. Quis separabit? 18:04, 18 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.