Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 July	11 July >

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dea Rizkita[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL. Hasn't won a notable tournament - all of those in previous versions of the article are those being spammed by the multiple editors trying to claim the notability of Miss Grand International and its sub-pageants, all of which are non-notable. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puteri Indonesia 2017, where the subject's name appears in a list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage, no RS and no placement in notable competitions. Redirecting would seem a bit silly since the title itself is also not notable and not even sure it's part of the above linked pageant. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a high enough level title to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson De La Nuez[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. No substantial references in reliable sources. "Private Air Luxury Homes Magazine", "Global License Magazine", and "Designer Wallcoverings" do not confer notability. No major art awards. Most notable event was that article subject made the last art delivery to Michael Jackson. Article subject sells prints on eBay at modest prices. Just not seeing much notability here.

AfD initiated after COI problem reported at AN/I. John Nagle (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantial in-depth coverage in notable mainstream sources is found – I've looked for that without success, but maybe someone else will have more luck. Selling an illustration to Michael Jackson is not in any way a notable achievement, because Michael Jackson was not known as an expert on modern art; selling something to the Whitney might contribute to notability, because the Whitney is known for taste and discrimination in that area. Oh, and the King of Pop Art was Roy Lichtenstein. This appears to have been shameless promotion from the day it was created; Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I worked on this article some, but after looking in sources that would very likely have some coverage (or at least a mention) of this self-proclaimed "King of Pop Art" (such as the NY Times or the LA Times), I've reached the conclusion (or at least the extremely strong suspicion) that this person's "fame" is almost entirely built on self-promotion. I suggested in the AN/I discussion that someone bring it to AfD, because that can sometimes be a catalyst for finding reliable sources, and if that's the case, I'll reconsider my !vote, but as things stand at the moment, this just doesn't add up. I'm not sure it's a WP:HOAX, but he sure as heck doesn't appear to be notable in our terms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist exists but is not notable. My search found no evidence of significant exhibitions, or of significant critical attention, or of holdings within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. Many books on the history of pop art have been issued by major publishers, and none seem to discuss this artist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible he's too recent to have been covered in such books? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that he has been "recognizable" since the 1980s. That's roughly 30 years ago. The sale of paintings to Michael Jackson was in 2009, which is eight years ago. There have been major books and museum exhibits in pop art in recent years, which did not include this artist, who claims to be "king" of that genre. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Here's some of his work. [1] He imitates Lichtenstein and Warhol, except he seems to use Photoshop. He's a good commercial illustrator. But not a famous one. John Nagle (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The British Museum, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, and the Smithsonian all have organized major retrospectives on pop art in recent years. The American shows are traveling exhibitions. All three shows are now on display, I believe. Hundreds of truly notable artists are part of these exhibitions, but not this particular one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I've always thought that in cases like this, instead of deleting the article it should be stubbed down to simply read, "X is a nonnotable artist who wrote a lame Wikipedia article about himself`." E Eng 01:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE! AN EDUCATION:

This editor was advised not to rant here, but did so anyway. He's listed some sources, but none of them appear to me to be reliable. Anyone who wants to do a closer investigation of those sources can see them below, but there's no point in leaving the rant out where it can poison the discussion.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

...You are showing your ignorance--This is a world renown sothebys collected artist. Roy Lichtenstein the King of Pop Art?? Are you kidding me? You sir do not know any art history-let me fill you in----he never created 1 original work of art--everything he ever made was taken from a comic book--directly---he stole every image and not just that but the text---http://nextpanel.blogspot.com/2011/08/roy-lichtenstein-plagiarist-or-art.html Nelson de la nuez creates every original image and writes it all himself--something Warhol and Lichtenstein never ever did. Warhol however created a movement--Pop Art--he will always be known for that-Lichtenstein created a "style"--the style of using the Ben Day dots--bubbles on the pieces...both are famous for styles of Pop Art BUT they did not have any originality when it came to creating. I am happy to educate you if you really want one. There is an entire background and story to De La Nuez becoming known as--NOT a self proclaimed King of pop art--you are also wrong--he did not make that title himself-he even says that in articles-"he's not that egotistical" -the press and news media created it when he sold to Michael Jackson and the headlines read "The King of Pop Buys from the King of Pop Art" It stuck-why not use it-everyone else did for him-? and years later it's his brand name--it's not HIS name-don't mistake it--many artists have brands and alternate names--why is this such a problem for you-do you not understand business?-why am I having to explain this? I am literally educating you guys about art and business and brands... By the way--there are many artists on here who list the notable celebrities they sell to because it is relevant and this was VERY relevant--The Wicked Witch piece became hugely famous and sold out worldwide--Michael Jackson actually did have a massive art collection and these were the final 3 paintings he purchased which was also in the articles. He purchased 3 very large paintings--not an "illustration" as you say. These are are very relevant--I do not know how you can say otherwise. I don't think we should have to prove any of this to you--other artists on here prove far lesser things so they all need to be deleted??

His brands which are many--licensing deals with major prestigious brands--luggage, home decor-this was all documented on his wikipedia--FACTS in his wikipedia- Not hype or promo--real contracts made, deals--a career--do you understand a huge career? This is someone known worldwide--only in your little tiny wikipedia world do you apparently not know famous art/artists--you have really shown that with the above statements that I helped clarify.

Why would you want to delete such a prolific artist with plenty of documentation and an amazing career to show? Why hate on others--you would love his work--he's collected by major corporations--hanging in Delta airlines in LAX and JFK VIP lounges, Kim Kardashian's shoe company and by thousands of celebrities so get your facts in order--I can prove anything you want. Any other questions? I am happy to answer about the art world in general or about the famous artist Nelson De La Nuez. It would be so great if anyone wanted to actually contribute in a positive manner to his article and replace the FACTS which were all there but you want to hide them....if you delete or remove his information than there are far more artists than him that will have to go first... He is far far more notable than many that are listed on wikipedia. I can give you hundreds of links and magazine articles he's been featured in and that are online & in print--how much time do you have? this is so middle ages...by acting as though you really don't know his work or who he is, it's making you look really bad. You guys do whatever you want here on this blog-I realize that-it's the strangest thing..but I really wish you'd actually honestly care about leaving real people with real facts on wikipedia. Here's just a few random links for you--these are so easy to find-he has countless galleries, art & museum shows-see below-I can't even begin to list all of them with links for you...here's a few but it definitely shows you didn't try very hard to see who he was--there is far more out there...you shouldn't need any more justification at ALL to keep his name on here as a highly collected world renowned artist. He is far superior in his career stage and sales to SO many others you have on here now. I will not edit it again-I just want you to agree to find 1 objective positive person who knows a tad bit about art to edit it & isn't out to attack him because you guys also shouldn't be editing it from your mean spirited comments you appear to be coming from. You also have proven the lack of art knowledge. It's only fair to him to have someone impartial with knowledge to edit his page. I get you don't like my writing and that's fine but don't delete a well known artist and show hate for a person's career because of that. I am simply trying to lay off myself from the article (I have not touched it) and shed some light on the matter because it's gone too far & I don't know why when I did nothing wrong but you are so angry.... He shouldn't have to prove any prices or anything to you to be listed who he is on here..he has MORE than enough.

https://www.artsy.net/artist/nelson-de-la-nuez
http://coralspringsmuseum.org/comic-pop-art-mar-5-may-23-2015/ Yes....A MUSEUM
http://websphere.sys-con.com/node/761253
http://lgbtweekly.com/2015/02/12/nelson-de-la-nuez-releases-new-art-celebrating-the-right-to-gay-marriage-at-palm-springs-fine-art-show/
http://observer.com/2016/03/king-of-pop-art-nelson-de-la-nuez-celebrates-at-bagatelle-l-a/
http://www.private-air-mag.com/king-of-pop-art
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2009/09/18/404908/173594/en/Photo-Release-World-Renowned-Pop-Artist-Nelson-De-La-Nuez-Partners-With-Fredrix-R-Print-Canvas-to-Promote-Archival-Quality-Fine-Art-Canvas-Line.html
http://www.lordandtaylor.com/main/ProductDetail.jsp?prd_code=0500017619867
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pop-artist-nelson-de-la-nuez-partners-with-heys-usa-for-sophisticated-pop-art-luggage-collection-*143786946.html
http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/icon-footwear-flat-thong-sandal/3754261
https://www.charitybuzz.com/catalog_items/4-piece-travel-luggage-set-heys-usa-de-la-nuez-348409
http://lasvegas.carpediem.cd/events/3827148-made-in-america-nelson-de-la-nuez-the-king-of-pop-art-at-skye-art-gallery/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artworldpro (talk • contribs) — Artworldpro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Artworldpro: When I let you know you that you are allowed to comment here, I specifically said that you should be polite, civil and collegial, and that you should not rant. So, instead, you came here and ranted. None of the sources you listed is reliable, they're blogs, store sites and PR. I'm going to hat your rant, and suggest that you not comment here again, since it seems you cannot behave in a fashion that is acceptable on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, artist bios in small museums are generally provided by the artist or the artist's representative, and the bio in the Coral Spring Museum citation above has all the signs of PR-speak which infests all of the writing about this artist. Clearly self-promotional. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional without solid coverage in legitimate sources. The links that Artworldpro gave above are questionable at best. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches are finding mention in local coverage, such as "Simi Valley artist Nelson De La Nuez" exhibiting at a Montrose Arts & Crafts Festival ([2] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but nothing to meet the WP:NARTIST criteria or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, as in zero, independent evidence whatsoever for notability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it looks like this article is headed for a "Delete", what about this article in the L.A. times? It is an article entirely about the subject published in a major reliable independent newspaper. KDS4444 (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, it is an article in the LA Times. and it is laudable that you found it, bur the contents of the article have to do with Cartoon Network latching on to De La Nuez. Cartoon Network cannot really be described as a reliable source regarding modern art, so I think the net result doesn't change the lack of notability noted above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Cartoon Network is no authority on modern art! But the article wasn't published by the Cartoon Network, it was published by the L.A. times. We aren't evaluating whether or not the subject qualifies as a modern pop artist according to the Cartoon Network (which may or may not be accurate), we are evaluating whether or not he is the main subject of reliable independent verifiable sources, and I think the L.A. Times does qualify as that. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. But what else is there? E Eng 01:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I guess I got nothin'. I got nothin' else. KDS4444 (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article originated at the Burbank Leader, one of the regional papers published by the Los Angeles Times. Here's the Burbank Leader version.[3], where it ran with the subhead "Hoover grad's take on the form has drawn the attention of Cartoon Network, and Michael Jackson was a fan, too." It's a story in Burbank because De La Nuez went to Herbert Hoover High School (Glendale). (That school article lists De La Nuez as a notable alumnus, added in this edit [4] by Artworldpro (talk · contribs).) John Nagle (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My heart won't exactly break if this article is deleted; I originally stubbed it, rather than speedying it, because there seemed to be just enough legitimate coverage to justify a very short, very neutral article. but the unrelenting stream of promotion and self-promotion inflates this dollar-store-level knockoff of Roy Lichtenstein into a world-class artist. (Even his "King of Pop Art" self-assumed title is a bit of a fake; it's not in the TMZ headlines where he claims it comes from, and as a trademark it doesn't refer to his work, but to products from a company he owns, apparently not limited to his own work.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to dietary fiber. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High residue diet[edit]

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

There is no substantial content here. I am not sure why "residue" is the term here when the cited sources say "fiber". This content can be deleted and the article can redirect to dietary fiber. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to dietary fiber per nom. There is nothing here not covered in much greater depth in the dietary fiber article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree redirect to dietary fiber. Ref two is good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dietary fiber. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Booty[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, as they have not played a game with a professional club yet. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Empire[edit]

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

Unsigned local artist/local activists, who's released two apparently self-produced songs online. Some local stories, about doing local things, of interest to a local newspaper, but nothing approaching notability that I can see. TimothyJosephWood 20:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article was flagged for speedy deletion (G11, A7) before for notability and promotional content, an up later removed the tags. Not well sourced, not notable per WP: BIO in my opinion. This article may have been deleted before. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, I'm Empire is a notable feature that has modeled fashion global brands including Lynx body spray, is an LGBT activist and has been on tv many times as a dancer in reality TV, very notable to youngsters 86.187.164.10 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. Possible speedy candidate based on others' comments. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This page was created today by Official k; there's possibly a WP:COI here. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete watch south side story on BBC 3 im empire was on that show213.205.251.218 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete ^[1] shortlist and Lynx are nation wide brands ^[2] and this person has been on UK tv, Official k (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://vimeo.com/144013418
^ http://www.knickerbockerglory.tv/south-side-story

Unfortunately, neither of those links seem to mention the subject at all, and generally subjects are required to have received sustained coverage in independent reliable sources in order to satisfy our notability standards. This subject may satisfy them one day, and maybe even one day soon, but they do not appear that they satisfy them currently. TimothyJosephWood 22:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you watch the first link again, and look out for his name, it is clearly mentioned at 16 seconds of the Lynx advert that received substantial national coverageOfficial k (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't watch it the first time, because vimeo links, like youtube links, are not generally considered ", and basically all of the coverage I found about the subject, was from the local newspaper, which doesn't really count toward notability. TimothyJosephWood 22:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know how you expect to look at old tv ads without using youtube or vemio, the information is to hand, maybe you should use it and you said that he was not mentioned in the link giving the impression you had looked at it, how would you know if he had been mentioned or not without lookingOfficial k (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to look at old TV ads, because old TV ads do not meet our standards for reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not old, recent tv adsOfficial k (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same principle applies. If there are independent sources that cover the subject's presence in this ad, then that may contribute to notability, but the add itself contributes basically nothing. But it turns out that when actually notable people appear in an ads they tend to get independent coverage. TimothyJosephWood 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might i suggest that "MSM" newspapers are not relevant, and the subjects audience does not use normal media outlets so hence the lack of information, the audience base of the subject uses social media, this subject is verified on Facebook with the blue check mark on his page, the blue tick is ONLY given to notable public figures,it is not given on page likes, it is given on notability. if facebook is saying he is notable and have given him the blue tick to show it, who are you to argue with who the largest social media platform in the world says is notableOfficial k (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)^[1]Official k (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NARTIST. Not sure if any of those refs pass RS if they're actually about the subject. The sockpuppets also bring up red flags. South Nashua (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^[2]as mentioned today's consumers of information to not use newspapers as they are not relevant, and the subjects audience does not use normal media outlets so hence the lack of information, the audience base of the subject uses social media, this subject is verified on Facebook with the blue check mark on his page, the blue tick is ONLY given to notable public figures, it is not given on page likes, it is given on notability. if facebook is saying he is notable and have given him the blue tick to show it, who are you to argue with who the largest social media platform in the world says is notable. this is a simple fact. I would trust the verification process of Facebook with 2billion users, maybe age or region may be a factor to why you dont understand this. the subject also its the host of two podcats with a global reachOfficial k (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- This isn't Facebook. It's Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedia Must meet Wikipedia's notability standards. This article clearly does not meet those standards. South Nashua (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. No significant notability in my view. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been on Tv, write for a newspaper and is national gay and lesbian charity ambassador your notable, is213.205.251.21 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Social media websites, such as Facebook and video references from YouTube and vimeo.com are generally not encouraged as good reliable sources, as per guidelines at WP:RSE and WP:YTREF. Many thousands of people have been on television and it does not necessarily qualify them as being notable. Guidelines at WP:GOODREFS state that: "Blogs, social media and fan sites are not usually acceptable." Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is does not sayi it is NOT accepted, and the word usually implies that under some circumstances it is acceptable, not many people get featured in advertising i.e. The Lynx advert that featured him as a lead alongside British group hurts. This singer may not be globally notable but to LGBT people and dancers (south side story) and brands (Lynx, Facebook) he is notable, I accept that the original post was too glorying of the subject and I have made amendments 213.205.251.21 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- The appearance of random IPs on this page is getting suspicious.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:NARTIST - GretLomborg (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And yes IP, "under some circumstances it is acceptable", but this is not one of those circumstances; they don't establish notability. Bennv3771 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no prejudice against recreation if and when more coverage establishes notability. So Why 09:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Eroadster[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, in particular "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". Almost all sources I found were from June/July 2015, and predicted full production for 2016. The only recent reference appears to be yet another press-release reprint in a small local paper, now predicting 2018/19 production.[5] The photos seem to be fake - there has been no prototype, the road markings are not Irish, there is nobody in the car, it has no registration plates. The project seems to have been student vapourware. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Pictures are either taken from their website or from local news reports, I have reported one as a copyvio. Website doesn't look to promising as appears to be out of date. I however disagree with the term "student vapourware" as their website says the design belongs to an automotive engineer specialising in electric cars.Nördic Nightfury 08:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*** Object to deletion: The project is definitely live and ongoing with fundraising currently going on to progress the project. A prototype is planned for May 2018 as in citation (4) The longford Leader. The photos are not fake? They are CAD renders in Catia in other words images from drawings as there wont be a prototype completed until May 2018.Janoteki (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC) — Janoteki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As a matter of interest, I can't find anything in your website about a factory or any premises at all. Not even a postal address. How do you propose to build a prototype, never mind operate a production line, without a factory? And why is your project now being ignored by the mainstream motoring press? Is a press-release reprint in the Longford Leader (a small-town weekly) the best you can do? Why would anybody have faith that the deposits you are asking them to pay will not just be money down the drain? — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All four of the sources showing in the footnotes count towards GNG as substantial, independently-published articles of presumed accuracy dealing substantially with the subject. Bad AfD challenge all the way. The fact that the product is not yet on the market does not indicate that this is a "crystal ball" exercise; it is a product in development with a noteworthy history of that development. Even if it was to be cancelled tomorrow, that product history, covered in multiple media sources, would be sufficient to fulfill our GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While my initial reaction was to suggest that this was/is a case of WP:TOOSOON, there is perhaps an argument that GNG is at least partially met. (I would note however that much of the coverage which contributes to that GNG argument, including this BBC Autos piece, all seems to build on the same flurry of PR activity in 2015; and as such would seem to fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH). If the article is kept (and I'm not strongly advocating either way), it needs significant review relative to the PR tone of the content. And flagging with {{Update after|year=2018}} - given that's the speculated release date of this planned/proposed/as-yet-unrealised product. (Or at least its first real-world prototype). Guliolopez (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Guilolopez's comment d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some PR pieces, but no coverage of the car itself or the parent company. The only coverage is of projected mockups/demos. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON. No in-depth sources or encyclopedic relevance just yet. This is demonstrated by the fact that the article copy has to rely on the manufacturer's claims, as in:

"The manufacturers say that it saves a lot of weight by use of lightweight materials including its integrated carbon fibre chassis." Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Carrite that with the four references currently in the article it meets and passes WP:GNG and should be kept. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relisting, probably will end with No Consensus, but we'll see.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage past the 2015 flurry, the only exception is from a low circulation local weekly paper (~7000 copies). WP:TOOSOON at best. If this were a real thing to be released next year, you'd expect more. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems to be a proposed project where enough details to write an article are not available. There are no release dates or any specifications about the car, so it is hard to verify the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Wiedenheft[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Only one anime convention and it's local to where she is in Fort Worth, Texas. [6] No coverage of her career, only cast announcements. None of the anime titles that she stars in have been broadcast widely on television, Cartoon Network/Adult Swim, or Netflix/Amazon. They're all within the limited Funimation subscribed service. Recommend her article be pushed back to Draft until notability has been proven. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could locate no reliable sources. Esw01407 Esw01407 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and push back to draft: Per nom; once it's pushed back to draft, I'll continue working on the article until it is ready to be republished. Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blac Chyna[edit]

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

Started work on the article, removing unreliable sources and looking for proper ones, and then I thought "But how is she even notable?" Former stripper, model, video extra, runs a beauty salon. I don't see what makes her meet the notability guidelines. Yintan 18:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe coverage of her and Rob Kardashian [7] and other gossip is the only claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FART and WP:INVALIDBIO. KMF (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KMF. 207.102.255.247 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect doesn't pass WP:NMODEL, and WP:INVALIDBIO also applies. If it isn't a gossip magazine/column, the majority sources out there have to do with either relating to eitherRob Kardashian(and family) or Tyga. Redirect to Rob and Chyna after deletion, as it probably is a better place to put her bio then directly on Rob's page. Deleting first is preferable to just redirect, as this article has had a unreliable tag for over a year, and some of the older history contained even more issues with blp sources and reliability. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you Google "cnn.com Blac Chyna" or "TMZ Blac Chyna" (and so on), you'll see that major news outlets are routinely reporting her life. I'm going to bite my tongue about whether she has earned being called a "celebrity", but she is one and she is notable to a lot of people. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but I found that most hits are about her ex-boyfriend, not really about her. Yintan 06:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going against the grain here, but she had a television show (Rob & Chyna) that nationally aired titled about her (albeit with her ex-boyfriend); under most circumstances, that clinches a keep. This is a SOFIXIT situation as far as sources (and heavy reduction of tabloid garbage), and WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE‎ (I'm citing an alternate name because seriously?!) is a 'humorous' essay that should never be cited here. It also feels like the article is being nommed only because of the subject being in the news for abuse from the ex-boyfriend, and I'm always uncomfortable with that. Nate • (chatter) 23:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reason to keep? What it "feels like"? I nominated the article for the reason I mentioned above, not because of a current messy breakup. Yintan 06:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her role on Keeping Up with the Kardashians along with a decent amount of coverage in the news, including articles about her in The New York Times, Time Magazine, etc. She is notable, if only because she has ties to people who are substantially more famous than her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmite (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being famous or having ties to famous people isn't enough to qualify for notability. The Times magazine article you linked is about her and Rob WP:INVALIDBIO and the recent situation with them. That NY Times article isn't even about her, its about snapchat, and it just mentions her along with a lot of other people including Hilary Clinton. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:FART. Famous by association and family relationships. Yurivict (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines. BlackAsker (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received a large amount of press, and WP:INVALIDBIO says "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" (my emphasis). She's as famous as Rob Kardashian (who's hardly in the top tier of Kardashians), and has received coverage of her various beauty/fashion ventures. You may not like it that the media devotes so much time to her, but that's no reason for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should stratify the Kardashians and use them as a reference point for "Why is this person a celebrity?", and "I begrudgingly admit that this person is a celebrity". - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is not inherited from others. DrStrauss talk 13:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She starred in a reality show called Blac Chyna and Rob that aired on E! network.138.162.0.42 (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has received plenty of coverage from news outlet; this individual has actually been receiving a lot of coverage in the past couple of days. For better or worse, she is notable more so for the "famous for being famous"-kind of deal. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as far as I can tell, is not one of the notability criteria. And then there's WP:NOTNEWS as well. Yintan 09:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, much as it pains me to say it. She's enough in the news that she passes the notability requirement. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable in this article that's not mentioned elsewhere. Being popular on Instagram does not quality you for notability on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.99.251 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just did a news search on her, way too much coverage for a delete. ciphergoth (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately she's "notable" enough to have her own article, regardless of how she got it or what we may think of her personally. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winfred Bynum[edit]

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

Fails notability, probably created by a paid editor - note that this editor is one of several repeatedly recreating another promotional article, Lil Cory Doug Weller talk 17:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series considered the best[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic list. Fails WP:LSC. No discernible uniform criteria. Evaluation appears entirely subjective. Subject is insanely broad. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists are all over the place and seems like people have just grabbed from whoever did a list at the time of what they rated as their best shows. Fails WP:Lists trivial content NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 20:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely subjective opinion from multiple lists, notwithstanding that staffs and tastes about television shows change over the years, as TV Guide shows. It should be noted that Sepinwall and Zoller-Seitz definitely do not consider their list final; they plan to come out with multiple updates over the years of their title. Nate • (chatter) 21:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, this is a reasonable list, in that it compiles top 10 lists from a number of different reliable sources. It could stand to have some more text for context, but this is nowhere near the train wreck I was expecting when I first saw the title. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely subjective with no consistent parameters to measure a program against. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a reason we don't do lists of entries "considered the best". Fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First, this is not a list of TV shows considered the best. This is a "List of lists of shows considered either the best, the best in a country and/or the best in a genre". We could conceivably have a "List of TV shows in the United States considered the best", lose the UK source and the US source that divides out drama vs. comedy. That list is four entries long, if we ignore what the lists are and simply extract the top entry, creating a new topic that none of the sources discuss. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no criteria to determine the merit of the organizations providing these lists. Why should we take the word of one list maker over another? These types of lists are constantly being created by different organizations. This list is constantly going to be outdated as new shows are created and new lists are made. Not to mention the clear western bias present here. ZincHead (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I created the article in line with List of films considered the best. Crookesmoor (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Textile Engineering and Research[edit]

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

cyber.ghost 16:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Nominator did not provide a reason for nomination. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital gifting[edit]

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

This isn't really about a concept that has been discussed by reliable sources, but is the author's own thoughts, and thus original research. It also has promotional aspects. No real encyclopedic value. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a useful article, full of irrelevancies and discursions. It seems to muddle various categories, including: electronic gift vouchers redeemable at online stores; digital currencies like Bitcoin; in-game currencies such as those used in MMORPGs which can be used within the game to buy things for your character; and purely virtual gifts like where someone gives you a picture of a balloon and it appears on your social media page. There's currently a disambiguation page Virtual gift which might be a redirect target but is really not very useful either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three vaguely 'educational' paragraphs about something easily described in gift card already, badly hiding a clear WP:ADVERT WP:COATRACK for Giibox. Then the final paragraph is basically describing a microtransaction and the virtual goods that are usually bought in it. Definite WP:OR. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per nominator's withdrawal in the face of new search tools and sources being offered.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utharaswayamvaram[edit]

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

NOM WITHDRAWN ~~Fails the GNG, most mentions of the name are for another poem, not this movie. None of the external links in the bottom are very much good.~~ L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: L3X1, you are a good editor, but this probably was not a good nomination. The movie has prominent actors like Jayasurya and Balachandra Menon in the lead roles. The movie was a huge flop when it released, which is the reason why it did not get much more coverage. But the star cast ensured that it got reviews in [8] (Sify) and [9] (Rediff) - both of which are accepted websites in WP:ICTFFAQ. It was also covered before its release in Rediff. A host of other websites like Nowrunning, Filmibeat and Indiaglitz has also covered this. Jayasurya is a popular actor in the Malayalam industry, and deleting one of his movies is therefore probably not a good idea. Jupitus Smart 19:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jupitus Smart Thanks for pointing that out. I was totally unaware of the WikiProject page on Indian film websites, that should help me when assessing these film articles. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE, since the previous AfD was closed as speedy delete, rather than by consensus. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spigit[edit]

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

Another Corporate Spam. Poor references, Press and writing is for promotional only. Coverage are typical press. Light2021 (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Rizvi (director)[edit]

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

Completely self-promotional. Fails to provide WP:RS to verify as per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. No source to prove his claim of winning PTV awards. Greenbörg (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: almost A7/G11 material in my opinion. DrStrauss talk 15:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in RS. fails to meet WP:Author. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archives elimination in Cameroon[edit]

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

Try as I might, I have not been able to find any sources specific to the Archive Elimination in Cameroon (not even in French). All of the current sources are from French paper destruction (shredding) companies - nothing specific to Cameroon, and unfortunately not independently published. This article was nominated for PROD once. menaechmi (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not obviously notable when specific to Cameroon. Records management would be the more general topic (and records disposal in Cameroon a better English translation). But a redirect is surely not called for, and I don't think a merge is justified. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Rosen[edit]

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

The speedy delete was declined with "Decline speedy delete, this is about a real person and a real person can not be made up". I didn't find any reference in English and Hebrew about this rabbi. The source provided in article does not even mention him. Looks like a hoax. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a hoax, that is a WP:G3, not WP:A11. If it is a real person without a claim to significance it is a WP:A7, still not a WP:A11. ~ GB fan 14:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A11 says "obviously invented". I guess a person, with no source showing he ever existed is obviously invented by the author. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would then be a hoax and fall under WP:G3. ~ GB fan 15:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This hoax runs deeper than this article. Yedid Nefesh, Kiddush, 1600, Elazar ben Moshe Azikri, 1533, were also vandalized - working on it.Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is even an inconsistent hoax. Travelling from Lemberg to Fez would be improbable in 1551. It would even be more improbable to do so to study with Rabbi Jacob Berab who died in 1546 (five years prior) and who lived in his later years in Cairo, Damascus, and finally in Safed (leaving Algeria at the latest in 1522).Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The one reference made does not mention him whatsoever, plus if the info above is correct its a hoax and should be deleted. - Galatz ^Talk 16:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. It's all fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.13.71 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Farrukh Altaf[edit]

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

Fails to provide any WP:RS to verify as per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on the description it sounds like this position is roughly the equivalent of a county mayor? If so, he's not likely to meet WP:NPOL unless he's done something more notable than indicated in the article or its current sources. And on the sources, one of them (Pak Tribune) seems to be a dead link, another is dead but archived and is only a local government listing, and the third (Dawn) only peripherally mentions the article subject, so for all intents and purposes this article is unsourced.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes nazim is equivalent of mayor but since it is local office holder, he fails to meet WP:Politician.. cited sources except Dawn are not RS. --Saqib (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Shafaat Hussain[edit]

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

Article might have a source but fails to provide any WP:RS to verify as per WP:V. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Greenbörg (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like the only particularly notable thing about this subject is his family connections, and notability is not inherited. The offices held don't seem important enough to meet WP:NPOL. The one source seems to be a dead link.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is often quoted in news stories but mostly are namecheckings.. and since he is a local office holder who fails to meet WP:Politician therefore better deleted. --Saqib (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Qerfozi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article might meet WP:GNG based on the sources listed. However, these are routine sports generally considered insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. No evidence he meets WP:GNG either. Can be undeleted if and when he plays for Grasshopper. Smartyllama (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama and Sir Sputnik Some of the sources currently in the article look like they might meet the GNG criteria of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. GNG's a higher bar than NFOOTY but this chap might pass it, which wouldn't be unheard of. We've had footballers who've passed GNG before they step on a 1st XI pitch before. I'd appreciate a view on this instance from you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit-conflict) Of the sources listed, only the first one is not very clearly routine coverage. Sources two and three are database entries, which WP:NSPORT actually addresses explicitly: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. Four and six are transfer announcements, which are usually not considered sufficient for general notability. (See this afd for a recent example.) Five is a squad list which does not cover the subject in any sort of detail. The first source approaches significance, but I would argue that it is too short and insufficiently neutral to be indicative of general notability by itself. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Of the sources in the artice, this is the only one that seems to say anything more than routine transfer talk, match reportin or squad call ups. Not really seeing GNG here at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm creator of this article and I agree that fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL but he just moved at Swiss Super League side Grasshopper (see References) and they will play their first match in less than 2 weeks so please can we wait until there before deleted his article. Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long standing consensus against applying WP:NFOOTY prematurely in anticipation of debut. The page can always restored, if and when he makes first appearance for Grasshoper. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm convinced. And undelete it if he doesn't have a calamitous accident or fallout with the management that prevents him debuting, per WP:CRYSTAL. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm not sure this article would pass the GNG. This footballer has been the subject of some coverage for his exploits at amateur/semi-pro level (St. Galler Tagblatt covered his 5-goal performance [here http://www.tagblatt.ch/ostschweiz/thurgau/regionalsport/kreuzlingen-bezwingt-wil;art123846,4990075]), and it's certainly possible he will garner more coverage with Grasshopper Club, but probably not until then. Jogurney (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Zia Malik[edit]

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

Fail to provide WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOL too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politician, not enough to meet WP:NPOL. Only reference is a directory, so article is essentially unsourced.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician and WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Aftab Ahmed[edit]

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

Fail to provide WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOL too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politician, fails WP:NPOL. I couldn't get either reference page to load, but from the description it sounds like they are just lists of names, which is not enough RS coverage to hang an article on.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician and WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Zahid Hussain Khan[edit]

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

Fail to provide WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOL too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politician, doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The two sources provided are just lists of names, so the other content in the article is unsourced.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician and WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intsar Ahmad Khan[edit]

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

Fail to provide WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOL too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local politician, fails WP:NPOL. References provided are just lists of names/results.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician and WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Mattheou[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsher Ali Mazari[edit]

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

Fail to provide WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOL too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local politician, fails WP:NPOL. References provided are just lists, so doesn't meet WP:RS either.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. a local office holder who fails WP:Politician and doesn't meet WP:GNG. --Saqib (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ibrahim Doda[edit]

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

Fail to provide WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as he is Deputy Mayor with not much coverage about his work in independent sources. Greenbörg (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local office holder fails to meet WP:Politician criteria. . --Saqib (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lasbela is not an internationally famous metropolitan global city, so its local government councillors do not get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL just for existing — but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to get him past the "who have received significant media coverage" (i.e. "meets WP:GNG") part of our inclusion criteria for local politicians. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Optimist (dinghy)[edit]

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

The references provided here are all either primary sources, non-independent sources, PDF files, or are dead links. No evidence has been provided of non-trivial discussion in reliable, independent, secondary, published sources. As near as I can tell from an Internet search, "Optimist" appears to be a brand name for a dingy, in which case this article probably qualifies as promotional. Found lots of hits, but none that discussed the subject in depth and appeared to be independent of the subject. KDS4444 (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat Jain[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete all the references are written by the subject or from the connected organisations. There does not seem to be any special claim of importance either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G11. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - just another advertorial. Not a single independent source, and none to be found. Could almost be A7; it's definitely G11. --John from Idegon (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Open access in Albania and Open access in Iceland were both tagged for deletion and linked to this debate, but not explicitly included in the list of nominated articles here. Since they closely follow the format of the other deleted articles of this type, and since they were properly tagged, I'm going to go ahead and delete them as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open access in Vietnam[edit]

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

I came across these pages whilst new page reviewing. All of them seem to have been created by the same user over a span of a couple of days, which may explain why many of them appear to violate our policy of no original research. Many of them are unsourced which makes it difficult to verify their content and to assess their independent notability. I suggest that all the pages be deleted on these grounds with a warm invitation to Filippo Morsiani, the creator, to create a List of open access policies by country article, preferable through a draft.

Please also note the consensus gained on similar articles in deletion discussions here.

TL;DR: delete all per WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:N and invite creator to create a list encompassing all of them.

Note to closing admin: if the result is delete, please note that many of these have redirects to them on capitalisation grounds which also need deletion.

DrStrauss talk 13:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TNT. While this is absolutely a valid potential subject area for Wikipedia coverage, these are not the articles we're looking for. By and large they're unsourced (and/or sourced only to UNESCO's main open access project, if anywhere at all, rather than to media coverage), and strike a tone that falls somewhere between an essay and a how-to guide rather than being encyclopedically written and formatted. And the reason for both issues is that essentially they were copied and pasted from the UNESCO platform rather than being original Wikipedia content — but while WP:COPYVIO isn't an issue in this instance due to the free content nature of the UNESCO site, the lack of a copyvio problem still does not in and of itself exempt Wikipedia's copies from having to comply with our tone, structure and sourcing standards. Nominator is entirely correct that a more realistic approach would be to start with one base overview article, permitting by-country spinoffs as needed for the countries where we can source a sufficient volume of good content, rather than just jumping straight to a series of 80-100 articles generated by copy-pasting unencyclopedically formatted content from somewhere else. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these seem to be copied from UNESCO (in a permittable way), but are not encyclopedic in their present form. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I saw them roughly a month ago on new page patrol and PROD'ed what seemed to be the most egregiously unencyclopedic of them in the name of "picking my battles", but with the benefit of hindsight even the "better" ones are really not too great. Comments that this is an encyclopedic topic and one worth actually creating entries about are entirely correct, and I think with appropriate mentoring and oversight such articles could make for very worthwhile inclusions. These ain't they, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that in Big Haz's user talk page archive we see the article creator appearing to accept deletion at User_talk:BigHaz/Archive_22#Open_access. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My impression at the time was that the article creator was accepting the deletion of the half-dozen or so I deleted a month ago, rather than of the entire project. But time will tell, of course. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As per Bearcat $Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...)$ 14:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ryan Holiday#Books. So Why 09:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Growth Hacker Marketing[edit]

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

The question is notability, in particular WP:NBOOK. To be honest I have seen worse survive AfD, but upon checking I see that NBOOK#1 specifically excludes publications where the author (...) advertise[s] or speak[s] about the book, under which quite a few of the refs fall (e.g. two Forbes sources are interviews with the author), and many other smell of copy-pasted press releases. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK guideline #1 specifically stipulates that it has to have been the subject of two or more published works. This book meets that requirement. Bobhambrick (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobhambrick: links please. (Genuinely asking, because I couldn't find them in the refs or online) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a handful that mention the book:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253165
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/281422
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/21/marketing-guru-ryan-holiday-answers-your-growth-hacking-questions/#.tnw_6vjR7NaP
https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/22/the-real-engines-of-growth-on-the-internet/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laura-inamedinova/2016/08/07/20-growth-hacking-strategists-that-you-must-follow-in-2016/#1c3aa44d5092

Another piece the notability puzzle is that this book seems to be (or have been) the subject of instruction at several colleges and universities, which is specifically stipulated in NBOOK#4

Universtity of Kent
Syracuse University
Westchester Community College
Carnegie Mellon University
Northeastern University

Some good points have been mentioned about references on the page which can be corrected, but the book does qualify as notable. Keep. Bobhambrick (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the links: [10], [11], [12], [13]: passing mentions (not even a full paragraph discussing the book). [14] is not an independent source (cf. nomination).

For NBOOK #4, I think it fails the footnote which says This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves (...) (emphasis added). IIRC it was meant to refer to works such as King Lear or Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book in question is not written specifically for academic curriculum and yet it is studied in the classroom, so while not remotely as notable as the texts you provide as examples it does still make it notable as a subject of instruction. Bobhambrick (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what "subject of study" means. I would think it is intended in a meta-analysis sense (i.e. how was the book relevant to a current of thought, what impact did it have at the time of publishing or later on its subject or on its author's notoriety, etc.), otherwise I don't really see the point of excluding textbooks but including books that end up being used as textbooks. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at the talk page for NBOOK, in the hope it will bring more help. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, one of my first ports of call when looking at an afd' book article is Worldcat for an indication of possible notableness (librarians are pretty good at ensuring their collections contain relevant/notable books, just don't get me started on those that cull their collections .... NNNNOOOOOO!!!!!), looking here it is held by around 200 libararies which isn't too bad, then googling the title and "book reviews" and looking at a couple of regional libaray sites, surprisingly there doesn't appear to be (m)any useable reviews out there for this book (im not comfortable with the reviews that presently appear in the "Reception" section), even the dreaded:)) trade reviewers like PW and Kirkus Reviews haven't reviewed it (they do have reviews of some of Holiday's other books), so im leaning towards a delete or a redirect to author, at this time. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ryan_Holiday#Books; everything can be covered there. The article appears to serve only to promote the book; the "Reception" section is the smallest one. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect/merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment For the record, I agree redirecting to Ryan Holiday#Books is better than outright deletion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author section per above; cover & expand summary style. NBOOKS is supposed to be an indicator that extensive sources exist somewhere for us to write an article that does justice to the topic. I too only see passing mentions in the above and thus very little content with which we can write an article, nevertheless do any such justice. czar 17:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pranay Agrawal[edit]

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

Shallow coverage in RSs. The article has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Rentier (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are either not from reliable sources or shallow "in passing" or routine mentions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources don't give WP:SIGCOV. DrStrauss talk 12:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Ouma[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lack of coverage to meet WP:GNG and I don't see that he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:NBOX. The World Cup is not the world championships and he fought for, but didn't win, any of the titles that would have granted presumptive notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO and lacks BLP inline citations. DrStrauss talk 12:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 09:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Zabiela[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Zabiela is a very well known DJ on the British dance music scene, and has been since he came to prominence over 15 years ago – he plays all over the world, produces his own records, has made many mix albums, and remixed tracks for other notable artists. But none of this confers notability in itself, and I'm not sure where you could find good sources for an article about him - probably in back issues of Mixmag and DJ Mag but they aren't available online, so it's hard to make a case for this article at present. Richard3120 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Spirk[edit]

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

It does not establish the Notability and other criteria. Promotional in nature. Press coverage as par with standards. Light2021 (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7 speedy delete -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Run (comics)[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. It's about the usage of a regular English word in a particular context, cited to examples of that usage, and perhaps would be better included as a usage of "run" in Wiktionary, but it no more requires an encyclopedia article than, say, the usage of "run" to mean the duration of a play's performance at a particular theatre. Nicknack009 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already deleted it so this won't be needed anyway now.★Trekker (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree, but you haven't deleted the article, you've only blanked it. If it's to be deleted, it needs admin action. Hopefully that will follow and this can be closed. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I've deleted articles that I have made before by just blanking them since I was the creator. Why not now, why waste time?★Trekker (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bhatt[edit]

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

Promotional BLP largely written by the subject himself, who does not appear to meet to WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR or the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Autobiography which, as the nom points out, does not meet any of the 3 guidelines germane to this article: WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR or the WP:GNG. Searches turned up lots of hits on this name, but none seem to be about this particular person. The editing history, and possibly sock editing on the article in an attempt to avoid the autobiography claim, is also troubling. I opened an SPI, which has not seen any resolution as of yet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. alphalfalfa^(talk) 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Update: Sock investigation was just closed, and editor who created this article was blocked for a month, while his other alias was blocked indefinitely. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable indiviual, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to HopStop. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinedu Echeruo[edit]

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

This existed as redirect for years and recently the independent article was created. I am not sure he passes WP:ENTREPRENEUR, so I am opening a discussion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rvt to redirect Considering the nest of COI and promotional socks that were working on the article the redirect is preferable. MarnetteD|Talk 21:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Small Business Innovator of the Year Award from Black Enterprise was to Hopstop as a company, not to Echeruo as a person. The Forbes listing is literally just a caption.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above and because it's a plausible search term. Smartyllama (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the arguments above. --Kbabej (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to CK Birla Group. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gmmco Ltd[edit]

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

Subsidiary company. Seem to to be a target for continual promotion and advertising. Possible merge to main company. scope_creep (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / merge per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMO. — fortunavelut luna 12:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CK Birla Group: The passing mention of this subsidiary and its line of business on the page about the parent firm is already sufficient. No evidence that it has notability in its own right. AllyD (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CK Birla Group & protect from recreation; too much SPA activity. There's nothing to merge as the article does not cite suitable sources, nor could I find significant coverage when I PROD'ed the article just recently. PROD was removed be an employee of the company; pls see disclosure here: [15]. Better off without this page or future attempts at recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isidro A. T. Savillo[edit]

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

Long and superficially impressive article, but I am struggling to see how he passes WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, even taking into account WP:CSB. Even if he is the same person as Isidro T. Savillo, his highest Google Scholar cite count is 9. He apparently has no academic position, let alone a named professorship or equivalent. He does not meet WP:PROF. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This has been judged as a start page which means that there are significant achievements as supported by references then why delete? In the first place this is not a stub. There are achievements in the article that could provide his notabilityLancet345 (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC) — Lancet345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article class isn't really an indicator of the notability of the topic, Lancet345. See Wikipedia:WikiProject assessment. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, His discoveries are novel and are attributed to him. Why don't we give him a chance rather than be swayed away of what other people of saying to harm his name. If the article needs an edit, then why not do it.Viperqwer (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC) — Viperqwer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck as a blocked sock of Lancet345. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources impress in quantity but this is clearly the intention - many are personally created pages about non-notable organisations, usually consisting of a single page of text and a link to his Yahoo mail address. Others establish that certain scientific research exists and is reported on, but fail to mention Savillo or his work. There are a few minor papers co-published by him, but he is cited only a handful of times. Overall the sourcing strikes me as very poor at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. I have been through enough of them to make an informed decision, but my search was not exhaustive, so I am open to correction by anyone who can provide solid evidence of his notability. El Pharao (talk)

As an addendum to the above I would also like to point out some of the deliberate attempts on this page to generate a false sense of notability. One of his influences links not to a Wikipedia article but a wikispecies article: https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harrie_J._M._Sipman, and his book 'Yelwa-Yauri' is hyperlinked as though it had its own page but actually links to two separate and unrelated towns in Nigeria. If this person is notable why the need for deception? El Pharao (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no deception here. H. Sipman is his mentor as DAAD scholar in FRG and Yelwa- Yauri is the title of his novel named after a place in Nigeria.112.198.69.77 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. Lancer and Viper blocked as sockpuppets. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 06:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stuffed with fluff. He "indulges research" and "espouses the environment". And has a script treatment! E Eng 14:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is scientist/researcher and a writer. What is wrong with that?112.198.69.77 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His discoveries which include the use of a lichen , Pyxine cocoes for atmospheric pollution in tropical Asia has been adapted and used in Thailand, India and just recently Indonesia. He is cited in publications and in theses.112.198.98.154 (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy. Also be aware there seems to be an effort by ip editors who are possibly socks/meat puppets of our socking friend here... --Tarage (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has had a few minor publications, but fails to meet WP:ACADEMIC as he has no academic position and does not meet any of the other notability criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources don't demonstrate that the subject has received significant, independent coverage, and neither does a quick search. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohga Tanaka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. DrStrauss talk 10:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Procedural only: WP:G12 (of [www.furian.co.uk ]) deletion by User:Alexf. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furian[edit]

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

No sources indicating notability - fails WP:MUSICBIO. DrStrauss talk 10:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Unsourced. Unsigned. Never charted. Fails WP:BAND, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically a direct copy of their website complete with promotional tone. Have tagged for speedy delete because of that.PRehse (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete yep, per WP:G12. — fortunavelut luna 13:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : creator is the band's agent, has a massive COI and admits to blatantly spamming the Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has now been speedied.PRehse (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator with no further delete !votes. So Why 09:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Sheikh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, he has appeared in some TV shows and won at least one award, but not sure if he meets WP:ACTORS. --Saqib (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Without wasting anyones time I found sources which shows his notability. Greenbörg (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenbörg:, please note most of the sources such as news articles only namechecking the subject. I couldn't find a single article in RS which discuss about him. --Saqib (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I still think he had played major roles in notable TV series and also won award. We still can have a stub-class article with those sources. Greenbörg (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why not. --Saqib (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News Room[edit]

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

A short-lived talk show which was eventually replaced by a newer program as per WP:TVSHOW. Not a single source so fails WP:GNG too. Greenbörg (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presans[edit]

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

Procedural re-nomination. The first AfD discussion was closed as speedy keep per lacking a valid rationale for deletion. Below is the nominator's updated rationale for deletion (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment typical corporate profile! nothing much. It does not adhere to wikipedia policies. Advertising in nature. Wikipedia is not social media and not a directory. Light2021 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC) (See diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as no consensus, as no other participants have agreed with the nominator's notion of the article being promotional, and the most recent !vote simply states "Not notable, small-time pageant event", but does not address the sources that were presented in the discussion. Also, an event being "small-time" does not necessarily mean that a topic is non-notable as a default. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Chinese (Vancouver) Pageant[edit]

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable pageant. Article is full of trivia and is entirely self-cited. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is either local to Vancouver or PR-driven / trivial mentions. Proposing either a "Delete" or a "Redirect" to Miss Chinese International Pageant, for which the Vancouver event serves as a feeder pageant. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Chinese-language sources verify the notability of this pageant: Seattle Chinese Times, Sing Tao Daily, 51.ca, iask.ca, gcpnews.com, China News, Epoch Times, World Journal, Lady in Bloom (花样盛年), etc. English: Vancouver Sun, Asian Pacific Post, Women of China. Of course, they are just newspapers, and I could not find books or journal articles. However, I hope the newspapers should suffice. George Ho (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not notable, small-time pageant event.--Richie Campbell (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice on renominating. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Spirit (South African TV series)[edit]

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

A television series that ran for 7 seasons would seem likely to be notable. But after doing some WP:BEFORE work, I am finding very little coverage of this television series, little enough that I'm wondering if it is in fact notable under WP:TVSHOW. So I'm bringing it before the community to have more eyes take a look at it. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 06:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's unclear from my nomination, I support deletion unless some sort of notability can be established. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether this can be redirected/merged to List of South African television series
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Baer[edit]

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

Highly promotional, blogger and definitely not encyclopedic notable personality. nothing significant has achieved. 1000 of such bloggers are there who just write a blog column in popular media channels. Light2021 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO for an insigninifcant marketing executive and author. Note external links in body -- a hallmark of such promotional articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WP:AUTHOR subject is widely cited by their peers in the online marketing industry. He has been an author of three significant books.^[3]^[4]^[5] He has been featured in tech and business media such as Forbes, Fast Company, Harvard Business Review, Entrepreneur, NBC News, and CNBC.^[6] I agree that a few external links to his own websites should be cleaned from his entry, but this fact alone does not merit deletion. Benergetic (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en-gb.facebook.com/help/196050490547892?helpref=faq_content
^ https://techcrunch.com/2013/05/29/facebook-unveils-verified-pages-and-profiles-takes-a-page-from-twitters-playbook/
^ Naslund, Jay Baer & Amber (2011). The now revolution : 7 shifts to make your business faster, smarter, and more social. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. ISBN 047092327X.
^ Baer, Jay (2013). Youtility : why smart marketing is about help not hype. New York, NY: Portfolio/penguin. ISBN 9781591846666.
^ Baer, Jay (March 1, 2016). Hug Your Haters : How to Embrace Complaints and Keep Your Customers. New York, NY: Portfolio/penguin. ISBN 1101980672.
^ "Press - Jay Baer Marketing and Customer Service Keynote Speaker -". Jay Baer Marketing and Customer Service Keynote Speaker.

- Can you cite any in-depth coverage made by media not some press coverage or routine online writing ? Light2021 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the mentioned coverage are articles published in general, nothing in-depth coverage found on single source from nay media.Light2021 (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- three out of four sources above are to the subject himself, while the fourth is to his speaker bureau. Not independent coverage by any means. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - shilling for a shilly shill, using a charity illegally to spread his name. Get off our damn lawn, kid. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nilkamal Plastics[edit]

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

Obviously promotional article with major contributions for editors listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amitabhaitc DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regardless of whether KuwarOnline is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet (as of the time of this writing this account was mentioned in the investigation only today, by the same editor who has started the AFD. It did not come up in the checkuser, but of course that won't catch meatpuppetry, so the allegation may well be true, but is irrelevant) this article was revised significantly from their last draft, contains many reliable secondary sources supporting its claims, and is neutral in tone (with the possible exception of the @home section, that one could probably use some work). Nilkamal is, as far as I can tell, a notable furniture brand in India. I sense a degree of WP:GEOBIAS in the deletion of articles about Indian firms. After all, we have articles like these (Relicore and Resilio) about US firms that show absolutely no notability, yet an article about, per The Hindu (a reliable independent publication), the world's largest manufacturer of moulded furniture and Asia's largest processor of plastic moulded products is repeatedly challenged. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of Indian news coverage in this field is the reason why so many articles on Indian companies get deleted. Just look at the article--it's an advertorial. They couldn't have done it more promotionally if they had written it themselves, instead of getting the newspaper to write it. Looking at the edit pattern, the sockpuppettry is utterly obvious and presumably represents paid editing. If the firm is notable, someone else will need to start an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My first thought on first reading was there was no assertion of significance. My second and third thoughts as well. Then I looked at the citations. At first blush, the cites appear impressive. Appearances are sometimes deceiving. They do not treat the subject in depth and are entirely promotional in nature. Ergo, does not meet GNG. The article is a shallow promo puff piece rather than an encyclopedia article, which is unsurprising. The sources cited are shallow promo puff pieces which serve only to promote the subject without covering the subject objectively and in depth. One source in particular describes a publicity stunt by the subject. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bah. I won't blame DGG, because none of the Indian editors showed up the last time this was discussed. Otherwise this would have been an WP:AGF keep if multiple Indian editors in standing had asserted to its notability. Probably none of the Indian editors watch Indian TV or use plastic products, so I will assume WP:AGF about their lack of participation as well. My harping without any backup probably gave off the illusion that this was indeed not notable, and I was some kind of POV editor/sockpuppet. The last time this was discussed, there were three Indian editors involved. Me, the nominator and the creator. WP:CORPDEPTH is skewed against Indian companies, so a lot of articles about Indian companies would probably end up being deleted if taken to AfD. However I find it hard to understand why an Indian editor would nominate a popular company like Nilkamal, even though I will still assume AGF again, and assume probably he is one of the editors who falls in the above categories, or is a deletionist who would rather see all articles which don't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH get deleted. However I still find it strange as to why Nilkamal's biggest competitor, Supreme Industries, which is much smaller] than Nilkamal was never considered for deletion by anybody, even though Nilkamal's page has mentioned that Supreme was their biggest competitor for quite some time now. Please don't think I am insinuating at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I feel that since the bigger company does not satisfy any of the norms, that should also hold for the much smaller company, and in the interest of ruling out any bias in nominations, Supreme should also be AfDed. Could @DGG: or @Dlohcierekim: look at Supreme Industries, and see if it satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG and decide on the merits of an AfD as I seem to be very bad at it. And as for Nilkamal, I have always associated plastics with Nilkamal (and Supreme). But if none of the other Indian editors feel so, then probably this should be deleted as well. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone thinks page is suitable for discussion at AfD, I recommend that they nominate it for discussion at AfD.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. But what I would really like to see is stronger article with sources where there is no possibility of a failure of independence in the sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- available sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH while this content can just as effectively housed on a company web site. Not all listed companies are notable, and nothing here warrants an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am still of the opinion that this company is significant, given its size and the media coverage it has received. The changes to the @home section are an improvement IMO and I think they show that the article is about a notable topic and can be improved. If this article is deleted, I guess we would also delete Supreme Industries to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight? Or is there a reason to think that company is more notable than this one despite being smaller? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm one of the first to delete advertorial content but this isn't delete worthy, the references included as well as those available in searches (for both the parent company and subsidiaries) are more than sufficient to pass WP:CORP/ WP:GNG. —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying another time to generate sufficient discussion for a clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion here regarding a page move to retitle the article can continue on the article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mouhcine Fikri[edit]

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

Routine coverage of the subject of an event which does not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit premature, since the effects of his death are still being debated. I googled his name on the 'google news' search function, and I limited the search period to the past two weeks. it came up with more than four pages of news articles published in the past 14 days, that referenced Mouhcine Fikri. Clearly he is a person of importance, though in this case because of the effects of this death and manner of dying. What is your evidence that 'duration of coverage' is not great enough, given that it is receiving coverage still today? Tsop (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS and I think the subject's death does not even meet WP:LASTING because it has not been critically analysed. His death is just one of the many reasons why protests (even before his death) have been held in the country per this [16]. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"His death is just one of the many reasons why protests (even before his death) have been held in the country per this." So to ascertain the relevance of this article we have to debate the reasons why people are protesting in Morocco? Absurd. Clearly his death is significant. In total there are more than 7,200 results when googling 'Mouhcine Fikri' on the Google News search function. Yes, some will be duplicates, but we are talking about a person whose name has been mentioned in more than 1,000 news articles. Where are people going to visit to learn information about this individual, if not on Wikipedia? Tsop (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should note that passing mentions does not prove notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In three of the articles referenced in the article, Fikri is directly mentioned in the headline. These are clearly not 'passing mentions'. I would like an experienced administrator to weigh in on this matter, because I sense bias on your part - too many shifting explanations. Alternatively, can rename to Death of Mouhcine Fikri, and expand the article.

Strong Delete: In accordance with the statement of the nominator;Oluwa2Chainz, coverage of the subject fails to meet WP:PERSISTENCE Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep This individual is notable for an event that occurred in 2016. Therefore it seems difficult to make an appeal to WP:PERSISTENCE. The entry itself notes: "[Persistence] may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." In addition, Mouhcine Fikri continues to be written about in news coverage. I believe this article could be moved to Death of Mouhcine Fikri in accordance with convention. Tsop (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Death of Mouhcine Fikri. The Moroccan protests have been widely reported and described as being caused by his death. WP:EFFECT applies to this topic, in my opinion. Cjhard (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find solid secondary source coverage. As you know if you've taken any serious history classes, reports about current events are primary sources; "news reports in newspapers are secondary sources" is a fringe theory and needs to be treated as such. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand and move. Just because something has happened in the last year doesn't exclude it from history. Over 12,000 articles on Google news search, worldwide indepth coverage. News reports can be primary or secondary sources. The events in Morocco are much more significant and long-lasting than what we are trying to avoid with the guidelines cited in deletion arguments. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to rename or possibly merge to an article about the protests
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barkat Ali Siddiqui[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Created by sockpuppet who long gone. Will be better to rewrite when he becomes notable. Greenbörg (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no press coverage in RS. doesn't meet WP:ACTORS. --Saqib (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Minor roles in acting, otherwise its fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Berguer[edit]

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

non notable author. None of his books are in more than 20 worldcat libraries, and I cannot locate an significant reviews. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Not sure how the nominator missed the library holdings at World Cat but here they are:

All over by Christmas is in University of Oxford, Trinity College Library Dublin, National Library of Scotland.

The Friern Hospital story is in six major libraries including the above and the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda.

Under the Wires at Tally Ho is in twenty libraries!

British Library holdings of this author:

http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01016660842

http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01015664084

http://explore.bl.uk/BLVU1:LSCOP-ALL:BLL01016222183

Press coverage:

http://www.times-series.co.uk/leisure/books/10049434._Not_treated__but_not_ill_treated_/

http://www.times-series.co.uk/leisure/books/11107188.Barnet_in_the_Great_War/

His award is in Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, currently behind a paywall as too recent to be freely available. As the nomination appears to be based on an error, it would be gracious of @DGG: to now withdraw it. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As Philafrenzy demonstrates in some detail, the stated basis for the nomination is not valid. Edwardx (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Edwardx. We have too few articles on municipal historians and Berguer's books are in several reputable libraries. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philafrenzy. I would close per WP:SNOW but requesting a withdrawal is nicer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Word (bookstore)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable store. There's a fair number of references in the article, all of which fall into one of two categories: Dead links, or articles in sydneyanglicans.net, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that all the brick-and-mortar retail stores have gone, and this article needs substantial updating. The 2006 nomination was the second as evidenced by the discussion, making this the third AfD. It doesn't really matter that the references are dead links because WP:NTEMP. It's difficult to research online because "Word" is a common word and the business wasn't known as "Word (bookstore)." The nomination doesn't provide any insight into WP:BEFORE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bunch of searching on my own and failed to find anything useful. And, yes, you are correct that searching for word is a somewhat frustrating experience. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see any notability here. Also hard to verify but that's a side issue. --Lockley (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable retail chain; no claim to notability and no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 08:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Mahaganapati Temple[edit]

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

WP:Notability Vin09 (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)#Demographics. The consensus is clear that the content doesn't belong here in its current form, however there's also opinion that a redirect to the appropriate section in the princely state will be beneficial. At a later point in time, should anyone want the content to create an article that meets requirements, then this can be undeleted and draftified to serve as a starting point. —SpacemanSpiff 03:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1941 Census of Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

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

While census reports may have some use in an article about a particular country or place, WP is not a directory for maintaining such reports as stand alone articles for each state in the world. 1901_Census_of_Delhi_District is a similar census report and if consensus here is to delete the 1941 report, the 1901 should also be deleted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there's something historically significant about this specific census, it's just a collection of stats at the moment. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We keep population figures, but current and historical. This is I suppose not the actual full census report, but a summary of the findings and thus appropriate for an encyclopedia . There is a very fuzzy line between including information about population based on census reports and including a summary of the reports. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that WP:NOTSTATS doesn't mention anything about census results, one way or another. But the two examples it does give of valid standalone lists include opinion polling results for a US election -- which would seem to me to be of equal or less encyclopedic value than historic census results for a country or state. I see we do have Category:Censuses in India as part of a vast structure -- which I've added it to this list. ~~Keep~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. --Elton-Rodrigues 19:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
Weak delete. Can't find anything really significant about this particular census, especially given it looks very selective and incomplete. Ajf773 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is literally a collection of statistics with zero context. No evidence of notability and WP:NOTSTATS. No objection to userfying somewhere if an editor decides to add some context, but right now, it's just numbers. An encyclopedic article can't be just numbers. Note that the examples in NOTSTATS referenced by Shawn in Montreal refer to splits from a main article. We sometimes split out statistics due to length. We never provide statistics as a standalone article unrelated to any other article with no context, though. Very different scenarios. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point, thank you. I've modified my statement above accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. — fortunavelut luna 08:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Salt Completely non encyclopedic knowledge with no intrinsic meaning for the average reader. It duplicates what is already available on the web, with no additional knock on value, can be easily generated in software but provides no value. No use to data analytic as it is not detailed enough as its a aggregate summary, why not use the full size one, no tools on WP to extract meaning from it for the average schmoo, and no intrinsic meaning, that you can see at a glance for the average WP reader, including me. So why keep it? It a column of numbers!. scope_creep (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective list, which does not show a notable relationship to a subject. A list that is only a collection of stats. Kierzek (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge most important statistics with Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)#Demographics. Kashmir is and remains a very controversial issue in world affairs. Objective information about the pre-conflict demography can be useful in Wikipedia. --RaviC (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RAWDATA/WP:NOTSTATS this is a pretty clear cut case of a big listing of raw information. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-WP:NOSTATS apply.Fails WP:GNG wholesomely.I have strong doubts about the reliab. of the sources.Winged Blades^Godric 07:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I understand the points of several of the keep !votes, I simply can't see how this particular article passes the guidelines in WP:NOTSTATS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with the caveat that the introduction that be expanded to indicate why this census is notable. Is this the last census during the British India era? Are caste demographics still kept in modern Indian census data? Are there demographic trends of note that can be mentioned? I don't think that a table of numbers alone, without context, can stand on its own. But with some expansion... caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)#Demographics, which has a summary analysis of the statistics - the info most people would be looking for anyway. Those desiring more granular detail can go right to the source. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stanley Aronowitz. There's good consensus here that a stand-alone bibliography is not justified. Opinion is divided whether this should be deleted outright or merged to the parent article.

Per WP:ATD, I'm going to give the nod to merge, but note that everybody who argued to merge, qualified that it should be a selective merge. I'll leave it to whoever does the merge to figure out what's worth merging and what's not, but the gist of this is that it should only be the most significant works. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Aronowitz bibliography[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason " WP is not for posting lists of publications except of the most notable people (like Einstein). A short bibliography (with, say, 5 entries) with the most important selected works (as substantiated by independent sources) can be included in the article on this academic. All academics publish, but we don't need a completely list of publications for every one of them." Article dePRODded by creator who posted a long rationale on the talk page. I'll be interested to learn whether the community thinks that any person who passes WP:PROF (or WP:GNG for that matter) should have such a split-off bibliography article. I stand by my PROD, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, I believe we all agree that Mr. Stanley Aronowitz is a notable Acidemic with a justifiable article here on Wikipedia. As such the inclusion of his bibliography incorporated/embedded on his page would not be questioned. Which leads me to my Keep opinion on this WP:SPINOFF bibliography/list of Mr. Aronowitz works. Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. In looking at the Professor’s bibliography we see that he is a prolific author penning or majorly contributing to over 200 works. As we can see here, [17], his works are considered important and cited 1,000’s of times. If we were looking at just 5 or even 10 pieces I would just say Redirect and Merge to the main article. However with over 200 pieces, my opinion is we would be over burden the main articial, which than makes a case for a stand-alone piece. Many may say just shorten the list to those works that have been cited over a 1000 times. Others will say, lets include pieces that have been cited 500 or more, and on and on and on. My gauge point, for a piece to be considered passably notable, is when an article is cited 50+ times. In Mr. Aronowitz case, that would be 50+ separate article, books, papers. Which I believe justifies a stand-alone piece. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have thousands (if not tens of thousands) of articles on notable academics. All have publication lists of dozens of articles at a minimum, if they're nearing mid- or end-career, likely 100 or many more. Should we include on WP those publication lists of all those thousands of academics or leave that to the specialized databases that exist? --Randykitty (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Someone has gone to a lot of work here to create an extensive bibliography on a notable academic. It's valid and sourced material. But Mr. Aronowitz's notability does not extend to every one of his written works. This separate list seems overly promotional and (to Randykitty's point) way out of balance to what we typically include for other academics. --Lockley (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand what is meant here by 'notability extending to all written works' and why this would have something to do with the overall notability warranting the existence of a separate bibliography WP article. Let's take for instance an example I raised in my original contention: Slavoj Žižek is an academic with his own bibliography WP article, and he has also published a great number of works, some of which have received acclaim in academic circles, some of which garnered wider acclaim and praise, and some of which have received neither. Yet, the relevance of Žižek's bibliography WP article has gone unchallenged so far (as far as I'm aware). The same set of conditions I've laid out above apply to Stanley, as well. But one not need limit oneself to the case of Žižek to see how 'notability not extending to all written works' should not rule out the existence of a bibliography WP article. Take for example the article Works of John Betjeman, a featured bibliography article. This article includes in the bibliography the text Lament for Moira McCavendish, a "Undated, but c. 1958–59; booklet, limited to 20 copies" - a work with likely limited notability given that it was limited to 20 copies; and yet, Betjeman's bibliography WP article is a featured article. Further, there is no such rule in the notability guidelines in the WikiProject Bibliographies that speaks at all of 'notability extending to all written works.' Also, the purpose of separate bibliography articles is not to promote certain scholars above and beyond others, but simply because the scholar in question has so many publications that they can't be contained in their eponymous WP article, so I feel like this point obfuscates the discussion at hand. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to reproduce my original extended contention to the PROD here as I feel like it makes some points which haven't really been taken up in the discussion thus far. "User Randykitty wrote that "WP is not for posting lists of publications except of the most notable people." First, this appears to be on the surface demonstrably false. Wikipedia features numerous list-class articles featuring publications which belong to no notable person whatsoever. For example, the Bibliography of fly fishing is not by any one notable person and yet it is a list-class article of note. Second, if the contention is in regards to notability, the grounds for notability of stand-alone lists should be assessed based on the set of qualifications set out for them, not on the person who the list is about if the person has their own Wikipedia article. Deletion on these grounds begs the question of whether or not Stanley is a notable person. Stanley in fact has his own Wikipedia article, whose notability has not been challenged; so to assert that the present article should be deleted because Stanley is not a notable person is incorrect. Randykitty has written as well that "A short bibliography (with, say, 5 entries) with the most important selected works (as substantiated by independent sources) can be included in the article on this academic." I would encourage Randykitty to examine the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies section on Author bibliographies, which lays out guidelines for what is appropriate for author bibliographies. The guidelines state, "the author should be notable and have a Wikipedia article. If there are fewer than 10 works attributable to the author, they should be included in a bibliography or list of works section within the main article." So if one agrees that Stanley is a notable author, which, by virtue of his having an uncontested Wikipedia page, one can argue that he is, and because Stanley has more than 10 works (according to biographies written about him, he has more than 200), a separate bibliography can reasonably be created for him. Further, while Randykitty argues, "all academics publish, but we don't need a completely list of publications for every one of them" my rebuttal would be that not all academics have as a unique and voluminous a publication history as Stanley. If one looks at the present article as it exists so far, one can see that Stanley has published in both the academic and popular press, as well as written and edited numerous books. Yes, all academics publish, but Stanley's output in breadth and depth is exceptional by most any academics' standards, which is why the present article was created. Last. one need not look very far to find other academics and minor authors with bibliographies on Wikipedia whose standing in the scientific community (to take the example that Randykitty has raised) is lesser than Albert Einstein. One example is Slavoj Zizek bibliography, which actually fails to conform to the standards laid out by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies more so than the present article." Joeyvandernaald (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What I am still confused about in the arguments for deletion thus far is Stanley's assumed lack of notability, and further its basis in a set of non-existent principles for notability of an individual warranting a bibliography. In Randykitty's original argument and, from what I think I understand in their point above, to allow for Stanley to have a separate WP bibliography article would somehow open the flood gates for anyone to create a bibliography article about any academic with an existing Wikipedia article. Setting to one side the fact that here are already actual notability guidelines on the Bibliography Wikiproject that are fairly clear in regards to this sort of question, it's being assumed that Stanley doesn't meet some set of notability guidelines appropriate for a bibliography that don't presently exist. Given the points raised by Shoessss above, what principles of notability are those in favor of deletion actually using in assessing Stanley? Why is it that, to those in favor of deletion, Stanley is just one of an anonymous group of "thousands (if not tens of thousands)" of other academics when Stanley has entered into and made meaningful contributions in numerous debates across a number of disciplines, had at least one retrospective conference dedicated to his work, and written many influential books? Further, to say that academics regularly publish over 100 articles, books, edited volumes, etc. is at best extremely likely to be discipline-dependent (also determined by gender, nationality, etc.) and at worst only hyperbole. Take for example, someone like Edward Said: in the article Edward Said bibliography, one can see that the listed works number less than 50 (if we believe this to be a faithful representation of his œuvre). Take as another example, the 2015 article by Kristoffer Rørstad and Dag W.Aksnes, who find that within the Norwegian Publication Database academics in the social sciences on average full professors are publishing 1.77 article equivalents per year; assuming that they continuously publish so robustly a thirty year career would yield sixty publications, with half of those examined publishing less, irrespective of the notability of said publications. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you have a look at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS... --Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair - certainly the mention of the Žižek pertains to this, but unfortunately it's not really dealing with the other points I raised. I still don't think that this disproves Stanley's notability, or shows that he is sufficiently lacking notability to warrant a deletion of his bibliography. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability for this length of bibliography. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

There's been quite a bit of discussion about this so far, in regards to notability and what counts for notability. Even the first comment deals with this point. Please see above. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a CV or a personal website. Just about every notable academic has a long list of publications. Being notable for being an academic doesn't automatically mean a subject gets two articles. There needs to be some additional reason -- like some degree of historical notability or notability of several individual works. We don't have very clear guidelines for when it's necessary, but we typically only include major works and/or notable works in such bibliographies, which can live in the biography itself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rhododendrites, I think you're right - Wikipedia isn't someone's CV, and I've already pointed out that not every notable academic has a long list of publications; in fact, statistically it's quite rare. Setting aside the fact that these arguments are kind of going in a circle, which I've tried to address above, the "we typically only include major works and/or notable works in such bibliographies, which can live in the biography itself" also doesn't seem to be empirically true. I've already shown that both Edward Said and John Betjeman, two authors notable enough to warrant a bibliography article, have works in their bibliography that aren't contained in their main article. If we were to add another, one could take an author like Michel Foucault, who despite having numerous notable works doesn't actually have each of the works in his bibliography contained in his main article. Further, this again is not a guideline or qualification laid out by a relevant Wikiproject so far as I can see (please correct me if I'm wrong on this!) Joeyvandernaald (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyvandernaald, you're wrong, Rhododendrites is correct. I don't think I've ever seen an academic who met our notability criteria, who didn't have at least fifty publications. A hundred is not exceptional. Publishing is what academics do. If those publications are noted, it's what makes them notable. Heck, most academics who are not notable have a list of at least 50 publications by the end of their career. But here's another statistical fact: Most publications, even from notable academics, are hardly ever cited. That's why we generally only list the 3-5 most important ones. As an aside, this discussion is not about the notability of Aronowitz (if needed, that discussion should be had at the talk page of his bio), it is about his bibliography. I'm pinging DGG, a retired academic librarian, to get his expert opinion on this issue. --Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty - In response to what you're saying here, I'm still not clear on two things: how can one continue flatly claim something like "a hundred is not exceptional," especially in the face of me presenting evidence numerous times to the contrary? Same with claims about notability that aren't featured in the guidelines you've cited; the guidelines say clearly, "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" and yet there's no mention of a particular number (fifty or otherwise). Also, the guidelines are at best giving a bare minimum set of criteria; two of which I've presented above Stanley Aronowitz debatably meets. What's going on here? Second, I still don't understand how this isn't a debate about notability at least partially. If notability of an academic is a basic criteria for consideration of separate article for bibliography, and your initial contention was "WP is not for posting lists of publications except of the most notable people (like Einstein)," the question of notability has either been implicitly or explicitly brought into this several times. I'm afraid that this discussion has sort of devolved such that I'm raising questions and just being told 'no' rather than reasoned debate taking place. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that having a hundred highly cited articles was unexceptional. I said that 100 publications wasn't exceptional, not the same thing. And as has been explained multiple times here, it's not enough that an academic is notable to justify a split-off complete bibliography. Einstein and Darwin, sure. But not for the "average" notable academic. See DGG's comments. --Randykitty (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a simple rule, for scientists in a field where notability is attained by peer-reviewed journal articles, unless the person is famous (which we can roughly equate to Nobelist or the equivalent), the three to five most cited papers should be listed, because by the very fact of their high citations they indicate where the person's work has been most influential. There's one caveat--it's better to exclude review articles,which get abnormally high citations, and include only the ones that indicate original research. Sometimes there will be good reason to list a few others, for people active in more than one specialty. In any case it requires critical analysis of the GS or ISIS or Scopus records, and sometimes the original papers, to verify that the papers are those for which the person is the principal author, not student work highly cited because their advisor coauthor was famous. For famous people, one could goa little further, depending on field. For the very few really world-famous people,--Darwin, Einstein, etc. a complete bibliography can be justified, but for many of them, it may run to many thousands of entries. In general, for scientists below that level, I'd include it in the main article. It can even be the most important part of the article.

For academics in a field where notability is attain by books, such as Aronowitz, we normally list all the books,. If there are many, we can separate the ones authored from the ones edited, which are usually a little less significant. I think it generally wrong to include book chapters and journal articles in these fields, for they are considered less important. We would almost never include books reviews and lectures. If the person is famous, which in general means people outside their field will know about them, we can be a little more expansive. For the very few who are world-famous possibly a separate article is justified.

None of this applies to people who are creative writers or artists or musicians or film-=makers, and the like. . There we follow the practice of their field and include everything significant, or in some cases everything, and if they are reasonably well-known, it may well take a separate article. Nowadays, such people often hold academic positions, but they should be judged by the creative work. (A few very rare people have had substantial creative and also academic careers.)

In this particular case, we have someone in a field dependent on books, and only the books should be included. He has written enough of them to make the notability very clear. All the other sections do not belong here. And I do not see the case for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selective merge to Stanley Aronowitz. I cannot fault the arguments that this person, while certainly notable, is not so notable that a separate article of their works is warranted. However, per WP:ATD, outright deletion is the wrong answer. Regards So Why 11:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, selectively to the academic's article. As per DGG's comments, only the authored books should be included in a list on that page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge book lists and redirect to Stanley Aronowitz, per DGG's argument above. My quirk is that I was bothered by the external links to the articles, which violates WP:EL, so removing the articles takes care of that. Adding collapsible lists for the different book sections can keeps them from dominating his article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or highly selective merge. Clearly not in keeping with the spirit of WP:NOTEVERYTHING (and WP:WWIN broadly). Reading the proposal and the first few responses, I thought this might be a tough call--until I actually looked at the article. Clearly having this kind of indiscriminate collection of details on the publications of every mid-tier academic would be blatantly against longstanding community consensus on these matters; we only have lists that are even semi-comprehensive for the absolute giants of research and academics, and even then, only because their entire repertoire of work can be proven to be notable by way of secondary works which discuss them. This is a very different situation here; I'm sure this academic has his proponents, but I doubt he and his books are themselves the topic of enough sources to justify listing hundreds of his articles and books, especially given that, looking at his main article, I notice it is almost entirely (and thus inappropriately) sourced to WP:PRIMARY references. Borderline WP:SNOW on this one for me. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barbato[edit]

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

Poorly cited BLP article that leads to a wikia. Although I am familiar with Paul Barbato's work on YouTube, he probably fails to meet WP:N for now. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 05:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Air New Zealand incident[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable aviation incident; the only coverage it received was the usual routine coverage. Has not appeared to have any long-term effects on the industry. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete unless the author supplies reliable sources. It is currently unverified. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources found but this appears to be an incident that is too insignificant to justify an article. As far as I can tell fails WP:GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fairly routine false alarm, doesn't meet GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insignificant incident (a false alarm). wikipedia is not the news Ajf773 (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems to be a non-incident involving a non-bomb. Not notable enough. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete Wykx (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable event....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG Totally non-notable non-incident--Petebutt (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm amused by Deeday-UK's comment. Things like this occur as training exercises, and an acknowledged training exercise could produce more notable material than this. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable event, with the article badly written, containing incorrect grammar and punctuation and no sources. It also doesn't fall into the criteria stated by WP:PLANECRASH. Flashjacket348 (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the nominator, I'm not sure if I should be saying this, but given the situation in this discussion, it might be time to put the article out of its misery. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and even if sourced would be not-notable as nothing happened. - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not noteworthy for a mention in wikipedia so certainly not as a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Finland. (non-admin closure) f e minist 16:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finnishness[edit]

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

trivial word definition, no information and still stub after 9 years Volunteer1234 (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Finland. There is not substance to this other than a dictionary definition. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect even in the Finnish Wikipedia. Let's do so here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SouthernNights (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Arthur Bayley[edit]

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

A biography of a person who does not meet WP:GNG or the more specific requirements of WP:SOLDIER, this article attempts to inherit notability from members of the regiment he served with.

Source review (excluding duplicates):

1: A source confirming his birth & lineage
2: As above, confirming his birth & lineage
3: An auction site listing
4: His autobiography
6, 7: Confirming his death
11, 12: Confirming that he was a member of the British Army
15: Confirming his promotion
23: No mention of Bayley in this source
24: A sketch from the Illustrated London News, no mention of Bayley

All in all, this is pretty routine, run-of-the-mill stuff for any army officer of the period. My WP:BEFORE searching confirms that there is none of the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that the GNG requires. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oddly, his claim to notability seems to rest on something barely touched on in the article. His Reminiscences of School and Army Life, 1839-1859 is still in print because it was published before 1923. It seems to have been used as a source for books on the period such as Hew Strachan's Wellington's Legacy: The Reform of the British Army, 1830-54 (1984) and From Waterloo to Balaclava: Tactics, Technology, and the British Army 1815-1854 (1985), and is referred to in the article on 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot. Therefore, he could arguably pass WP:SOLDIER#8, recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's only based on his one book, and that book passes the GNG, then there's a possibility for an article about the book - but there's no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about him. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material found by Hawkeye7 indicates that the topic has good potential. Andrew D. (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before a misguided pile-on starts, let me point out that the GNG supersedes WP:SOLDIER, and the article is about the person, not his book. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My position is based upon our deletion and editing policies which are superior to such guidelines. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither of those policies state that articles about subjects which meet none of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria should be kept just for the sake of it. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A straw man can't bludgeon effectively. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- The fact that someone has seen fit to republish his memoir suggests that it is regarded as a useful historical source. This may be sufficient to push this into notability. It is probably better to have an article on the writer's career than on the book. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Peterkingiron - it's self-published. He published it himself, and any reprinting is simply the result of an on-demand reprinting service. And WP:AUTHOR doesn't support your assertion that it's better to have an article about the author rather than the book. Nothing you've said here is based on Wikipedia's policies.Exemplo347 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, "self-published" in 1875 carried an entirely different significance than it does today. Poe self-published, as did William Morris, Lawrence Sterne, and Lord Dunsany. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note If people could actually point out how this person meets WP:GNG when they !vote "Keep", it'd make things much simpler. The only "keep" !voter who has actually made an argument based on an existing inclusion criteria is Hawkeye7. The others are just red herrings, as far as I can see. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a non-notable person. --Lockley (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable under WP:SOLDIER nor under WP:AUTHOR. Significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail is not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a coherent case for deletion. Arguing that a memoirist isn't notable but his memoir is reeks of pedantry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not saying that his self-published memoir is notable (I don't think it is), and I've stated my deletion rationale in the nomination above. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added an article reviewing a pamphlet Bayley wrote discussing a controversial point from the attack on Kashmir Gate. I wouldn't say this is the strongest source for GNG, but I think it is more, strong evidence for WP:SOLDIER#8, which is, I think, a version of ANYBIO#2. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how a pamphlet he wrote himself is evidence that Bayley is recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing per WP:SOLDIER. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something the subject himself wrote probably couldn't, but a review of the pamphlet usually can, and that is the evidence I'm presenting. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's immaterial anyway, the GNG supersedes WP:SOLDIER (even if we take a wild leap and say that somehow, a pamphlet review automatically means someone passes WP:SOLDIER) and there's no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The bar isn't as low as everyone seems to think it is. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am loathe to eliminate biographies of long-deceased historical personages on minor technical grounds. The GNG call is a close one. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate how this passes WP:GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a helpful, well-verified article and deleting it would not be of any benefit. If the notability guidelines suggest deletion then they have come up with an unsatisfactory result in this rather unusual case. Thincat (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous now. How many more non-policy-based Keep !votes are we going to get? This is basically WP:ILIKEIT. As for the "well-verified" part - if the sources that don't meet WP:GNG were removed (which I should have done before starting this discussion really) there'd be no article. I hope that the person who closes this gives the correct level of weighting to any !vote that isn't based on WP:GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Before renominating, consider merging/redirecting. So Why 08:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Intrust Super Premiership NSW[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. - Mr X 11:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not fail sportsevent as it is an ongoing season, not a single game, series, final or exhibition game. This article pertains to the entire season of the NSW Intrust Super Premiership, one of the highest level rugby competitions in the world.Fleets (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, it seems to fail WP:NSEASON, not to mention WP:NOTSTATS (Excessive listings of unexplained statistics).- Mr X 13:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would not fail based on season, and the stats angle would see it requiring context for the initiated, along with explanatory text for all, not deletion.Fleets (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article is terrible and does not currently consist of "mainly of well-sourced prose", the subject is notable and a terrible article is not a reason for deletion. Mattlore (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep~~Struggling~~ - ~~reluctant delete~~. My feeling was that this should be notable. But after I excluded in-house League reporting and in-house club reporting and betting sites and routine game results reporting and social media, there was essentially nothing left; certainly negligible main stream media reporting that I could find, only a couple of very local media outlets. I live in NSW and do not recall ever seeing this reported on any of the main, free to air, TV broadcast channels prime time news. The comp is played by fully professional teams, but it is not the top league. So technically under our notability rules, either SNGs or GNGs it is probably not notable ? (But again my gut feeling is that it should be a series of articles in wikipedia.) (Can the keepers point me in the direction of some main stream independent reporting?) Aoziwe (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International media attention is a little more than requested, but hopefully should satisfy any lingering doubts.Fleets (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a start but it is only really a mention of the competition. It would be a better reference for the player, Kato Ottio. I still think we need a lot more. Aoziwe (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are of that opinion, then please do make the effort to improve the article, as it now has been shown to have sources available via easy searches and now is now a well written article.Fleets (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to improve the article if I could find some, any, suitable sources. The article is currently 5 sentences and a couple of tables, one table which is a complete and exact duplicate of a table in Intrust Super Premiership NSW. It is not a well written article, but that is not a reason to delete it. The problem is the lack of independent reliable sources. At the moment I can not argue via WP:NEXIST. Two of the current references are the League's own "news", one is a club "news", and the fourth is an "industry" specific publication. The PNG reference you give above, while better than the first three in the current article, is about the player and only mentions this comp as one of several topics related to the player. If you can give me a list of appropriate references, I will be happy to use them to contribute to the article. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a range of sources to the article and expanded it a bit. While I don't think any are a "silver bullet" source that I want to single out here, I think in combination they point towards notability via GNG. Part of the reason for the struggle to find sources is the competitions name change from "NSW Cup", which has not been universally adopted by all of the media. Mattlore (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to weak keep. There is now probably sufficient WP:NEXIST to demonstrate GNG. While a lot of the new references are in-house, and another lot are very local publications, there is also a decent enough smattering of main stream independent sources. Thanks Mattlore. Aoziwe (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page is current and ongoing, and can be added to as the season continues. Nat965 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in one form or another. Despite a long discussion, there is no consensus whether to keep as a stand-alone article or to merge it to TripAdvisor, but a merge proposal can and should be discussed at the talk page anyway.

Despite being often cited, none of the sections of WP:NOT mentioned (e.g. WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTGUIDE) actually prescribe deletion as the only way to handle such content. On the contrary, per WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, deletion is only one possible way to handle it, with editing to remove the problematic content (in line with WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD) being mentioned first.

As for the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument, that section of WP:NOT does not actually talk about some kind of coverage but instead talks about how content is presented here. I think what SwisterTwister means is the WP:SPIP section of WP:N, however, there is no consensus that his analysis of the sources is correct. So Why 08:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlipKey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was deleted, and still we are here with this. Routine coverage, non notable startup. usual for promotion alone. Previously done A7/ G11. Deleted earlier and created again. Salt and Definite spam. Light2021 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Segal, David (2006-12-03). "FlipKey Fiasco: All the Comforts of Home, Minus the Comforts". The New York Times. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  Given these terms, the Haggler would be reluctant to rent from FlipKey, which is owned by TripAdvisor. But what gives the Haggler real pause is that the Better Business Bureau currently gives the company an F rating, along with an average customer review of 1.01 out of five stars.
  Many of the 190 complaints now listed on B.B.B.’s company page echoed Ms. Beattie’s experience. In September, one reviewer described renting a house in Ireland and discovering mold the first night. Like Ms. Beattie, the renter stayed through the entire scheduled trip — “There were 11 adults and two infants; we had no option but to stick it out.” A claim under the payment protection plan was denied.
2. Stapen, Candyce H. (2003-10-10). "It's becoming a breeze to rent Caribbean villas". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  FlipKey offers condos, cabins, houses and villas. Users can book about 40(PERCENT) of the lodgings online, and properties with the best combination of reviews, rates, photos and other factors rise to the top of their lists.
  Properties: 240,000 listings in 12,000 destinations, including 15,000 in the Caribbean.
  Filters: Search by deals, Internet availability, lodging type, bedrooms, price, pool, child-friendly.
  Pros: Large inventory with user reviews. Pay through FlipKey Payments and receive free insurance up to $10,000 if the lodging proves to be significantly different from what's described or is unavailable.
  Cons: Lodgings not inspected. A booking fee may be required. No concierge service.
3. Gardner, Terry (2009-07-25). "Vacation rentals can save money, but it's buyer beware". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  Travel & Leisure magazine named Flipkey, which has more than 90,000 properties worldwide, its top vacation rental site in 2008. Flipkey has more than 85,000 guest reviews posted. (Guests must be invited by Flipkey, by e-mail, to post a review based on confirmed booking records). Flipkey's user-friendly structure lets you sort rentals by dates, number of rooms/guests and price.
  More than half of Flipkey's properties are represented by property managers, who often create packages that include coupons, kids' activities and discounts. Because the extra amenities may not appear on the website, Mahony suggests e-mailing or calling the property manager or owner.
  HomeAway guarantees that its properties exist -- a vacation rental concern. Flipkey does not, but both companies verify that the property managers and/or owners are who they claim to be. Both advise renters to get and sign a rental agreement before sending a deposit for a vacation rental (typically 10% to 30%). Mahony says managed properties usually accept credit cards and many take Paypal.
4. Keohane, Dennis (2014-06-06). "FlipKey creates awesome virtual tour of Boston as the first in a series of traveler guides". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  FlipKey was founded by Jeremiah Gall, T.J. Mahony, and Carl Query in 2007 (and was acquired by TripAdvisor in 2009) to be the “go-to” site for vacation rentals.
  The site leverages guest reviews for rental properties whose owners/managers must be verified by the company before their rentals can be featured on the site. FlipKey features over 300,000 rental properties in 179 countries.
5. Garland, Russ. "FlipKey Offers Lesson On Surviving VC Rejection". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  FlipKey.com co-founder and Chief Executive TJ Mahoney found himself onstage Friday at the MIT Venture Capital Conference with partners from two venture firms that took a pass on his company. The discussion provided a lesson in why it pays to keep your options open.
  FlipKey is an online vacation-rental company going head-to-head with HomeAway Inc., which has raised about $400 million. TripAdvisor LLC is now FlipKey’s majority owner, but before that August 2008 deal, Mahoney was shopping for venture capital.
  Among the firms he approached were Spark Capital and Venrock. During a panel discussion on seed-stage financing, moderator Tim Rowe, founder and CEO of the Cambridge Innovation Center, pressed partners from those two firms on why they didn’t invest in FlipKey.
6. Roush, Wade (2008-08-21). "TripAdvisor Takes FlipKey Majority Stake". Xconomy. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  Newton, MA-based travel media network TripAdvisor said yesterday that it has acquired a majority stake in FlipKey, a Boston-based consumer review site for rental vacation homes. FlipKey was launched in March by TJ Mahony, Carl Query and Jeremiah Gall; Mahony and Query previously founded Boston-based web analytics and marketing firm Compete.com, which was purchased by London market research company TNS in March for $150 million. The terms of the FlipKey acquisition were not disclosed.
7. Michael, Sarah (2012-08-24). "Australians scammed through TripAdvisor's FlipKey service". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
8. Komando, Kim (2012-05-30). "Websites help homeowners rent to tourists". Tulsa World. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  FlipKey.com especially caters to professional property managers, but the $300 annual rate makes it attractive for casual users, as well. FlipKey also offers short-term subscriptions for about $30 a month. That's perfect if you want to advertise your home for only a few weeks or even a couple months out of the year.
  FlipKey allows you to upload unlimited photos. Reviews on this site are limited to those written by verified travelers to prevent spam issues on your property's page.
  As a bonus, listings posted on FlipKey are automatically added to the popular travel site TripAdvisor.
9. Cross, Miriam (May 2016). "Rent Your Home for Fun and Profit". Kiplinger's Personal Finance. Vol. 70, no. 5. pp. 64–68. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  FlipKey by TripAdvisor. FlipKey lets you rent out private rooms or entire structures. The service fee is 3% per booking, or owners can pay an annual fee that starts at $399. The site holds payments from guests until after check-in. TripAdvisor, which owns other sites as well, collects and pays occupancy taxes in certain cities. No insurance products are available. Hosts can impose a security deposit.
10. "TripAdvisor adds FlipKey to Internet travel biz". Boston Business Journal. 2008-08-20. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  FlipKey was founded in 2006 by CEO T.J. Mahony, COO Jeremiah Gall and CTO Carl Query with $400,000 in seed funding from a syndicate of angel investors.
  In March, the company launched its website that features 50,000 vacation homes, rental listings and consumer reviews of featured properties, company officials said.
  FlipKey’s web-based software works similarly to TripAdvisor.com by creating profiles of the properties, authenticating them for potential vacationers. And, like TripAdvisor, it enables users to rate the properties after stays.
11. ShermansTravel (2012-08-09). "6 useful vacation rental websites". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  FlipKey is TripAdvisor’s attempt at breaking into the vacation rental market. With over 150,000 rentals in 7,000 cities worldwide, most listings are found in the United States, Europe, Mexico and Brazil, with Florida, Italy and Rio de Janeiro being the most popular. Search either by price, available deals, property type and other parameters, and their “My Pick” feature allows guests to make multiple selections and compare them later. The user reviews that drive TripAdvisor’s success also make an appearance here. FlipKey bills itself as “the largest collection of verified and trusted guest reviews in the industry,” and reviewers are allowed to submit their own pictures. When you find something you like, contact the host for the rental agreement, which spells out all prices and policies, before paying either by credit card, PayPal or other arrangements. Unlike many of its competitors, FlipKey doesn’t charge a booking fee.
12. Levin, Ann (2010-03-28). "Vacation rental? Ask questions". NBC News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2017-07-08. Retrieved 2017-07-08.
  The article notes:
  
  FlipKey.com was launched in 2008 to help vacation rental property managers and owners promote guest reviews. In contrast to sites that let anyone post, FlipKey collects reviews by sending e-mails to people who actually stayed at a property.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FlipKey to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again the same way of misleading AfD and discussion, unnecessary making it long copy paste job without reading its a routine coverage and nothing else. this way this whole AfD gone wrong as such lengthy way makes it highly confusing, what is the point of all this? On every AfD its been done by Cunard. just go to link and copy and paste it here. Light2021 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt (given similar violations) as the sources given above are actually only WP:INDISCRIMINATE press releases-like coverage, take the first one which is WP:Guide -like information and none of it would help since it's consumer-targeted, also both WPIndiscriminate and WP:Guide is help vacation rental property managers and owners promote guest reviews. In contrast to sites that let anyone post, FlipKey collects reviews by sending e-mails to people who actually stayed at a property. (None of it is actually meaningful substance), FlipKey bills itself as “the largest collection of verified and trusted guest reviews in the industry,” and reviewers are allowed to submit their own pictures. When you find something you like, contact the host for the rental agreement, which spells out all prices and policies, before paying either by credit card, PayPal or other arrangements. Unlike many of its competitors, FlipKey doesn’t charge a booking fee. is then no different given it appears like a "About Us" therefore WP:PROMO, we then have #10 which is WP:INDISCRIMINATE local business journals unacceptable by WP:ORGIND, #8 and #9 is the same with FlipKey allows you to upload unlimited photos. Reviews on this site are limited to those written by verified travelers to prevent spam issues on your property's page. and FlipKey lets you rent out private rooms or entire structures. The service fee is 3% per booking, or owners can pay an annual fee that starts at $399. The site holds payments from guests until after check-in. TripAdvisor, which owns other sites as well, collects and pays occupancy taxes in certain cities. No insurance products are available. Hosts can impose a security deposit. (i'll also note the one "scan" story was trivial compared to all the existing promotionalism). #4, 5 and 6 all follow this with information not only similar but also mirroring the company webpages, worse when it was also clearly labeled as tied to the businesspeople. #2 and 3 are following the pattern: FlipKey offers condos, cabins, houses and villas. Users can book about 40(PERCENT) of the lodgings online, and properties with the best combination of reviews, rates, photos and other factors rise to the top of their lists. and Guests must be invited by Flipkey, by e-mail, to post a review based on confirmed booking records). Flipkey's user-friendly structure lets you sort rentals by dates, number of rooms/guests and price.. GNG is always non-negotiable with policies and especially when the coverage is simply sugarjacketed as "independent". SwisterTwister talk 17:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because independent reliable sources do give it significant coverage. This article was recreated three years by a user who has no other edits, so was probably company spam at that time. But it has gotten enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. I added in the negative bit from the New York Times mentioning they got an F by the Better Business Bureau and removed one peacock word. Dream Focus 21:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to TripAdvisor. The existing content is very low quality and probably needs to be re-written entirely. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect name only to TripAdvisor where the subject is mentioned; not independently notable. Sources above are not convincing, and are mostly PR driven, as in "FlipKey creates awesome virtual tour of Boston as the first in a series of traveler guides!" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TripAdvisor, which only has passing mentions about FlipKey. The topic has borderline notability, and a merge will improve the TripAdvisor article, providing more context. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlipKey passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is enough information from the sources for a standalone article.
Contrary to what editors say above, there is much negative material about FlipKey. Sources have information like:
Given these terms, the Haggler would be reluctant to rent from FlipKey, which is owned by TripAdvisor. But what gives the Haggler real pause is that the Better Business Bureau currently gives the company an F rating, along with an average customer review of 1.01 out of five stars.
And:
Cons: Lodgings not inspected. A booking fee may be required. No concierge service.
Cunard (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the sole "criticism" would still actually violate the specific policy WP:Wikipedia is not a travel guide, since this isn't the place to host whatever the customer ratings were; the only best place for that is either the relevant travel agency or the company website. Also, not only given the other policies against the clear promotionalism, but this one criticism wouldn't be enough to outweigh it. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is a blatant violation of policies WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Not guide so as such, the content cannot be kept if still promotional in both weight and form. No guideline can supersede a policy supporting deletion of objectionable content. Also WP:V given there's questions about independent information. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first version of this article was sourced only to the company website, and was deleted. This one is a total rewrite, and contains only plain facts, not all flattering to the company, with every single statement verified with a reference. Most of these references were added by me, and I tried mightily to avoid press releases. If a couple slipped by, they can be removed. There are plenty of news reports and books out there - I've added six more. I found a couple of news items which came out since I edited the article last year, and used them to expand it a bit.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into TripAdvisor. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's an an obvious merge. We are neither a vehicle for advertising nor consumer complaints. References that are one or the other do not contribute to notability -- nqd are not really RSs for any purpose. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making Evening and Night[edit]

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

Non-notable. No coverage or reviews. Redirect if need be, which I would but the creator would just revert it. Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants at the Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops[edit]

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

List of participants of a non-notable meeting that does not even have an article. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a notable meeting, an article has not been made yet but i plan to make one. See the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops and its accompanying list of participants. Jgefd (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, there is a page for the synod: Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops Jgefd (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – At this time. However, I would recommend that we move the piece to Jgefd WP:USERSUBPAGE to continue to work, so all the work done is not lost, and can be resubmitted when the article Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops is completed. Just a thought. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep based on the Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops being created. Nice work Jgefd. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable assembly that does now have an article (and which amazes me that it did not already. LadyofShalott 04:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This seems to be a general assembly of leaders of the Catholic Church, one level lower than the extremely rare General Councils. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron, LadyofShalott, Shoessss, and Jgefd:, going off of Peterkingiron's comments, its roughly the difference between a university board of trustees and a university president's giving circle. The former actually has authority, the latter meets infrequently to give their opinions to the president and the opinions get mentioned in a document and are promptly forgotten about for a few hundred years. General synods in the modern sense have no governing authority within the Catholic Church and they only make reccomendations to the pope, who is then in charge of formulating the outcome of the discussions in a document. Its the Catholic equivalent of a focus group for bishops. This meeting might have been significant because of the Ratzinger factor and because it wasn't regularly scheduled, and the fact that the CCC came as an idea from it. I'm currently not sure we need a list of the participants, though. I haven't made up my mind yet, but given the current state of the list, I am leaning draftify so that it can be better completed and have sourcing added to explain the significance of the bishop groupings, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Also pinging Vanjagenije, since I missed them in the first round. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The conference is notable; the list of participants is not separately notable. This is true even for the most important conferences. Unjustified split. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after thinking this through, I do not believe participation as a group in a general synod is notable for a list. While this was arguably the most important General Synod held since Paul VI created them following the Second Vatican Council, the participants themselves lack notability as a group, but rather the event has notability. There is the option of a merger to the event, but I think that would be stylistically undesirable given the number of participants. Finally, the last consideration I would have would be whether or not participation at the synod would merit a mention in all of the participants articles. In some of them it might, because either it was the first action they took as a bishop in the wider Catholic Church beyond their diocese or because they were a significant participant. For the vast majority of these individuals, however, participation in the synod would not merit inclusion in their own articles as it was pretty routine work for a bishop. As such, I do not see why the total list merits an article on its own. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It strike me that this is the nearest thing the Catholic Church has to a Parliament. However it is presumably a short-lived affair, which does not require the fuller treatment of a Parliament. This feels to me a lot more significant than an academic conference or a focus group. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron, it is most explicitly not anything at all like a parliament. The closest thing to that would be the College of Cardinals or the Roman Curia taken as a whole. The Catholic Church is not governed by a synod like members of the Orthodox communions or some of the Protestant communions. It is governed universally by the pope and in each diocese directly by the diocesan bishop. The pope is the sole universal legislator of the Catholic Church. Even when ecumenical councils are called, in practice the pope alone is responsible for the enacting the legislation that implements the decrees of the council. This particular synod was extremely significant because it came up with the idea for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the decision to move forward with it was ultimately the choice of John Paul II, who as pope was responsible for writing the concluding document of the synod. Synod of Bishops in the Catholic Church explains it well when it says: As constituted by Pope Paul VI, the Synod of the Bishops is a form not of collegial governance of the Church, but of collaborating with the primatial function of the Pope. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:LISTN; no notability for the group has been established. The event itself may be notable, but it does not extend to the group of individual participants. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just merge to Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, summarizing the invitees and fraternal delegates? The main article isn't that long. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see why this is being nominated for deletion when the equivalent List of participants at the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops has existed for over two years without challenge. I say keep because although merging it into the main article isn't a bad idea, I think adding a list of this length to that article would I think distract from the information on the Synod itself. Someone above said the participants are each notable, but just not as a group. But with that criteria, shouldn't every list article be nominated for deletion? Jgefd (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That list should probably be deleted too, especially considering as of yet, it is significantly less significant than the extraordinary synod we are currently discussing. The participants are each notable because they are all bishops and Wikipedia tends to consider virtually every bishop notable. That doesn't make the group as a whole notable. We already have an article on the event, we don't need a list naming every minor participant in a synod that was dominated by one man. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment -- This is just a list article and harmless. If we were talking about a category, I would suggest that it was causing clutter, but that is not the case here. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No further discussion despite two relists So Why 08:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborator (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested prod. Non-notable product, failing WP:GNG Andyjsmith (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SmartBear Software. There's no independent case for notability presented for this product. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Power~enwiki. I have recently added an independent Analyst Note (source 3) for additional validation of Collaborator's notability. In addition, please view the "List of tools for code review" article on Wikipedia for an understanding of how Collaborator is the name of the software and SmartBear is the maintainer, therefore, I don't believe that merging the two articles would be beneficial. If you have any suggestions on how I can further update this page, please let me know. Thank you! Eugene450 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A redirect/merger can always be discussed on the talk page if required. So Why 08:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Coast University Hospital[edit]

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

Local hospital servicing Sunshine Coast in Queensland, Fails WP:ORG, author may have a COI. Redirect to affiliated University of the Sunshine Coast was reverted. ^{Atsme📞 📧} 17:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the ABC and Sunshine Coast Daily are independent reliable sources, the ABC article giving substantial detail, the article is informative rather than promotional. Certainly locally notable. Paul foord (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has had plenty of mainstream media coverage during planning and construction. Article is well-cited. Kerry (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - let's not forget WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Local coverage is normal - there are thousands upon thousands of local hospitals and they don't all deserve a stand alone article because then you're getting into policy re: WP:NOT. There are probably far more local schools and hospitals around the world than anything else so please let's not make WP a directory listing of them all. To be included in the encyclopedia, they have achieved notability for something - not just because they are a hospital that got a write-up during construction. Notability is not temporary. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, looking at List of hospitals in Australia, there aren't many ozzie hospitals with a standalone article (or even mentioned in regional/city/town articles?) ("yes coola, but that doesn't mean this or the other hospitals aren't notable, just that ozzie editors are ~~slack~~ ahem, concentrating on other wikiareas at the moment:))". a gsearch for awards bring up quite a few, editors may deem them trivial/promo/non-notable, but anyway, here they are: 2017 Gabriel Poole Award for Building of the Year, a 2017 AVT Best Project Award, 2016 ASI Steel Clad Structures Award winner, a SCUH volunteer nominated for Volunteering Queensland's Excellence in Volunteer Management Award, 2016 Construction Skills Queensland Excellence Awards - Evolution Training and Safety Award for Employer Commitment to Training Excellence for organisations with over $20 million turnover winner, winner of 2017 FDG Stanley Award for Public Architecture and 2017 Karl Langer Award for Urban Design (more info about these guys are here and here with AIA info here, so this looks like a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, also, looking at WP:NHOSPITALS this is a keeper. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. it exists, it won some minor awards. There is nothing notable here and existence is not notability. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons given above by Paul foord, Kerry and Coolabahapple. Ring4ting (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might "exist" but there is a very large amount of material available. There is more than sufficient WP:NEXIST to write a much more in-depth article, about each of its construction history, its facilities, its medical technology, it building management and security systems, with multiple secondary references for all of them. Aoziwe (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 07:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Felicitas Galedary[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.Thee books in the sources covers a lot of persons/characters. That hardly makes them notable. No independent discussion about the subject. Winged Blades^Godric 15:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. No EV, and will add that WP is not a platform for any form of advocacy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources do not have to be entirely about Galedary to show notability. She is profiled in the NYT, several books, in several other papers (including this one that I don't have full access to) and is covered over time. I've added some of the references to the article and cleaned up some of the peacock language. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books/news about social-scapes frequently covers/discusses about the life of some selected individual people.The topic is notable but the subject is not!She along with several others have been profiled w.r.t to the subject in every news.That hardly makes all of them encycloepadic!Winged Blades^Godric 06:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citations indicate WP:GNG met.Hmlarson (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Show-Score[edit]

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

Non notable, typical coverage, nothing significant. Just 2 sentence? Purpose is mere promotional in nature. Light2021 (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haridas (director)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC notability. The sources cited are do not discuss the subject in any depth, and some do not appear to be reliable. I am unable to find other usable sources. - Mr X 18:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with MrX.. Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of any notability. Own web-site, his own quotes and peripheral mentions only in film reviews. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Weak Keep Some rescue works done. Some reliable references and content added towards notability . Moreover he is winner of a prominent award Kerala State award it adds towards notability BetterSmile:D 10:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettersmiley (talk • contribs)
Delete, I came here to close the AfD but on checking the above comment and then the sources wihtin the article, I figured it's better to participate -- the state award is essentially unsourced -- sourced to other wikipedia articles and I can't find any reliable sources for it either. —SpacemanSpiff 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

جرثومة المياه[edit]

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

Seems to be entirely based on original research, lacks citations, and is generally not in WP:MOS. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 03:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per criterion A10. Failing that, delete because the entire article is original synthesis. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vidya Bharati. (non-admin closure) f e minist 16:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shishu Shiksha Samiti, Assam[edit]

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

A trust that is not notable at all. Fails WP:GNG, has been tagged with refimprove for more than 18 months. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 12:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. There are five reliable sources:

The Official Website of Shishu Shiksha Samiti,
The Official Website of Vidya Bharati,
News published in Assam Tribune,
News published in Hindustan Times, and
News published in Times of India. - দিব্য দত্ত (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@দিব্য দত্ত: hi. Kindly stay calm. It will not be deleted hastily. Before nominating for deletion, I searched online, but I couldnt find any reliable sources. Unfortunately only Assam tribune is a useful source here, as the first two are primary sources, and the other two make a passing reference. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usernamekiran, I have added another source. Please search here. -দিব্য দত্ত (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Going for a third relist as there hasn't been any real discussion and the two participants have varying opinions on the sources presented, hopefully the sources will be evaluated now
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Vidya Bharati, as Shishu Shiksha Samiti is just the name of the Assam state branch of the RSS controlled Vidya Bharati. The references do not have enough content and I even searched in Hindi.--DreamLinker (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dreamlinker, as the source I found didn't quite clear the general guideline. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The PRS Group, Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. Article is highly promotional with peacock language and external links (5 in the infobox alone). Google search turns up very little. MB 02:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dark Sun. So Why 07:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athas[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability. The "reception" consists two trivial lines from reviews that obviously put no particular emphasis on this topic. TTN (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we at least have one independent source to start with, or merge to Dark Sun. BOZ (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dark Sun. The mentions in a single review of a related game are not sufficient to establish notability for a stand-alone article. The coverage is trivial and incidental. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep TIME magazine commentary on the setting, Wired discussing the setting. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both are extremely trivial and provide no weight for the topic. The second is literally just a single mention without even a descriptor. Neither meet the threshold. TTN (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dark Sun Hobit (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sturgeon Aquafarms[edit]

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

Notability to justify the inclusion of this start-up company is not established by the poor sources in the page, nor – it would seem – by any others. Page created by a COI editor, apparently unambiguous promotion. Merely in passing, I note that we do not have a page on the Agroittica Lombarda, which really is a major producer in the sector (but even so, possibly still would not pass our notability threshhold). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 08:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Climeon[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Sourcing available is either non-reliable sourcing in the form of blogs, press releases, or recycled press releases by trade publications. Delete per failing WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of good sources. ie. Company Information (In Swedish), Its also on bloomberg.comThere is also a video of Richard Branson talking about the company Here HDavis2017 (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDavis2017 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply, these sources are simply listings that show the company exist and a marketing video by the company itself. Those sources are not what we require to be notable under our guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several articles about the company, and it appears to meet WP:GNG. It won the ”Technology Innovation Award” awarded by Frost & Sullivan, article in Dagens Industri, a major Swedish financial newspaper. Listed as one of Sweden's hottest startups in new technology by Ny Teknik and Affärsvärlden. Winner of the E-Prize, an energy award by Veckans Affärer and E.ON. There's also a number of news articles: [18] [19] [20] and many more. Sjö (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward delete. This page is based on sources that are primary, an advertisement, or do not even mention the subject of the page. Yes, the company won an award [21], but is it anything significant? This is difficult to tell because the sources are written as an advertisement ("100% pure electricity", etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorially toned and lack of notability. The article exists solely to promote the company, as in:

In 2015 Viking Line installed a pilot Climeon Ocean for a test period.[6]
In 2016 Virgin Voyages announced a partnership with Climeon and the use of the Climeon Ocean on three of their cruise ships.[7]
In 2016 SSAB installed a Climeon system for a pilot run. The system is supposed to save 1 to 1.5 million kWh per year!

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be any reference that meet the criteria for establishing notability - fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 18:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notaker[edit]

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

Per WP:COIN, non-notable music artist; sources do not meet WP:NMUSIC. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 18:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - There are now enough sources available to establish notability. Sources are given below. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - vote changed to Keep (see below) - This article was originally created as a redirect to the article Monstercat, and not as an article in itself. I propose that we return it to that state, rather than deleting it altogether. The artist in question may not meet the requirements for having his own article, but the wikipedia link/page for "Notaker" should be kept in existence as a redirect to Monstercat's page. The user "davidnothaker," (who is either the artist in question himself or a fan of his) converted the redirect page into one resembling an article, though it was never officially approved to be created as a legitimate article. Clbsfn (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article's sources easily meets WP:NMUSIC. Further explanation is needed on this matter. Reverting the article back to a redirect is erroneous and no prior approval should be needed to create such an article. 10:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacofuzz8080 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: While I am a fan of Notaker's music, he must meet at least one of the 12 requirements on WP:NMUSIC for Wikipedia to have an article about him. If you can provide concrete evidence that Nothaker has met one or more of the 12 requirements, then we certainly should keep this article and expand on it. But right now, it would seem that is not the case. Clbsfn (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: After looking into this a bit, It appears he has been interviewed by a few notable plubications, i.e. DJMAG ([22]), musicradar ([23]), and thissongslaps ([24]) this would suffice per requirement 1 of WP:NMUSIC 22:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacofuzz8080 (talk • contribs)
    - Do note that interviews are primary sources and may not be used as "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." - TheMagnificentist 05:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - From WP:NMUSIC - "Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria...Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture." Music news websites Your EDM, Mixmag, EDM Sauce, and Vents Magazine contain numerous articles independent of Notaker (non-interviews): Clbsfn (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monstercat per Clbsfn. - TheMagnificentist 16:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've had a COI discussion open for a while on the user "davidnothaker", who has been editing the article for a while. The discussion is here. I credit a part of the current discussion for what helped me decide on this discussion per WP:GNG as well. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you consider the links I put above to count as reliable secondary sources that contribute to the artist's notability? And would you re-consider deleting the page if information from those links were added (with citations, of course) to the article? I am curious about your opinion on this matter. TheMagnificentist pointed out that interviews should not be counted as secondary sources, but I provided pages from significant online magazines and news websites (especially Mixmag, which has its own wikipedia page) that discuss Notaker and are not interviews with him. Clbsfn (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, that is not something I can say in an AfD discussion. You are more than welcome to message me on my Talk page, though. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rae Sremmurd. (non-admin closure) f e minist 16:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Jxmmi[edit]

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

I am nominating the following related pages because we may as well adjudicate both as this other has been referenced for redirect. Sorry for the inconvenience:

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO (has not charted or won an award solo, is only part of one notable group). Chris Troutman (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rae Sremmurd; likely search term as the member of a notable duo. A standalone article appears premature at the moment, as I don't believe there is sufficient material to date in independent, reliable sources that distinguishes the subject's career separate from Rae Sremmurd. A solo project has been suggested [25][26], but I can't find anything about an official release date for any upcoming singles, mixtapes, or albums. There are some write-ups for songs on which the subject is a featured artist (e.g., [27][28][29]), and once we get news of a release with the subject as the lead artist, there will undoubtedly be plenty of stories, reviews, chart appearances, etc, for him to pass WP:MUSICBIO on his own, but I'm not convinced that we're there yet. For now, the Rae Sremmurd article does a much better job in covering this person's biography, to the extent that I don't really see any content worth merging. gongshow talk 01:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rae Sremmurd. No significant independent coverage. Coverage is as a member of Rae Sremmurd. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Slim Jxmmi", or redirect BOTH "Slim Jxmmi" and "Slim Jxmmi discography"- "Slim Jxmmi" should be either kept or redirected to Rae Sremmurd. Is there a reason why "Slim Jxmmi discography" has not been nominated for deletion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: I hadn't noticed it. I came across this page via NPP. I wasn't looking for related pages. Dependent on the outcome here I'll look at that one, too. I don't want to add the discography to this as editors have already weighed in on only this biographical article. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Slim Jxmmi and Slim Jxmmi discography to Rae Sremmurd per suggestion by @Jax 0677. Quis separabit? 15:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - @[email protected]:, wouldn't it be a good idea to place a deletion tag on Slim Jxmmi discography, and relist this discussion tomorrow? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677 -- shouldn't the two be kept together? Quis separabit? 22:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @[email protected]:, yes, place a deletion tag on Slim Jxmmi discography that directs to this very discussion, keep them together, and perform a procedural relist after 23:18 hours tomorrow. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, how would one go about doing that? Quis separabit? 22:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @[email protected]:, @Onel5969:, @Gongshow:, @Bejnar:, WP:MULTIAFD, WP:RELIST. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist to allow one week of discussion regarding Slim Jxmmi discography
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rae Sremmurd, seconding RMS125A. Until Jxmmi meets WP:MUSIC by making a chart, he doesn't meet notability whether for a biography or discography. Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite some sources provided, consensus is that those sources are insufficient to establish notability, mainly for the reasons pointed out at WP:SPIP. So Why 10:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earlybird Venture Capital[edit]

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

Mostly promotional in content and lacking in references and value. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I also removed a lot of unnecessary marketing material from the article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- venture funds are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. WP:PROMO also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was about to close this, but [30](full)[31][32][33][34] all look like significant coverage from major sources to me... czar 01:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND in particular with the references listed by Czar as follows:
- This WSJ article is clearly based on an "announcement" from the company and therefore fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it relies on quotations from company officers and materials produced/provided by the company
- This Techcrunch] article is also clearly based on an "announcement" from the company and therefore also fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it relies on quotations from company officers and materials produced/provided by the company.
- This VentureBeat article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as again, it is clearly an interview with a new "employee" and relies on quotations from company officers and materials produced/provided by the company.
- This thenextweb article fails for the exact same reasons as the first two above.
- This techcrunch listing of all articles that mention the company fails because they're all company announcements. In general, I find that techcrunch article are lousy for meeting the criteria for establishing notability as they simply regurgitate company PR and announcements that invariably fail either WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. A quick scan and look at any of those articles confirms that, at least for me.
I'm happy to change my !vote if references that meet the criteria for establishing notability can be found. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even mention "corpdepth"—I'm talking general notability guideline. Those four articles (+ the listing of more) are all reliable, secondary sources with dedicated articles for the topic, more than sufficient for writing a detailed encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic without reaching into primary sources. If you want an acronym, WP:ORGCRITE is a virtual repeat of the general notability guideline. I don't know how you could argue that these citations lack "depth"—they are not passing mentions and each discusses the company's actions as the subject of the article.

czar 14:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, maybe you misunderstood but you are ignoring the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations which specifically disqualifies certain types of articles such as ones that rely on material produced by the company or stories that rely on quotations from company officers. Once you exclude those types of articles for consideration from the list you produced, how many articles are left? The articles you have listed can be used to "flesh out" an article but only *after* the topic has passed the criteria for notability (which is the existence of a minimum of two references that pass the criteria for establishing notability). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trees for the forest? You're referring to a list of examples meant to exclude "trivial coverage": brief listings, barely repackaged PR, or anecdotes in a piece that has no depth. But these sources aren't trivial—they're reliable and substantial enough to write an article on the company's basic activities if I were so inclined (this is the essence of the GNG). czar 16:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full opening description of WP:ORGIND states A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.. Trivial doesn't mean a "short" article, it refers to the amount of "consideration" the people who wrote the article have "independently" given to the subject. An article that simply regurgitates company-produced material without providing any analysis or "independent" thinking is indeed trivial (and intellectual drivel) and fails the criteria for notability. Using your own terminology, those article are indeed "barely repackaged PR". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm sticking with WSJ, TechCrunch/VB, and The Next Web being as reliable as it gets in this department. I have no issues with their independence from the company or their editorial process in choosing what you consider "regurgitation". czar 16:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by Czar (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that Earlybird Venture Capital has received the "significant coverage in reliable sources" as required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is sufficient non-interview coverage of the subject in the articles. Cunard (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the sources are actually simply rehashings of the company's own financial gains and 2 others are actually personally supplied interviews by an employee, that wouldn't be significant coverage if the company motivated it, regardless of publisher since GNG strongly says independent is key. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I TNT'd the bad parts. As I offered above, the sourcing is substantial & reliable and the promotional parts have been abated. The rest should still be rewritten without jargon. The AfD spread is so strange—topics with multiple headlines in reliable sources sent to the bin while topics with zero sourcing are kept with nods to the SNG... Nothing should matter more than the sourcing. czar 02:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged (still "Delete") -- with the promo parts removed, what's left is an insignificant subject and a directory-like entry. Some of the article is actually trivial news with promotional undertones, as in:

"Earlybird hired LinkedIn co-founder Konstantin Guericke as a venture partner in 2012 to facilitate the global expansion of Earlybird’s portfolio companies!" (emphasis mine)

There's nothing to talk about -- it's not surprising, as I don't find the sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH: there's no transformational analysis, just routine corporate news. Nothing stands out about this subject; hence the directory listing vibe.

Here's the relevant wording from CORPDEPTH:

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

We have a "very brief, incomplete stub" -- thus I still advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy to expand further from the sources—I only cleaned up what was once there. It's a VC firm. It's going to be dry. Not sure why "corpdepth" is coming up again, as the GNG trumps that. "corpdepth" is mainly to ensure that routine blurbs about a company don't become a case for notability. But we're talking dedicated articles from national sources. AfDs pass easily every day with far worse sourcing than the articles I linked. czar 05:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not policy and has the exact same standing as CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. One does not "trump" the other. Also, CORPDEPTH makes it clear that "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" does not meet the criteria for notability. Finally, a reliable source can still be regarded as completely reliable by dutifully and accurately attributing every "fact" to company sources or company-produced material (which is what is happening here). A source that is "independent" from the topic company does not simply mean that the source is not owned by or affiliated in some way to the company - it means that what is being written is "intellectually independent". An article that doesn't deviate from company material or provide any independent opinions or views fails notability criteria. Similarly an article that relies on quotations/interviews with company officers fails notability criteria. Whereas, an article that uses material but goes on to express an independent opinion or commentary on what has been quoted would pass. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not policy and has the exact same standing as CORPDEPTH and ORGIND

No, it actually doesn't. Look, it isn't productive to quote guidelines at someone who has already demonstrated an understanding and reasoned disagreement with your position, particularly on points of significant coverage. But in the interest of consensus, the more convincing argument would be that TechCrunch/VB should be thrown out as a source, which would leave too few sources with which to write an article. I don't necessarily agree with that position, especially relative to the rest of sourcing used on WP, but am sympathetic and could be swayed. I agree that these TC/VB pieces are mediocre cases of journalism, but I find your above, out-of-hand dismissal of all sources listed (including the WSJ's?) to be unreasonable. By comparison, almost all reliable video game journalism is dressed-up PR—even more so than these—but we keep articles all the time for having even less coverage than this AfD has, because notability only asks whether the source is reliable (sound editorial judgment, pedigree for accuracy) and not about its quality. So on principle, if TC/VB is going to be passable in AfDs ever, then it needs to be now, but if TC/VB is going to be a line in the sand for unacceptable quality and exclusion at AfD, then there needs to be a greater consensus so it can apply not only to this discussion. czar 17:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Czar The Village pump discussion argues that NSPORT is too inclusive of sources that would otherwise be excluded by GNG. That's pretty much the opposite of what I've said which is that all guidelines have equal footing when it comes to *excluding* sources. Just like the Village Pump discussion, if a reference is excluded because of one guideline, it can't then be argued to include it under another. The WSJ article is 1) a Blog, which is normally excluded since it is user-generated and not under any editorial control and 2) relies on quotations from the company or a company officer for information/facts. I'm not trying to change your mind - I'm happy if you have all the information and then decide how you want to !vote. If you can point me to some information or data in the WSJ article that isn't attributable to company-produced material, then perhaps the WSJ article is "intellectually independent" with independent substance and I'll have a rethink. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try the first bullet of that VP discussion: "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline." On your other point, business journalism is fundamentally based on reports from companies & their employees, unless every article you consider worthy at AfD has been the subject of investigative assignment. The WSJ report is based on an interview with a partner of the firm, showing that the WSJ deems the company worthy of extended coverage. I don't see why the WSJ needs to run a separate market analysis next to the article to prove that the report was worthy of publishing—they already exercised their editorial discretion by choosing what to publish. czar 17:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Czar, again with a strawman argument. Nowhere have I stated that CORPDEPTH or ORGIND "supercedes" GNG (or vice versa for that matter). They're complimentary and CORPDEPTH et al simply expands on GNG and provides additional explanation specific to interpreting sources to establish the notability of corporations. I acknowledge your point that a lot of business journalism is based on reports from companies and their employees but I disagree that those sources are acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability (and only that purpose - once notability has been established, those sources can be used to establish facts). There are many examples of articles that don't rely almost exclusively on company sources and information and these are acceptable. An article cannot be "independent of the subject" if all it does is repeat what a company or company officer/employee says without providing any analysis or comment on the quotes, which is the case for the sources provided for this topic. GNG also essentially states the same thing: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. and CORPDEPTH and ORGIND simply provides more in-depth explanations (for a reason). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??

Nowhere have I stated that CORPDEPTH or ORGIND "supercedes" GNG (or vice versa for that matter).

GNG is not policy and has the exact same standing as CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
— two responses earlier

And re: WSJ's source independence, I can't be any more clear or cogent on my disagreement, so I suggest either taking the impasse to a wider forum or dropping it. czar 19:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this excellent analysis of WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH, and the sources by Czar. That The Wall Street Journal chose to cover this firm strongly establishes notability.

Cunard (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it was quoted above that GNG is acceptable in sealing an article's acceptance yet this is not the only factor, there's actually also satisfying WP:What Wikipedia is not, our main policy when it comes to showing what we can and cannot accept and the current article and sources as is given now, are still too promotional and I'll clarify: The WSJ is in fact not one of their main stories, but instead part of their PR-founded business section, therefore indiscriminate coverage and WP:Indiscriminate covers this quite well, next is also The company only announced its Berlin office in March, but Ciaran O’Leary, who despite his name is actually German, said the company would be moving here before the year’s end....operates from offices in Hamburg and Munich along with the visible incorporation of company quotes, which although common or useful to the article, is still primary. Next, we have TechCrunch which is literally a business listing, therefore WP:Webhost, WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Promo apply given it's only what the company financials are NextWeb is essentially as repubished rehash of the TechCrunch which is a financial listing, which I'll note WP:ORGIND says "anything directly or indirectly by the company, wherever published" and the ; in fact, WP:ORGIND covers this well too with "anything directly or indirectly by the company". Next, the quote ([He] tells me that he and other colleagues..... As for VentureBeat, the company itself is not the main focus but instead that one of their business partners is joining the company and talking about them, therefore it's not independent. Next, this only shows the full list of TechCrunch where they have based all their own material from the company's own publishings and words, therefore still not independnet, no matter where and how it was published if the company is still basically the one author. In this, we have not only clear policies but actual company notability guidelines about this, therefore considering itself echoes the importance of independent coverage, there's no exceptions made for businesses. Also, I see there's a quote above saying that if we are hard on accepting such sources as TechCrunch and VentureBeat, then we should apply that basis on all other AfDs, several in the past weeks actually. Now, as a note on the general interests of these sources, I well understand these are important areas for companies to gain attention and that's of course how they support themselves, but that's actually why Wikipedia is not a company advertiser or advisor. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister, on what basis is WSJ's Tech Europe "not one of their main stories ... part of their PR-founded business section"? czar 22:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the WSJ Europe blog actually says in a specified section down the page, that it services the businesses and the people who support those businesses, therefore it cannot be guaranteed as actually independent, whatever the publisher may be, since it's the contents that count and it's something we've always acknowledged in AfDs or else simply accepting any bare article would be WP:Must be notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister, I don't see where it says that anywhere on the main or individual pages—do you have a quote? czar 20:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ST's analysis above. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Palladino[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable entrepreneur; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is trivial mentions, PR-driven or related to Mashape (which itself may not be notable). Created by Special:Contributions/Wolf5555 with no other contributions outside this topic. First AfD closed as no consensus due to low participation. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The marketing-style writing in the article is annoying ("and a 1.5MM seed round from top Silicon Valley investors"), but falls into the category of poor writing, a problem for which AfD is not a fix. As for the notability issue raised, the sources in the article provide sufficient evidence that the topic is not a hoax and has been written about by more than one reliable source. WP:BEFORE D1 on Google news shows 2017 international coverage from TechCrunch, Business Insider, and StarupItalia.eu, which demonstrates coverage over a period of time. Note that this search shows that Augusto Marietti should be restored. Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TechCrunch, StartUpItalia and BusinessInsider are all consumer-focused publications therefore are WP:Indiscriminate coverage for notability, since it wouldn't be genuinely independent; such information is clearly going to be firsthand or secondhand press releases, therefore simply mannequin-stacked as "sources". Actually, "poor writing" can in fact be a criteria for deletion since it would mean both WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy apply, since both state Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion or a webhost; in fact, the TechCrunch itself has repeatedly said before and in their articles, that the information is either based or given by the company website. Every single current source is only an announcement, press release or notice, not at all keepable for GNG. In fact, the history shows numerous consistent contributions adding promotionalism, that alone is enough to show there's intent in maintaining it an advertisement, if there's constant attention in keeping it like that. A TechCrunch example: "There are 5 auto-generated client libraries. API consumers can use any API listed on Mashape via a single Developer Key and a standard interface, so that once you’ve learned how to consume an API on Mashape, you know how to consume then all. Developers can even test their APIs by using Mashape’s online Test Console" (Clear WP:Wikipedia is not a guide and the first sentence is actually a CEO interview link). SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 07:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornubia City[edit]

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

Article about a construction project. Fails [{WP:GNG]]. - Mr X 12:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ^{Per WP:GEOLAND and recent removal of promotional material. 11:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)} - ~~a poorly sourced, proposed project looking for promotional avenues.~~ ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Construction project. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear how the phrase "construction project" could qualify this article for deletion from the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, looks like WP:TOOSOON, maybe notable in a couple of years.Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOLAND. As a construction project, I agree that it wouldn't meet notability standards. As a populated place, I believe it does. See, for example, [35], subscription required, and [36]. Some of the housing was completed as long ago as 2014. [37] The article should be completely rewritten. --Bejnar (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I agree in part, Bejnar, but our job is not to "predict" what the current article could be/should be/would be, but rather what it is now. Quite simply it doesn't not pass GNG as a promotion piece. If the article creator wants to write a different article about the location itself per your comment that it should be completely rewritten, then whoever submitted it should start over from scratch going through our customary AfC process. Creating a new article from an article that fails GNG should not be the job of our volunteers. For the good of editor retention, and to protect the quality of WP articles and the integrity of the encyclopedia, we should be warding off promotional pieces and denying publication of those articles that clearly do not meet GNG rather than encouraging the practice by allowing them into mainspace with hopes they'll be rewritten. All that does is encourage more of the same. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Take a look at the revised lead. I do not believe that that reflects a promotional piece, and I found a fair number of independent sources, as well as reliable. albeit not independent, municipal sources. If you wish to delete the remainder of the article, or those portions that you perceive as "promotional" please do so. Writing the Wikipedia is a cooperative project. This passes GEOLAND. --Bejnar (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition see the policy at WP:ATD : If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page --Bejnar (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the revisions made a difference, and with the completed residential development and school, it passes per WP:GEOLAND. However, I did just nominate the Cornubia Shopping Mall for AfD as it is a commercial promotion and part of the projected 30-year development project. ^{Atsme📞📧}11:14, 6 July 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

I still see no evidence of notability. Others have cited WP:GEOLAND, but for a subdivision, the notability guideline defaults back to WP:GNG. I would want to see at least three independent sources that have written feature articles on the subject. So far we have a newsletter, and tech news/advertising website, and the developer's website.- Mr X 11:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Hi, MrX - I found a description (government source) of the development which states: "eThekwini Municipality is the primary developer for the low-income and subsidized housing, as the development is a state initiative." [38] We'll be seeing more articles like this this one which should satisfy the citing of 3rd party independent sources. I did find some secondary sources like this article which is published by Business Media Mags which is a Times Media Portal. Colliers International thought it notable enough to feature it in their "Featured Industrial Developments" report, and there's also this article in Estate Living, "which communicates the value of residential community living in South Africa to a domestic and foreign market." There are other similar articles, so I'm of the mind that Cornubia "is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" per GNG. I'm also thinking a name change to Cornubia Settlement Project (short for Cornubia Integrated Human Settlement) may be more appropriate than Cornubia City since it is not officially a city and the title is misleading. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK Atsme, those additional sources do seem to move the needle toward keep.- Mr X 17:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted by User:Bbb23. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Teenager[edit]

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

Article doesn't show the significance of the black teenager as a sociological topic. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a {{db-attack}}, since it claims that "most attend school up to grade 12". --Hirsutism (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely superficial two-sentence article. The article creator's other contributions suggest that he is not here to build the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary as only a dictionary definition. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Coyle[edit]

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

Tagged for CSD, but was declined because he has worked on notable films. He is a prop maker who worked on movies/tv during the 80s and 90s, particularly with Star Trek movies and TV shows. The references used are his personal website, an IMDb link, and jobshadow.com which is a site for requesting to be interview to have information about yourself published. His website does provide a copy of an article from the Arizona Republic [39]. Unable to find any other coverage of him. Added BLP Primary sources tag, but no improvements in a week so now am nominating as doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. No significant news coverage or notability for himself. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Think about it, very slowly. He's a prop maker. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Rainsberger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is not sufficiently notable. A single published programming book is not sufficient (See the first criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, significant impact needs to be proven.) Also, The Gordon Pask Award mentioned in the article is not prestigious enough. It looks like the award is no longer being awarded as I couldn't find any mention post-2010 and it's website www.paskaward.org is not available. Finally, the few mentioned articles and his work as a consultant are obviously not enough to establish notability. Lmbro (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No improvement since last AfD. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't make a case for WP:GNG nor any other notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://vimeo.com/144013418

[2] ttp://www.knickerbockerglory.tv/south-side-story

[3] ttps://en-gb.facebook.com/help/196050490547892?helpref=faq_content

[4] ttps://techcrunch.com/2013/05/29/facebook-unveils-verified-pages-and-profiles-takes-a-page-from-twitters-playbook/

[5] Naslund, Jay Baer & Amber (2011). The now revolution : 7 shifts to make your business faster, smarter, and more social. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. ISBN 047092327X.

[6] Baer, Jay (2013). Youtility : why smart marketing is about help not hype. New York, NY: Portfolio/penguin. ISBN 9781591846666.

[7] Baer, Jay (March 1, 2016). Hug Your Haters : How to Embrace Complaints and Keep Your Customers. New York, NY: Portfolio/penguin. ISBN 1101980672.

[8] "Press - Jay Baer Marketing and Customer Service Keynote Speaker -". Jay Baer Marketing and Customer Service Keynote Speaker.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]