Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 July	13 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 speedy keep. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Tibbs[edit]

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

No independent references; links to subjects website that opens with a sound file Bfpage _{let's talk...} 23:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination was premature. I have helped this new editor find sources to establish notability although I had to inform her that she has a conflict of interest in the creation of the article. The sources are good, though. I withdraw my nomination. Bfpage _{let's talk...} 00:29, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. As worded, the nomination comes across as only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Idaho[edit]

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

topic better suited for main Idaho page RES2773 (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. As worded, the nomination comes across as only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Idaho[edit]

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

topic better suited for main Idaho page. RES2773 (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:25, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Rushlau[edit]

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

Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people). Content is too resume-like or WP:PEA. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 22:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, local beauty pageant runner-up fails WP:GNG. Significant WP:NOT problems warrant WP:TNT as well. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all the same buzzwords GretLomborg mentioned. :P Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. Linked blog is inactive; very difficult to find more than passing mentions of her online. Cthomas3 (talk) 03:46, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risque Disque[edit]

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

Almost completely unsourced article, doesn't meet WP:GNG. One source is a dead link, and the other source only mentions the record label. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 21:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was created (by me) at a different time in the evolution of Wikipedia's notability standards: all a record label had to do to be considered notable at the time was to have notable artists releasing music on it, and the sourcing didn't actually have to clear increasingly tough later standards like WP:CORPDEPTH — it was enough to simply be able to verify that the claim to having had notable artists on it was true. But those aren't the standards that pertain today, and under contemporary standards I just can't find the sourcing needed to get it back up to snuff: all I get on a ProQuest search is glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of either Blue Rodeo or Crash Vegas, not coverage about the label. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game designers[edit]

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

This is an ad hoc list that's better served by Category:Video game designers. It's populated with more than just designers: co-creators, development directors (producers), writers, people associated with game titles through press coverage. A complete list of video game designers across the history of video games would have 25,000+ entries, so this list hasn't even started to scale.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgpop (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sorry not seeing any genuine concerns with the list which seems to pass WP:LISTN is not indiscriminate and all list entries are notable and have articles. WP:CLN applies. Ajf773 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources should be added, and it could possible be renamed "developers" over "designers", but it's definitely a notable list premise. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom fails WP:NOTDUP. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has obvious advantage over category of listing games, making it potentially easier to find someone than just seeing a list of personal names. Other concerns raised above can be dealt with by editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as the inclusion criteria is for designers with blue-linked/standalone articles, this is fine. Most designers/developers go unnoticed by media, so the fear we'll have a 20,000+ list is unlikely to happen. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a really good point. As someone who has created and maintained many video game articles, I can say that, with many video game development teams having between 10-100 people on the game, I'd say most games have more like 0-2 staff that actually have their own article. I'd expect that this sort of inclusion criteria would keep the list under control for the foreseeable future. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Video game designers. If the list were to become too long, it could always be WP:SPLIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's filled only with notable people, so it doesn't need to be a complete list of every designer to walk the earth._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boba Fett: Crossfire[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guidelines nor the book-specific notability guidelines. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've completed this nomination at the request of the editor, per WT:AFD. On the merits, no opinion from me. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:05, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sigma Tau Gamma National Meetings[edit]

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

This list seems to be a trivial listing of non-notable events outside of the organization; the meetings of the organization do not seem to receive significant coverage from entities not affiliated with the chapters. The only sources provided are from the organization. If these type articles were the norm, we'd have them for student organizations like the National FFA Organization or professional organizations like the IEEE which I don't believe are suitable for inclusion either. only (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits. There isn't anything notable about these meetings in and of themselves that would justify an article. Even if this were a fork from Sigma Tau Gamma, I would argue that the entire list isn't worth inclusion. Maybe substitute prose, such as "The fraternity began holding national meetings in 1925, and annually thereafter, before shifting to the current biennial schedule in 1946. These meetings alternate with leadership conferences held in off years." Then cite the references. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia is not a fraternity planning agenda, this is of no value or interest outside the organization, and is not supported by reliable sources showing its significance. ValarianB (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These biennial meetings are not notable and I don't see how a list of every single meeting can be notable either. Ajf773 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already mentioned. There's nothing there worth keeping. Marianna251TALK 10:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT: this is a list of indiscriminate information. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per points made by nom and other editors.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:58, 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. A10, duplicate of Khati —SpacemanSpiff 03:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khati, Uttarakhand[edit]

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

Unreferenced and no proof of WP:NOTABILITY. Prod removed by creator but no reason was given. Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: please note that this is a recent duplicate of the pre-existing Khati (which has a much longer and varied edit history). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Roy Banks[edit]

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

No evidence can be found that WP:NACTOR is met. Essentially unsourced since creation. SmartSE (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search bring nothing, appears to be a headshot in the photograph and was made by an SPA most likely self-promotion, speedy delete may apply. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant roles in notable productions to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debórah Dwork[edit]

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

Page seems to be fully made up of original research, including promotional language and giving undue weight to some aspects. Also lacks references, with the ones given having been written by the subject itself, and unrelated to what the article talks about. Has been discussed at the BLP Noticeboard, where I was advised to nominate it for deletion [1]. VB00 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. clearly and unmistakably meets WP PROF as holder of a named professorship at a research university. She would be notable even without it: 3 university Press books:Yale, Evanston, and Chicago & two general interest books from a major publisher will meet the requirements. The article is indeed too much like a press release. I have elsewhere said that articles of borderline notability that are also promotional should be deleted, but she is not of borderline notability . I have also said that promotional articles should be deleted if not rewritten immediately, so I have just rewritten it. I removed all the claims of "first" and similar discussions, leaving the basic facts. A little more work is needed: proper citations for the books, when they are mentioned in the text, and the addition of book reviews. If there is copyvio text remaining, I will rewrite further. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still concerned with WP:V - as of now, the article cites no sources to prove anything that's been written, except a couple of questionable references in a small paragraph at the end. "An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability" - Extract taken from WP:PROF. Would you or other editors be willing to rewrite the whole article and add references to reliable sources? Remember: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" - WP:V. If I was to do that, probably nothing of the current article will remain. Lastly, you say that "...she would be notable even without it: (list of publications follows)". From what I understand about the WP:PROF guideline, having published something does not matter, what matters is the impact that the publications have had, proven through independent reliable sources (which, as I said, seem to be missing). Hopefully this helps you understand my concerns. Regards, VB00 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with the clear pass of WP:PROF already demonstrated above, she passes WP:AUTHOR for her heavily reviewed and adapted books. I just added ten book reviews as sources to the article, and that was only for her first two books. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't delete decent articles on notable figures just because they need more references. That's what {{more references}} is for. – Joe (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but still needs pruning of excessive gloss. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The nomination for deletion is unfounded. Subject is obviously notable. She received fellowships from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the American Council of Learned Societies. Netherzone (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've trimmed and sourced the article. The sources now include 33 reviews of 8 books, several in major newspapers and well past the usual standard for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inam Kharel[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTY by a wide margin. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:40, 13 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) 09:08, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Pllana[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:41, 13 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) 09:08, 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 keep. Even if it were not notable, redirecting to the artist's or the album's article should always be possible. So Why 07:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Hell (Empress Of song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 16:33, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I found some sources here, here, and here. I'm probably leaning towards weak keep. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I couldn't find those sources, but there does seem to be at least a possibility of notability. - Mr X 17:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Billboard and Pitchfork are pretty high level/mainstream sources, and they're moderately detailed articles dedicated to the song itself. Enough to pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 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 redirect to Duet (video game). Opinion is all over the map, but a redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground (and honors WP:ATD). The article history is still there, so if anybody really wants to mine this for text to merge, it's available. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kumobius[edit]

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

Declined for CSD for reasons that seem extraneous to policy given that the article contained no claim of significance whatsoever. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - Mr X 16:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Duet (video game) - the latter reason is why I declined the CSD. A news search shows lots of hits; however I'm an ignoramus when it comes to games released after Jet Set Willy so another editor will have to take up the mantle of expanding the article. Paging Czar who wrote the Duet article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are sources on the subject, but they are not nearly sufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a decline of A7 is completely appropriate given that the page makes the reasonable claim that the topic organization developed a notable video game. I think there might reasonably be a discussion to be had about the play between WP:NORG-as-a-whole (and especially WP:INHERITORG) and WP:PRODUCT with some thought to WP:Summary style and especially WP:CREATIVE, but that's a bit offtopic for this AFD. --Izno (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (edit conflict) Added a bunch of sources from the video game reliable sources custom Google search. Some of the minor games' sources are brief listings, while another game could warrant its own article. It's best, in these cases, to write an overview article of the developer's games, with due weight to each game's coverage in the sources. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Duet here, on principle as a useful redirect target, but since I dug up the sources, might as well keep. Though, I think it would have been more appropriate to have sent this draft to AfC so the author could have learned about Wikipedia, worked on polish/sourcing, etc. czar 17:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I tried to convince the user to go down the draft path, Draft:Kumobius, to avoid an AfD but I don't think the reasoning was quite understood. Salavat (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Anyone should read one of past discussions about notability, although the discussion was mainly about WP:NSPORTS. There, it says that any subject-specific guideline may neither replace nor supersede WP:GNG, the long-standing guideline. I made a note at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#‎Old VPP decision regarding GNG and subject-specific guidelines about that discussion, so anyone there can discuss the decision.
Regarding how the company meets GNG, I looked at sources used in the article. Most of them are just reviews toward the company's own games, written by mostly Gamezebo and Toucharcade. The games Duet and Time Surfer are cited by diverse range of sources in the list, but that's all there is. The reviews by Gamezebo and Touch Arcade are just promoting the awareness of the company and its games. If the company fails GNG, logically the article about it should not exist. Also, the WP:NORG neither supersedes nor replaces GNG, so if the company fails GNG, that guideline may be... not effective to help keep the article. I tried searching for sources that are not from Touch Arcade. I saw reviews about Duet and Time Surfer. Pocket Gamer substantially would make the company notable, but it's about another one of games, Bean Dreams or Bean's Quest. I also found CNET review about Bean's Quest.
Whether it passes or fails GNG, I'm unsure, but finding independent sources is not easy. Nonetheless, WP:NTEMP (part of Notability guideline) and WP:V#Notability should supersede GNG if any subject-specific guideline doesn't. However, we are discussing a stub-looking article about one video game company with a bare-bones list of games. Some would say that the article is used to promote the supposedly "non-notable" company itself. However, third-party sources would verify the notabilities of a few games, though that doesn't make the company automatically notable. The article can be treated like some list of games done by one company, but I'm unsure whether it violates WP:NOTDIR. Still, the article might have some potential notability, even when the company would fail GNG. --George Ho (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move/rename I could not find anything sufficient for the company to meet GNG. Many, if not most, of their games could have articles, but notability is not inherited. Perhaps the article could be renamed to a List of games by Kumobius? And then the N rules are very different, but there is not NEXIST that I can see for an in-depth CORP article. 12:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoziwe (talk • contribs) Sorry - yes - thanks Aoziwe (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while there are references, they all appear to be coverage of their products in the trade press. There's a total of one line of prose in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duet (video game). Current available coverage seems to be almost exclusively about the games. This is the only source I could find that covers the company itself, not just "game by Kumobius" (apart from interviews). I think this company might very well be notable in the future, but for now, we can redirect it to their only game with an article. Regards So Why 14:38, 20 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 Procedural close. Other pages need to be taken to WP:MFD. otherwise the page hasn't created yet. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam24784/sandbox/Luke Bailey (footballer)[edit]

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

{{{text}}}Sam24784/sandbox/Luke Bailey (footballer)|cat=B|text=Incorrect info}} Sam24784 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Sam24784/sandbox/Luke Bailey (footballer)

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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:10, 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 speedy delete. by User:DoRD as WP:G5. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Awadis[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability as a YouTube personality and only coverage is from a local news outlet. Meatsgains (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EBCDIC 252[edit]

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

Since my notability tag was removed, I expect the proposed deletion would be, too, so - here we go. Why is this unreferenced table notable? Doesn't exactly fall under WP:NOSTATS, but Wikipedia is also NOT a technical manual, either (WP:NOTMANUAL). Why should we have pages on individual 'EBCDIC code pages'? They seem like minute, niche technical topics that don't belong in encyclopedia due to failing WP:N. Note I am not saying EBCDIC concept itself fails, but I am saying that having such tables is going too far - it's along having pages on individual Pokemons - and frankly, those Pokemons had more household recognition that this ever will... PS. Maybe we could merge those code pages into some kind of list, just like those Pokemons were eventually merged into the list of Pokemons? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the audience might be smaller than that for an entertainer, or a Pokemon, the value to each member of that more limited audience is far greater than the value for that wide audience. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no reason to delete articles for which the audience is smaller. If the argument is that the individual table articles are too niche, it would be better to address the question en masse, rather than one article at a time. They could be merged info the EBCDIC code pages article, but frankly, that would be a big step backwards in organization. These articles are very useful, there are many of them, and they have been around for quite some time. Just for starters, there are 22 similar pages in the category EBCDIC code pages, and 52 in the category for DOS code pages. Many of them have been around for quite a while.Jacona (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article isn't unreferenced any more. Code pages and character set used in mass-produced computers and devices as well as those used in significant solitaire computers (like those of the main-frame era) are encyclopedic information. They are sought after by people carrying out data or program conversions or doing computer forensics. They are also needed by implementors involved f.e. in the internationalization of (system) software. They are interesting for computer historians. Character sets like this one are part of the "essence" of what is left of old systems, this info is needed to enable people to access information stored in formats using this character set. Since people are expecting this information to be found documented in an electronic encyclopedia, we have a long-time project going to document them here in order to preserve this vital information for generations to come. In some cases, character sets have uses and histories beyond their original platforms, which would be difficult to describe in the context of more generic articles, also the character tables would sometimes disturb the formating/flow in other articles, so they are typically kept separate. In some cases, a group of character sets is described in combined articles, but the group of EBCDIC character sets is too large for this. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:40, 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) 19:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Web.config[edit]

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

Article about configuration file type for specific development environment fails WP:NOTMANUAL. Either delete or merge into ASP.NET. GretLomborg (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unferenced, not encyclopedic, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources & no indications of notability or significance. Also fails WP:NOTMANUAL. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 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 Materialscientist (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Ravi (Malayalam Actor)[edit]

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

Time to put the final nail in this...non-notable actor (worth noting this has been created several times under various names and is salted in mainspace). No coverage, no credits in anything notable. Fails WP:GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject in question fail WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG can't see any chance of this article having any encyclopedic value. FITINDIA 17:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. It's time this stopped, yes. Yintan 07:04, 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. Were it not for CHRISSYMAD's explicit argument against a redirect, I might have invoked WP:ATD, but given the existing discussion, I can't see calling that the consensus. If somebody wants to create the redirects on their own, this close should not be taken as an impediment to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantica SuperSplash[edit]

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

Three non-notable rollercoasters. All fail WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 13:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conment - Why is it China-related? STSC (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STSC; due to Extreme Rusher being located in China, hence the tags also for Norway and Germany for the other two. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 04:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the articles are one-line blurbs sourced from RCDB and there's no sign of other coverage. In the future, these nominations should probably be done in separate AfDs. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No indication of notability via independent sources. Also, I think it is common enough to place articles that have one or more elements in common to place these in one AfD. For example, these are all related to one company, and there is no indication of notability for any of them. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the corresponding amusement park articles per WP:ATD-R. Lack of notability does not negate that these are potential search terms. Regards So Why 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SoWhy Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Power~enwiki. Subject completely fails WP:GNG so a redirect would be inappropriate. There is no substantial coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG applies to articles, not redirects. For example, Romeo Beckham is not notable, but is still a blue link. Same for The Beatles vs. the Third Reich (yes, that's real!) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Well just because it exists doesn't mean it should. I'd expect an admin to know better. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elenas Models[edit]

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

Nominating article for deletion, fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources cited by the article include a company listing cite [2], an interview [3] with the company CEO, and a link to the company trademark [4]. Finding further sources that meet WP:VER unlikely. The article currently serves only to promote and advertise the business, and does not add to the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING, and lack of quality WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. The interview is blocked for me, but I can tell from the domain that I would not consider it a RS. Everything else is non-independent: either their website or stuff like PR Newswire. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTPROMOTION and fails WP:CORP. None of the sources listed in article meet WP:Verifiability. G-searches provide nothing helpful. A search of Russian wiki to find additional sources provided no article on the subject."See Here". CBS527^Talk 21:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the above, while it's not particularly biased in the way that it's written there is no real case for notability made. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:39, 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 redirect to Ehsan Sehgal. The target page is currently also listed at AfD. But, if it ends up being kept, the redirect makes sense. There's not strictly a consensus to redirect in the discussion here, but WP:ATD argues for that over a straight delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Also see WT:Articles for deletion/Zarb-e-Sukhan -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wise Way[edit]

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

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

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

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT. This book must have caught the eye of major reviewers but nothing happened. Daily Dharti is unreliable online website which is more interested in Ehsan Sehgal than any one. See here. Greenbörg (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article as no reliable Urdu language source per WP:RS such as Daily Jang, Nawa-i-Waqt etc WP:V his claim. His book even don't have article on Urdu Wikipedia.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are dubious except two (Business Recorder and Daily Times). While the latter is dead link and is no more accessible but the former one only reports about the launching of book, not a review. given the self promotional circumstances, i would suggest to delete. --Saqib (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Here is the book on Google Books with no such review which verify his claim. Here is other one for Zarb-e-Sukhan. Greenbörg (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could sample his quality of so-called 'Quotes' here under Review section. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could see 4th page of above linked book of 'The Wise Way', why Daily Dharti is more interested in Ehsan Sehgal. A. Waseem Malik who is editor of Daily Dharti is also editor of his books. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

plz stop sending me emailz, it is zo disgusting behavior, no one can blackmail my father, i dont know principlz, and i also dont know ur level of judging. i told my father what iz happing here, i know thiz from ur emailz, my father dozent bother that, article waz added by us, remove all articlez, my father credibility dozent lie on u.my father told me---isi and a criminal group from california of usa behind this all garbage iz. i have answered u on common photos section 2. i am not interested my father also not, eleminate all of him. gud luck Moona Sehgal (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, I don't see neutrality than something wrong in the bottom. It looks like a kind of private dispute and Pre-planned agenda. Here raises the grave question of accuracy of the recently involved contributor/ contributors, who just become interested in targeting the subject with all its previous comments (closed) history, rather just normal editing that uninvolved, and neutral editors do. As a neutral contributor, and good for Wikipedia, here something is very serious that is not suitable for the Wikipedia. I see many respected editors have edited the articles of the subject, they didn't object, or they were unaware of the policies? These nominations demonstrate that rules fail, but voting wins. To me, it is open and visible that there are connections to create harassment and ownership on Wikipedia; for me, it is not a problem if there is neutrality respected, but not just personal agenda and enmity with any subject. while each article is well-sourced. I searched some information from my resources that may help uninvolved editors to access the deliberate conspiracy against the subject. I got the authentic uploaded links for reliable sources of the subject, for accuracy. I am surprised that editors do not follow the rules, but tools. Why the editors have the problem about any subject's private life that who is interested in, and who is not, it is not a way to edit the Wikipedia. Editors access the reliability of the sources, not the personal life of subjects or its related life. Editors should first learn the rule that COI does not apply if there is NPOV. More than half Wiki-articles fall under COI, but with neutrality. I am neither native and nor Paki, I am just neutral Wikipedian. I am deliberately not in logged, to avoid future edit warring and agenda edits.

- http://archive.li/uyxn9
- https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/ssJsRE
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otzNVwtzhpU&t=2079s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:F180:1:2E2:2E2:7AAB:9D3D:3421 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You brought unreliable sources. Please give us reliable sources which are independent of subject. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this user is related to User:KingssttLove after looking his video link. Greenbörg (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:G11 Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ - keep per provided sources. Moona Sehgal (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lines like "The Wise Way is an interesting book of quotes on different qualities and styles. It has been written in two famous languages" gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination), just created. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Ehsan Sehgal. This article seems to share the same problems in referencing with the parent article, duplicating many of the inaccessible sources, and making exaggerated claims about what information the references contain. Can't locate anything which establishes independent notability.Landscape repton (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Landscape repton: Delete or Merge? Greenbörg (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep"', per 1, 2.

Definition of a source, The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

-The piece of work itself (the article, book) -The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) -The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Definition of published The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.46.169.48 (talk) 09:54, 14 July

The two online user reviews that you link to above are not reliable sources. See WP:USERGENERATED.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this literary work is published by a notable author, Ehsan Sehgal, and popular media of the Indian subcontinent, such as the Daily Times have mentioned it. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the author The book is not sufficiently important to warrant a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. Per User:Mar4d, and User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. The subject sources demonstrate clear and open notability of the subject, which has been significantly covered by the international main stream newspapers, no matter if that are not anymore online, but we can see on website, for the that, that sources anyhow exist, policy does not force that sources must be online, that must be assessable, and the all sources have been very carefully accessed by the previous nomination for deletion, decision Keep.

International The News, Daily Jang,

Nawaiwaqt,

Hurriyat,

Family Magazine,

The Times of Karachi,

2, Daily Times

Nation Today, Daily Dharti,

The Daily Rising Kashmir,

and other. The article is with brutally and bad faith being spoiled and cited sources have been removed without the legitimation and consensus. Multiple editors have accessed all the sources, how is possible, if the sources become dead link, subject also become unnotable? It seems clear, here is being shown bad faith against the subject, involving the three editors, whom edits are not considered neutral and fair. There are also the ping editors, who have the same agenda and applying that without respecting the Wikipedia policies.

I found this.

i just feel so strange that what a lack of knowledge to search properly, it is pure blindness with the bad faith, though i not nominated the article for deletion, but u both, what doing with references, removing them, removing text and claiming not notable i cannot believe Wikipedia can bear such kinds of contributors, who have no any clue of the reality. I feel so shame, really i am sorry, i asked help in real life about daily dharti, that is newspaper or just website as u both claim as unreliable, i cannot even think that u both what did with the article, i do not think, i can learn here any good thing except dishonesty, personal jealousy and etc. when i search daily dharti on google, it was on the top,

1- https://www.google.nl/search?q=daily+dharti&oq=daily+dharti&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.6521j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

2 - http://www.roznamadharti.com/contact_us.php (editors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.109.55.10 (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC) — 86.109.55.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please don't copy/paste your statements. Please try to be specific and remember Wikipedia's AfDs doesn't depends on number of Heads but genuine statements. Satements like this are likely to be discarded. Greenbörg (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: closer please take note that neither User:Mar4d nor User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi have ever edited this AfD, despite this user's "keep per them" vote. A fairly transparent attempt by the IP to give their comment some legitimacy. Their comment was straight copy and pasted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination) which Fortuna and Mar4d have edited. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bad links and insignificant coverage do not establish notability. Took a while to get down here, had to swim through a sea of SPAs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of notability in the western world. This would be a better subject for the Urdu Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage needed to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Firstly, this book has only one in depth review in English – [5] – which was published by Daily Times. And I can't read Urdu, thereby unable to search in that language. So, in that context, I can say that it fails GNG. Having said that, the content of it should be selectively merged to its author Ehsan Sehgal. So, it should be redirected there, without deleting its history. As the author's BLP is already at AFD, the redirect will be dealt with accordingly.

Secondly, it seems like the nom has AfDed the author's other book (Zarb-e-Sukhan) as well, although I couldn't find the relevant template at the article. Can someone clarify whether it's a nomination of one book or two books? Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zarb-e-Sukhan has not been nominated yet for deletion but I think it should be as well or otherwise simply merged with bio. --Saqib (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the !votes, it is clear that the previous AfD participants have just focused on one book. So, either a new AfD for the other book is needed or it should be dealt with after the result of the author's AfD. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that Zarb-e-Sukhan is separate and needs its own AfD, but we should wait until after the main Sehgal AfD closes before nominating it as we'll have a clearer idea of what are options are with it. Landscape repton (talk) 18:57, 21 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. Consensus is for deletion per WP:ONEEVENT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery Dillon[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also, WP:1EVENT applies. reddogsix (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the protest he allegedly attacked mentioned in another article? Then we could debate whether to merge, redirect or just delete, because WP:1EVENT seems to apply and I'm not convinced the event is notable either (lack of lasting effect or in-depth international coverage). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1EVENT (and the one event wasn't notable anyway) Neiltonks (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur WP:1EVENT applies Cllgbksr (talk) 21:21, 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) 19:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Housel[edit]

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

Subject of article requests deletion (OTRS 2017070210007329) S Philbrick (Talk) 14:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always defer to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE unless there is an overwhelmingly strong case that the subject is notable. If this were up for deletion for any other reason, I'd probably be leaning towards keep based on the Gnews results. But I'll support the article subject's request Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per Shawn in Montreal any notability here is very fragile so no reason not to facilitate the deletion request. AllyD (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Her request seems to be against the spirit of subject-requested deletion which is intended for "non-public figures": Housel has a personal web page which contains a lengthy list of her media appearances, a list of her books and much of the other info in the article, and the statement that "As long as you continue looking for Rebecca, it's all good (just keep a tissue box handy...".[6] But whatever. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if i had an article covered in citation needed tags for around 4 years, and headed with lots of other tags i'd probably want it deleted as well ... question, since when do statements in the lead need citations, as long as they are not likely to be challenged don't need them (from WP:LEAD, i have just removed it, it was dated December 2013, a cynical editor might say by an editor who couldn't even be bothered to check WorldCat, to verify that Housel did coauthor books on the three franchises mentioned (she did), especially as the talkpage emphasises that wcat is a good source of such info, now that i have got that little rant out of the way it is time for snoozles .... zzzzzzzz. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable per WP:NAUTHOR. No other claim for notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:11, 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 delete. There has been a lot of discussion, but the most popular opinion when weighed against the deletion policies and guidelines is that there are not sufficient sources about Villata to be able to produce a neutral and fully verifiable article at this time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Villata[edit]

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

Lack of notability - this seems to be an autobiographical page created by the subject. There are claims of notability but no reliable secondary sources for substantiating them. Klaun (talk) 15:31, 4 July2017 (UTC)

Hi Klaun. I am the author of the page you have proposed for deletion (please see the history). I'm not Massimo Villata, so the page is not autobiographical. If this is the only reason for deletion, I propose to keep the page. If there are other reasons please specify.Massimozanardi (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, on the other hand, the secondary sources mentioned, Why "Phys.org", "Universe Today", "MEDIA INAF", and "NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC" (all clearly cited in the References) are considered as "unreliable"? Moreover, M. Villata has a huge scientific production: about 350 scientific papers with 8000 citations and an H-index of 53. (For comparison, a certain Albert Einstein has 15500 citations with an H-index of 36.)Just to cite one paper, "CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity", it got more than 7000 downloads at http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/94/20001 , and is "in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric" as can be seen at https://iop.altmetric.com/details/1043305. He is extensively mentioned in recent textbooks of Physics and Astronomy, e.g. "Introduction to Cosmology" by Matts Ross and "Variational Approach to Gravity Field Theories" by Alberto Vecchiato. Last but not least, he is the President of the International Consortium of optical and radio telescopes (WEBT - Whole Earth Blazar Telescope) since the year 2000. It's really hard to understand the claimed "lack of notability".Massimozanardi (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete the article is that its subject doesn't meet the notability requirements, WP:NPROF. The sources cited in the article are not necessarily all unreliable, but the sources are not about Massimo Villata with the exception of his personal website. They are either articles he has co-authored, which doesn't really belong in a source about him, because if he wrote it, it's not a secondary source, or they mention him only incidentally as the National Geographic reference or Phys.org reference does. Just because someone is mentioned by a journalist does not make them notable. As an academic, he doesn't seemto meet the criteria. I don't have access to all of "Introduction to Cosmology" by Matts Roos, but Villata isn't mentioned in the index. The latest edition was published in 2003, so I wouldn't call itrecent. It seems Vecchiato mentions him three times in his text, but they seem to be colleagues at INAF in Italy, so is that a demonstration of notability? Finally, I don't think his leadership of Whole_Earth_Blazar_Telescope makes hm necessarily noteworthy as that subject doesn't really seem all that noteworthy either. (To wit, the first result of a Google search for it is the Wikipedia article and the second the project's own website and Google news only has one article on it from 2006.) In any case, given WP:NOR to have an article we must find a reliable sources where others have written about Massimo Villata, not just his research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaun (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klaun. Sorry for delay, but According to "Wikipedia:Notability (academics)", at least the first criterion is met: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Since "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.". And this is clearly established for Villata (8,000 citations with H-index of 53!). As for reviews, see e.g. The extragalactic gamma-ray sky in the Fermi era, where, even if the review is on a different topic, both Villata's papers and the WEBT are extensively cited. Thus, it is not correct to say that "The reason to delete the article is that its subject doesn't meet the notability requirements". Another your imprecision is "they mention him only incidentally as the National Geographic reference or Phys.org reference does", since the cited articles are all dedicated to Villata's research, and DO NOT "mention him only incidentally". Another mistake: "The latest edition was published in 2003". The latest, fourth edition (2015) of Introduction to Cosmology is at Introduction to Cosmology, 4th Edition. Moreover, Matts Roos is Emeritus Professor in Particle Physics at the University of Helsinki, and is not a colleague of Villata. As for "I don't think his leadership of Whole Earth Blazar Telescope makes him necessarily noteworthy as that subject doesn't really seem all that noteworthy either.", this sentence sounds a bit peculiar. A Google search for "villata blazar" gives about 39,000 results, and "whole earth blazar telescope" yields 28,000 results. It is quite obvious that the first results are the Wikipedia articles, because this is the Google policy. In any case, the WEBT has 182 scientific publications (see References in the article), all written or at least checked and scrutinized by Villata, as the President of the collaboration, which counts more than a hundred of astronomers from several dozens of Institutes all around the world (see e.g. part of them in the last paper: Synchrotron emission from the blazar PG 1553+113. An analysis of its flux and polarization variability ). Finally, your reference to WP:NOR is not appropriate, because "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.". Thus, it does not refer to people... It has been clearly demonstrated that all the research material presented in the article comes from reliable sources; with the words of WP:NOR: In general, the most reliable sources are:

Peer-reviewed journals
Books published by university presses
University-level textbooks
Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
Mainstream newspapers

The only point that does not come from reliable sources is in the first two lines of the article: "From 1968 to 1973 he attends the Technical Institute for surveyors, he takes part in student movements and graduates with the highest marks; later, he enrolls at the University of Turin, graduating with honors in physics.". If Klaun does not believe in this brief biography (which hardly can be considered as OR), he can delete these two lines. But all the rest is clearly established, demonstrated by reliable sources and most notable and noteworthy.Massimozanardi (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contrary to above claim, I see only h-index of 6 in GS. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. See amended explanation below. Agricola44 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changed back to full delete based on new digging. Please see below. Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be reliable, an H-index should be calculated on a database as complete as possible. For Astronomy and Astrophysics (or even for Physics), the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) is one of the most complete. As can be seen at NASA ADS author:"Villata, M." year:1990-2016, this database gives (click on Citations) 8,087 citations and an H-index of 53 for Villata M. in the years 1990-2016. Just out of curiosity, I looked for the results of the other Italian astrophysicists (see Category:Italian astrophysicists) who have a dedicated page on Wikipedia. In 1990-2016, I got the following H-indices: 33, 98, 60, 7, 4, 15, 23, 40, 51, 8, 41, 1. Thus, if Villata were to be deleted, according to this criterion only 2 Italian astrophysicists should be kept... I looked also for a very famous astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking. In the same 1990-2016 period he has H-index = 39, which however rises to 82 when considering all papers. To avoid something like a possible "Italian bias", I checked the first 10 living American astrophysicists (see Category: American astrophysicists) in the Wikipedia list, their H-indices are: 15, 50, 44, 39, 72, 5, 55, 21, 98, 36. That is not significantly different from the Italian situation: also here about 7-8 out of 10 astrophysicists should be deleted.Massimozanardi (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The gold-standard for any area of physics is the WOS database, especially since you can differentiate people having the same name. "M Villata" is pretty common, but it turns out that most of the journal papers attributed to this name come from people at ISTITUTO NAZIONALE ASTROFISICA ITALY (105), UNIVERSITY OF PERUGIA (67), etc. The article says that this particular "M Villata" has been at the Observatory of Turin for his entire career. Cross-checking this info with WOS returns a total of 27 papers, which is presumably the main corpus of his research output. Here, it looks like H-index = 19, which I would say is borderline in such a high-citation area. Almost all the papers were written by large groups (not unusual in astrophysics) but Villata is only lead/primary on some of them, none of which are the really highly-cited (>100) papers. On balance, I still think notability is not demonstrated, but I've amended my !vote to "weak delete" above. Agricola44 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Agricola44. There is only one "M. Villata" in Astrophysics and ALL the 332 papers resulting from the ADS link above are from him (as it is evident from the affiliation in each paper).Comparing this to the results given by WOS is the demonstration that WOS is by far incomplete and consequently inappropriate, so that all astronomers and astrophysicists uses ADS. Villata is first or second author in about 130 papers with about 2,900 citations. Nine of those papers have more than 100 citations each. Thus, it is not correct that "Villata is only lead/primary on some of them, none of which are the really highly-cited (>100) papers.". Almost all the papers where he is not in the very first author positions are from large collaborations which uses alphabetical order for the authorship. In these papers he represents the WEBT contribution into the larger collaboration, so that his importance is always well established and would correspond to the very first positions if the alphabetical order were not adopted (see e.g. the Nature paper at A change in the optical polarization associated with a γ-ray flare in the blazar 3C 279 , where in the "Author Contributions" it is stated that "M. Villata organized the optical-radio observations by GASP-WEBT as the president of the collaboration."). Adding these papers to the ones above (i.e. considering all the papers where Villata has a dominant position), there are 19 papers with more than 100 citations each (easy to check by sorting the ADS list by "Citation count desc"). In conclusion, the H-index=53 is well established and fully deserved.Massimozanardi (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote back to full "delete" based on further examination of WOS. You're correct that he's listed on more papers that do not show up if you limit the query to his home institution. This is unusual in WOS and it seems to stem partially from the fact that these other papers have even larger author lists. For example, I looked at the top cited paper, Astrophys J 716(1) 30-70 (320 citations), but this paper has about 300 authors listed across 96 different institutions. Because Villata is not the corresponding author, it would appear very difficult to ascribe any particular degree of credit to him for the purposes we are discussing here. I concede that I did not check all papers in this fashion, but, taken with a similar trend that I observed above when the query was limited to his home institution, I would say that this person has indeed been a member of projects that have published notable results, but that particular credit and importance of his parts in these projects is difficult to discern. Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Agricola44. So, please consider the GS database, which you are more familiar with. If you search for "authored by M Villata" (thus excluding other Villatas - you cannot search for Massimo Villata because "Massimo" does not appear in the author lists), you get 699 results. Even excluding all the papers where Villata is not in the 3-4 first authors (which is strongly incorrect due to the alphabetical order), there are 40 papers with more than 40 citations each, i.e. an H-index of 40. Do you really think that this is not enough? This modified H-index (even if it is strongly penalizing) still places him at the top of the astrophysicists' lists. You should not base your judgment on a single article (out of hundreds) where Villata's importance may not be clear due to alphabetical order. If you go to see inside ALL the 20 papers with alphabetical authorship which have been excluded from the H-index calculation above, you can see that Villata's contribution is fundamental: in some cases, when the 2-3 sub-groups are distinguished, he is the first author of the WEBT sub-list (obviously); in other cases(like the Nature paper mentioned above) his fundamental contribution is clearly stated, as the manager of the radio-to-optical observing campaigns; otherwise, you can look at the reference lists inside the papers: how many of the "300" co-authors have a similar number of citations? As an example, search for "Villata" inside the paper you mention at THE SPECTRAL ENERGY DISTRIBUTION OF FERMI BRIGHT BLAZARS. Please, don't be lazy... and try to be more accurate.

By the way, Villata's affiliations have been:

Istituto di Fisica Generale, Università di Torino
Istituto di Fisica Generale dell'Università
Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino
INAF, Torino Astronomical Observatory
INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino
INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino
INAF, Osservatorio Astrofisico di Torino

and similar... Did you check any of them?

Massimozanardi (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H-index is a great shortcut if most/all of the works in a publication list are attributable primarily to the person in question. The real problem we have here and the reason I went back to "delete" from "weak delete" is that Villata's papers, especially the highly cited ones, have many many authors and it's not easy, in fact it's not really even feasible from our vantage point, to determine how much of a role he played, especially since, as you said, author lists are often alphabetical. What is clear is that he's not the corresponding author on the papers I sampled and there are none of the other usual signals of such papers being attributable primarily to one individual. It is for these reasons that I think I'll stick with "delete", not because of laziness, as you've accused. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, WOS is the right database to use here, not GS, because it counts journal article citations. Agricola44 (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Please see my answers & comments above Massimozanardi (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the present, but could change. The claims for notability in the BLP are poorly presented, and I still don't see why GS cites are so low. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi,Xxanthippe. The problem of low GS cites comes from the fact that the search done by Agricola44 was for "Massimo Villata" as a phrase (64 results) and not for "Villata" as an author (1,260 results). Then one can check that the first 27 papers are really authored by M Villata (like following several hundreds) and have at least 100 citations each.

Comment. Seems to be an autobiography WP:Yourself. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The claims for notability, as well as the matter of the autobiography, have been widely discussed above (see my first answers to Klaun (talk). In addition, when calculating the H-index on GS (correctly searched for Villata as an author), we get 60, i.e. even higher than the ADS result.Massimozanardi (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address later comments by page's creator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That remains to be demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I repeat: I AM NOT MASSIMO VILLATA, I am a contributor to wikipedia in Italian for more than 10 years (please see my contributions in Italian and my reputation on Wikipedia in Italian), and sometimes I can translate my articles from Italian to English or to make it new ones.Massimozanardi (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the doubts raised by Klaun were motivated, the arguments in favor of Villata's notability presented by Massimozanardi are convincing and fully substantiated by ironclad data and numbers. In particular, the ADS H-index of 53 (or 60 from GS), placing Villata at the 2nd-3rd position among Italian astrophysicists should be determinant. Even when excluding all the papers with alphabetical authorship (as incorrectly suggested by Agricola44 - and where however Villata's importance is clearly established inside the papers thenselves), the remaining H-index is 40, that is well above any threshold of notability. With the words of Agricola44 in their talk: "There isn't any specific statement in WP that I'm aware of, but rather a pretty strong consensus built-up over many academic-related AfDs (see archive) that h-index below 10 is not notable, between 10 and 15 is borderline (often going either way), and >15 is solidly notable. Importantly, h-index is not linear. So, for example, 10 is way more than twice-as-good-as 5. To give some outside-WP-perspective: the 15-20 range is typical of full-professors at top-tier research universities and APS fellows and 40-ish is National Academy territory (quoting roughly from the h-index article). Hope that's helpful. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)." --Carmen63

— 161.72.20.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
So now we have the SPAs starting to weigh-in with very similar arguments, very similar writing style as MZ, and a name not corresponding to an actual account. SOCKing is bad...please stop. Agricola44 (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Agricola44, what is more reprehensible than your hypothetical SOCKing is to provide incorrect data, like your H-index of 6, instead of 60. I just reported your words: on one hand you say that an H-index of 15 is more than enough, on the other hand that 60 is not sufficient. Please, reply to this instead of invoking spectra. --Carmen63 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.72.20.85 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SPA/Carmen63/161.72.20.85: First, you should be aware that a textbook sign of socking is a new act whose first edit is a lengthy argument in an esoteric area of WP like AfD. Second, I already addressed this above. Please see the entry starting with "H-index is a great shortcut if...". In summary, the 10-15 range is the usual borderline, but a high-citation area like this can be different. That's not the real problem here though. The real problem is that it is basically impossible to ascertain Villata's contribution on papers that have ~300 authors over ~100 institutions and for which he's not the corresponding author. Signing off. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment because it seems you do not want to answer. Evidently you have not seen the MZ response that begins with "Hi, Agricola44. So, please consider the GS database, which you are more familiar with. If you search for "authored by M Villata" (thus excluding other Villatas - you cannot search for Massimo Villata because "Massimo" does not appear in the author lists), you get 699 results. Even excluding all the papers where Villata is not in the 3-4 first authors (which is strongly incorrect due to the alphabetical order), there are 40 papers with more than 40 citations each, i.e. an H-index of 40...". So, when excluding all those papers where you say "it is basically impossible to ascertain Villata's contribution" (which is again incorrect as demontrated by MZ above), the H-index is still 40, again well above any possible threshold for notability. I stop here, because you continue to not respond correctly.--Carmen63

Weak Delete. Clear failure of general notability. Determining notability within academia can be difficult. A large number of citations for 'M Villata' come as part of papers with 100+ minor data contributors (e.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/597/meta, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/429/meta, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/30/meta, etc. etc. etc.). These all have hundreds of citations but this is hardly evidence for the notability of this individual. Papers that have been led by him (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999A%26A...347...30V, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996A%26A...315..105R, https://aas.aanda.org/articles/aas/ps/1998/11/ds1482.ps.gz, etc. etc.) seem to have been cited around 50-100 times each on average. This seems to just fail specifics for criterion 1 of WP:PROF, which requires "a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates".

I'm basing this on a report, which shows average numbers of citations for space science being around 20~ in 2000. Adjusting this back to the mid-90s, 50 citations for a paper doesn't appear to be of note, but normal for this kind of research output. Barring any kind of independent reviews of his work which discuss its notability, I am inclined to a weak delete as non-notable.

The discussion of h-indicies seems largely irrelevant as they are not currently accepted as reliable notability indicators. El Pharao (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear El Pharao (talk), Searching for "M Villata" as an author in GS, we get the following numbers of citations for the papers where Villata is the FIRST OR SECOND AUTHOR:

196, 172, 174, 166, 154, 141, 139, 141, 125, 103, 97, 92, 91, 91, 89...

and more than one hundred of other papers with slowly decreasing citation numbers. Namely 15 papers with at least 89 citations each (or 40 papers with at least 40 citations each, i.e. H-index of 40, as already told above), with an average of 131.4 citations. So, one does not understand why this result should not meet the criterion for notability mentioned by El Pharao: "a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Is 15 (or 40) not a "substantial number"? Are citations rates from 196 to 89 (or 196 to 40) not significant enough? Very hard to believe.Massimozanardi (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid that my opinion is that this is not notable enough for a wikipedia article. If enough people's opinions differ from my own, as yours evidently does, it will stay. El Pharao (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the originator of this request, I'd just say the problem that made me suggest a delete was that there are not any sources about Massimo Villata apart from his own website (which is now down, apparently) and the INAF source, which is an organization that funds his research and/or he works for(?). How do we write an article without sources? Papers written by Massimo Villata or sources that reference his research are not sources about him. I assert WP:NOR does apply here as it does to every Wikipedia article being one of the 3 pillars. Also WP:BLP demands we remove unsourced material. How do we have an article with no content? I'm an inclusionist, so I'm not eager to see any article deleted. However, I don't see how to maintain this article. Also, I'd like to note that the article asserts two reasons for Massimo Villata being notable, as an academic and as a writer of fiction. I don't know if this decreases or increases the notability requirement, but I think the evidence for notability as a sci-fi writer is even less than as an academic. Massimozanardi - you mention some biographical information about Massimo Villata that I don't see a source for, if you could tell us where to find this info, that would be helpful. A final note, this is hardly the only article about a living academic that has this problem. After requesting deletion on this article, I went to look for other articles on academics for comparison. Many have no references about the subject of the article, only referencing the research by the subject. Klaun (talk) 22:33, 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford West Gwillimbury Fire & Emergency Services[edit]

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

Single-sourced (and a deadlinked single source, at that) article about a smalltown fire department, with no evidence of notability per WP:ORGDEPTH. As written, all this really does is list what equipment they happen to have, which is not the point of Wikipedia articles about fire departments. As always, fire departments exist in almost every town or city and do more or less the same things everywhere, so they aren't all handed an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing — they only get articles if they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG and ORGDEPTH as the subject of media coverage — but this article provides no evidence that this particular fire department meets the requirements. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. local emergency services are almost never notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss whether this could be redirected/merged to Bradford West Gwillimbury instead
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as there is no claim made to notability (though the one citation is definite clickbait). Seyasirt (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per WP:A7 no claim of importance. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd argue that this isn't a plausible redirect, so deletion seems to be the better option. If there is material here that could be merged over, we'd need a source for it first. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:57, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 08:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiatul Falah Mosque[edit]

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

Unreferenced for more than a decade. It probably is the largest mosque in the city, but I see no historical or architectural significance. Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and nine Bangladeshi newspapers, by both names, found routine announcements of various religious observances and two stories about an incident in which a khatib was assaulted and shoes and garbage were thrown at the mosque.[7][8] I don't believe these mentions are sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Worldbruce (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I could find were the official website of the subject, the official Facebook page, and some videos on YouTube. There was more time to prove notability than this non-notable building deserved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The largest mosque in a city of 2.5 million people, most of whom are Muslims, would seem to me to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Being big is not equivalent to being notable. One might reasonably expect reliable sources to exist on the topic of the largest mosque in a city, and thus for it to be notable, but so far, in ten years, no one has produced a reliable source to confirm that it is the largest, let alone enough reliable sources on the topic to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT, which tells us buildings "require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I very much appreciate the nominator's WP:BEFORE efforts. Since one of the pedia's missions is to be a gazetteer, we typically keep articles about significant human communities, even if those communities are defunct (like ghost towns). Here we have an uncited article about a large (likely the largest) and active religious institution in a very large geographic community. Even the nominator in this process concedes the mosque is verifiable, but asserts, reasonably, insufficiently documented to meet GNG or GEOFEAT. Despite this fair assertion, I'd prefer a keep outcome here, or at most a soft delete so that when eventually better sources are brought forward the article could be recreated with little debate. 50,000 celebrate Eid eve there? That's significant, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What reliable, secondary sources will be used to write this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 16:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've taken a stab at rewriting the stub along the lines that the discussion so far suggests. It feels like inherited notability; the news coverage is about the notable events, not so much about where they take place, or the building adjacent to where they take place.

I believe the largest single Eid gathering in the city (the one in the eidgah next to the mosque is in two shifts) is at M. A. Aziz Stadium. If so, it's worth mentioning in the stadium article. But if the only mentions of the stadium in reliable sources were that out of the hundreds of Eid celebrations in the city, the one at the stadium is the largest, would that alone make the stadium notable?

The sources feel weak and tangential compared to the in-depth secondary sources that demonstrate the notability of other large mosques, such as Great Mosque of Gaza or Cologne Central Mosque. I can't tell whether the mosque is in Khulshi Thana or the adjacent Kotwali Thana, but it may be worth noting that Banglapedia: The National Encyclopedia of Bangladsh, has articles on both thanas, each article lists notable religious institutions in the thana, and neither mentions this mosque.[9][10] I remain skeptical that this meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did find bare mentions here and here but the second one appears to be a different institution. BusterD (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss new sources/changes. Remember that merging to Chittagong might also be an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Likely notable structure, with rewrite and some references added since AFD nom. --NoGhost (talk) 18:21, 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. So Why 09:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyron Montgomery[edit]

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

Delete References fail to provide independent indications of notability, fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability established; the accomplishments are all minor. The content has all appearances of being a tribute page or an autobiography. Should be excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. BTW, the article describes the subject as "a film director and media creative" -- what is "Media creative"? WP:TNT the thing. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 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. Already deleted by RHaworth. So Why 09:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket to the Moon (TTTM)[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability (WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous promotion, with content such as:

"The brand is found in over 1000 retailers worldwide including Amazon.com, Northland, Au vieux Campeur , AS Adventures!"

I've requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chand Sadhwani[edit]

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

Fails GNG, COMPOSER, NMUSIC South Nashua (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. DrStrauss talk 16:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for composers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of news websites in Sudan and South Sudan[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTLINKFARM; delcined PROD. SudaneseOnline is the only entry that is primarily a newssite, and we don't have lists with a single entry. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTLINKFARM, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply because WP:NOTLINKFARM exists. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to List_of_radio_stations_in_Africa#.C2.A0Sudan and List of newspapers in Sudan. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:13, 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 no consensus. No real discussion of the newly provided sources despite two relists. Only comment addressed only one of the sources. So Why 09:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punch (rapper)[edit]

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

There is no question this person is a successful businessman and respected voice in the music industry. However, the sources cited are either primary source interviews, or make passing mention of this person with regards to his opinion of others. A Google search for secondary biographical sources about this person was not successful.

Several of the sources cited confirm that he is co-president of Top Dawg Entertainment, and that this has been his primary work:

"He’s laid low in recent years to focus on his TDE presidency". [11]
"TDE President Terrence “Punch” Henderson has been best known for his work behind the scenes with Top Dawg Ent." [12]

Being co-president of this company does not automatically affirm notability, per WP:BIO.

There also appears to be no notability per WP:MUSICBIO. There are no charted songs, no award nominations, and no multiple albums--each of which would have contributed to notability.

Gleaning the articles cited, there are just a few biographical notes about this person:

"Punch understands this side of rapping because he’s an MC as well." [13]
"Punch's urge comes from a need to educate audiences with thought-provoking and insightful lyrics, something he takes pride in." [14]

Overall, this article appears to fail WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD 20 14 02:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable career; nothing stands out here to warrant an encyclopedia article. Sources are insufficient to meet WP:BIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while accomplished, that does not necessarily equate to notability. Searches did not turn up the type of coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I was about to close this but look at these sources: [15][16][17][18] from major publications... (some mentioned in nom) And that's not counting hotnewhiphop.com—haven't looked into the site's reliability. Trim unreliable sources if you must, but this individual is definitely covered for his career, and if a merger is more appropriate, a redirect to Top Dawg Entertainment (his company) certainly makes more sense than deletion. czar 16:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, hotnewhiphop.com openly solicits promotional content. That's not saying everything there is unreliable or unworthy. Just pointing out that they open the door for self-promoting content laking objective, third party POV. Take that info for what it's worth. The notability merits of references from hotnewhiphop should be assessed on case by case basis. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to discuss the new information provided by Czar.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:43, 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 keep. I think there is sufficiently demonstrated consensus to keep, taking in considering the comments here and at Talk:Rob Goldstone. Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Goldstone[edit]

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

Textbook WP:1E case. — JFG ^talk 10:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, this person is only notable by happenstance. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As WP:1E says, "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." A quick google news search of him reveal profile after profile on him. Moreover, he may pass WP:N without the current coverage. For example, he has interviews and articles with both the New York Times and NPR.

NYT: The Tricks and Trials of Traveling While Fat

NPR: Fat Traveler Prepares For 'Plus-Sized Ordeal'

Casprings (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journos are not notable because they write. They are notable if people actually write about them.TheLongTone (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Casprings and Another Believer. Size and scope of coverage has grown to worldwide in many languages. Sagecandor (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I looked him up today, and I am glad I quickly found an article on him. Comfr (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and see what happens. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 22:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nomination, classic example of WP:ONEEVENT TheLongTone (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initially I would've said delete, but this exceeds BLP1E with pieces like this, in addition to others presented above and not yet mentioned. Coverage is mostly because of the one event (the email chain), but covers the person beyond the email chain, therefore not meeting BLP1E #1. The Russia-gate case is ever expanding, therefore not meeting BLP1E #2, and I think we can all agree that the event is significant so therefore not meeting BLP1E #3. The individual is already comparable to the Watergate burglars, who also have articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh This guy is not your average mystery go-between, and since we don't presently know much, but as you point out the coverage of this individual as a person right now is quite intense. Also, the way he wrote the e-mail was strangely explicit (ham-fisted if friendly intent, pernicious if otherwise). At the same time, he's probably too cagey to have been used entirely unwittingly. All this makes him a lightning rod for speculation (yuck), but he's also at this point the primary name on what could turn out, once the dust settles, to be legally classified as an inducement extended to a Trump family member to break one of several stiff American laws. Still, if no other shoe drops, I'd probably delete this article within 30 days. — MaxEnt 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with no prejudice for relisting. Between WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E and our usual overcoverage that's useful WP:RECENTISM considering news, which can be corrected later. Although wrong on paper per WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTAL, gut is right. Widefox; talk 19:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I looked him up today, and I am glad I quickly found an article on him. Reception also in Germany, i.e. Wer ist Rob Goldstone? --Neun-x (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for the time being. This has the potential to be of service to WP users who are trying to get a clear picture of these events. There were 17,000 page views on July 13, 2017 alone, which was two days after the article was created. KConWiki (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At this time, it is highly possible that there is more to this story. No need to delete at this time. We can revisit in six months to see whether BLP1E applies at that time. (Also per Muboshgu) Go Phightins! 16:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this reptile is independently notable, why is the article headed by a thingy announcing that it is one of a series of articles about the Donald? Incidentally, there was a long article about this affair in The Grauniad which did not mention his name once.TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Muboshgu. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 15:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Muboshgu, review in 6 months time. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wanted to know who he was after hearing about this 'music promoter', I came to Wikipedia and I found out more, so yes, keep Brunswicknic (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Goldstone is likely to a short-lived news event. Nonetheless, in the saga of the 45th presidency, he has the potential to be a key player. If in six months nothing comes of it, the two paragraphs can be moved elsewhere and the article abandoned. I never cease to be amazed at how quickly an article is condemned as news or insignificant and nominated for deletion. It seems it is easier to be critical (delete!) than to be creative (give an article time to mature before making a decision). Rhadow (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a case of WP:BLP1E; there's no claim he's notable apart from his involvement in Trump campaign–Russian meeting. I note WP:CRYSTAL regarding some of the speculation above that this meeting is akin to Watergate. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's kinda sad to see WP editors falling into the pit of MSM mania instead of working to protect the integrity of the project. The 7-day moratorium that was proposed here would, in my opinion, be as much benefit to us as WP:ACTRIAL will be. Lorty, they're creating articles for all the "non-notables" who attended that nothing burger meeting. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to Trump campaign–Russian meeting per WP:BIO1E. Readers on that topic are no doubt likely to be curious who he is but our article provides no independent notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a heap of comments on Rob Goldstone:talk page, all in favor of Keeping Rhadow (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above: Goldstone is likely to a short-lived news event. Nonetheless, in the saga of the 45th presidency, he has the potential to be a key player. Has encyclopedic relevance & something the readers would expect a stand-alone article on. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 20 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 salt Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel_Saucet[edit]

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

This article was already nominated for deletion once, and the decision to delete it was unanimous [19]. Despite that, it has since been recreated by single-purpose account whose only activity has been to recreate this purely promotional article.

The arguments for deletion are the same as in 2014. The subject is an academic. As academic goes, he is well below even the average academic in notability. He does not have a tenured position at any university. His academic publication are few, and they are all in obscure journals (not even one article in a journal with an impact factor, let alone in a leading journal).

If we have an article on an academic without tenure and without any significant publication, then we should have an article on every single academic there is. Furthermore, as the article was already deleted, after a unanimous decision, yet recreated by a single-purpose account, I would recommend we delete and salt. As David Eppstein pointed out when the article was last deleted, already that article was created by a sock-puppet on a banned user, and I think it's a WP:DUCK that the spa who recreated the article was another sock. That's why salting after deletion is recommendable. Jeppiz (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I guess WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply because this has survived for a year (how, I wonder?) but nothing has changed since the last AfD. Subject isn't even close to meeting the WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC (if you can even call "street marketing" an academic field). – Joe (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Has made almost no impact on the world of scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. My rationale from last time around looks as valid now. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 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 delete. Ultimately, everybody except one editor did not think the article could be salvaged by regular editing. E.M.Gregory, if you want the article saved to draft space so you can rewrite it as you suggested, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Gothenburg terrorism plot[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS at it's finest (or it's worst). This "terror plot" is actually a no-terror, no-conspiracy to commit murder incident. According to the article itself and this source [20], the men involved were found not guilty of terror and a conspiracy, leaving an article based on minor charges of possession of weapons and major BLP concerns. I don't see a reason to merge any of the material since most of it is outdated and there is no indication of a WP:LASTING impact. This article was created in 2015; the men were found not guilty in 2012 so clearly something was missed when this was pushed to mainspace. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you missed was the revisiting of this plotted attack in 2015.(see Note below)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event, and no lasting impact. There was some attention, but it faded when the not guilty verdict came. If the article is kept, at the very least per WP:BLP the title should be changed. We can't, in Wikipedia's voice, say that it was a terrorist plot when the courts have aquitted the suspects. Sjö (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sjö. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it happened and is still discussed; or Redirect to Lars Vilks#Violent attacks, or to Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy, orRetitle and rewrite this article to cover the remarkably long series of violent attacks and assassination attempts directed at Vilks as per WP:PRESERVE. I prefer Keep, not only because this happened and got international coverage, and because we do have Category:Failed terrorist attempts and because it is user-friendly to keep article that are usefully linked from a number of other articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory since this "happened", why is the Locale apparently lying about these men being deemed innocent of such charges in a court of law? Why would we put this in a category of failed terror attacks when it wasn't an attempted act of terror?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slick, after the attempt to assassinate Vilks in the 2015 Copenhagen shootings and the Charlie Hebdo shooting Europeans began to view the threat of Islamist terrorism differently. To be sure, the perps - or, if you prefer, the young men carrying knives when arrested on suspicion of intending to use the knives they had brought to the gallery opening in Gothenburg intending to murder artist Lars Vilks on the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks - have been acquitted. After all, in 2011, the idea of young Swedish men stabbing someone to death for insulting The Prophet seemed absurd to many people. The thing is, after the horrors of 2015 in Paris and Copenhagen, many journalists and quite a few Swedish voters stopped believing that the court that acquitted the Gothenburg plotters reached the right verdict. Therefore the incident is now remembered as a failed Islamism-inspired assassination attempt. Yet another foiled plot to attack a Western cultural event, like the Louvre machete attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory and is this according to you? Do you have reliable sources that prove these men indeed did have intentions to stab Vilkson to death? Are the opinions of a few "journalists" apparently enough to call this attempted terror and ignore the investigation and ruling of a court of law? How would you rename this article to avoid BLP concerns: "2011 Gothenburg non-terror or murder plot (but we think it's terrorism anyway)"?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something simple like Alleged 2011 Gothenburg terrorism plot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not addressing all the other questions to focus on the sarcastic one. Per your rationale, we should also recreate the article for this non-incident as "Alleged 2017 Berlin terrorist plot" since, you know, "it happened". Your suggestion that this still was a terror plot, despite complete lack of evidence to support it, crosses the border into WP:FRINGE. Just because you don't like the fact that the men are found innocent does not mean you can insinuate otherwise.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this incident came to renewed public attention because the target of the plot was Lars Vilks, target of the 2015 Copenhagen shootings and "inspiration" for the 2010 Stockholm bombings. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others, legally deemed to be not terrorism and consequently not a plot. A brief (neutrally phrased) mention might be justified on Vilks or related page. 2011 Gothenburg ~~terrorism plot~~ non-story?Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not news, and some people not being involved in a plot means that any limited relevance to Wikipedia is swiftly over. Any argument for notability would have to justify how such details are relevant. MPS1992 (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa news flash Note not only that coverage has been ongoing, starting with harsh criticism of Goteborg D.A. for prosecuting these innocent men, but that the same newspapers - including the pro immigration, ardently multi-cultural, left-wing Aftonbladet - but that in 2016 there was a segue to mea culpa mode after reporting that one of the perps is in Syria fighing with ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftonbladet is a major Swedish daily - think of it as a Swedish veersion of The Guardian. There is a name switch going on as perp's commitment to Islam increases, and his name shifts; The Local was calling him "Abdul" in 2012, but in 2016 Aftonbladet calls him Salar {Salm) Mahmood. Here: [21] is a sort of group blog that I wouldn't quote on the page but that ties the names/bio togher to some extent, and links to more sources. I'll try to get back to this. But the story is ongoing and NOT the simple "acquital asserted by Nom and other editors. Note for example, that the Appeals court DID NOT acquit on all charges, rather, unable to prove "intent to murder" ("intent" is always a tough thing to prove at trial,) it CONVICTED the 3 of weapons violations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you you wouldn't quote that baloney (I'm being polite) on Wikipedia, because FrontPageMag isn't a reliable source for facts and possibly not even for its reliably Islamophobic opinions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the Bellevue Mosque connection.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, weapons violations? Did they also catch them for jaywalking during their arrest? The story about one of these innocent men (of this non-plot at least) joining ISIS in Syria is a completely separate issue. You are simply piling on side stories. Now we can name the article "2011 Gothenburg non-story and completely separate event in Syria".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They nailed Al Capone for tax evasion. But he's better known for the crime he was acquitted of: the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre. Even if a court acquits the accused, the crime can still be notable when, as here, press coverage is ongoing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I point out that this plot has continued to be garner WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. A case of a legal decisions becoming notorious for exposing flaws in a legal system.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's relevant to the discussion, but just to clarify one thinkg – Aftonbladet is a major Swedish tabloid. It holds the record for number of times being criticized by the Swedish Press Council for not adhering to good journalistic practice. Now, this doesn't mean it's the Daily Mail – it's far better than that – but among the major Swedish newspapers, Aftonbladet and Expressen are in a category of their own when it comes to a reputation of not checking their sources if it would come in the way of a good story. It has the most influential editorial page of the left-leaning Swedish newspapers, though. /Julle (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a minor event of no lasting significance and really a 2011 Gothenburg terrorism scare. Of course it generated coverage at the time, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper to list such events. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "lasting significance" is gauged by the sort of ongoing coverage in major media that this incident has received.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor event of little lasting significance. Per Sjö. It deserves an updated mention in the Lars Vilks article, mentioning the outcome of the trials, but not an article of its own. /Julle (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proper target for redirect is Lars Vilks#2011 Gothenburg terrorism plot, article Lars Vilks details a series of attacks and assassination attempts targeting Vilks. This title is a useful search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. It's a misleading search term because there was no terror plot these men were found guilty of.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, redirects are not judged on NPOV but usefulness. That's why {{R from non-neutral name}} exists. The question should only be: Is this a likely search term? The answer seems to be yes. Regards So Why 09:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially relevant, by the way, is that there was an old AfD discussion about this subject that wasn't linked to from the talk page or here as it didn't have the same title (and the article wasn't kept): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack. /Julle (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. But do note that standards re:keeping terrorist plots and failed attacks have changed since 2011. See these recent AFDs with many of the same editors and the same arguments as were made in 2011, (Plus, of course, this page shows years of ongoing coverage, which distinguishes it form the 2011 page.) : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Notre Dame attack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kundby case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Balkans terrorism plot and Note that many recently created articles on failed terrorist attempts and plots are not taken to AFD at all: 2016 Düsseldorf terrorism plot, 2016 Ludwigshafen bombing plot, 2016 Chemnitz terrorism plot, and the page that is the closest parallel to this page the Curtis Culwell Center attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is sufficient notability here for a Redirect/Merge, as I suggested above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 20 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) 19:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Monneron[edit]

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

Minor coach and runner with no claim to notability. It doesn't note his apparent great age.--Grahame (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as far as I can see. (I have fixed his DoB. It is 1987 not 1897.) Aoziwe (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for athletes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably a nice guy, but I don't see what criteria out of WP:NATH he would meet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:41, 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. So Why 09:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get Croissant[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR-driven or passing mentions, not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Promo content includes: "They identified a need for providing a more flexible hourly based office space memberships subscription service [10] that allows remote workers [11] and freelancers to work from multiple workspace locations by partnering with different office space providers.[12] !" Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and previous editor. Very unlikely to find more sources to establish company notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:24, 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 redirect to Echolyn. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suffocating the Bloom[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as 68.151.25.115 can not create AfDs, being an IP, and refuses to create an account. His/Her reasoning is "reliable sources seem scanty as progarchives.com is unreliable" [22]. I don't care one way or the other on this AfD. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:07, 27 June 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 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band page; there's an AllMusic review, but aside from that a user review on Sputnik and some other bloggy-type reviews are about all the coverage I can find. Article seems to be info copied from CD case (or modern equivalent) without much text. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:31, 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 no consensus. Before renominating, a merger to Elsternwick, Victoria#Schools might be considered. So Why 15:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sholem Aleichem College[edit]

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

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Editor left a message at my talk page, User talk:Onel5969#Proposed deletion of Sholem Aleichem College, but did not respond to my request for sources to back up the claim. As it stands, non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable elementary school. Perhaps there might be an appropriate merge target, but I don't know where. Alansohn (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added rational and improved the page with various references. The school is only one of two known secular Jewish schools in the world that teach Yiddish. It may be the only secular Jewish primary school in the world. Jmlipton (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is just sufficient available, ie WP:NEXIST, to write a more in-depth article. The article does need some balance here. Aoziwe (talk) 13:55, 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 redirect to Unreal (video game series). (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal (video game series) soundtracks[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Also, tag for original research has not elicited any improvement in almost three years. Hakken (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That's a guideline, not actual policy. What harm is this article doing by existing? Deleting it is the opposite of improving it (e.g. by finding citations or removing original research). ··gracefool 💬 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracefool, that's WP:DOESNTHURT. Also, what do you mean "That's a guideline, not actual policy"? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of other soundtrack articles like this, it doesn't seem like this one in particular isn't notable. Though it might be a candidate to convert into a List-class article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm, that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:35, 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 03:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - The article needs some work, but it appears to be salvageable. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unreal (video game series). Not notable by itself, it lacks reliable, independent third-party sources. Looks like a WP:ITEXISTS situation. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to the game series. Lack of third party coverage dedicated specifically to the subject (the soundtracks) itself. Sourcing is extremely minimal in comparison to the content presented, and is mostly sourced to unreliable sources (Moby Games - fails WP:USERG) or first party sources (interviews, the company/games themselves, etc.) Additionally, as the closer will likely note, the "Keep" arguments have not presented a single valid rationale for keeping. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 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 no consensus. Events changed significantly in the last relist after Cunard found sufficient sources to persuade Rathfelder to change his mind over deletion. Combined with the improvements by L3X1, this left us with a split opinion as to whether the sources presented are sufficient to sustain an article. As the AfD has already been relisted twice, I think the discussion has run its course for the time being. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project Lifesaver[edit]

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

Promotional and unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant spam. Should have been tagged CSD-G11. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needs independent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TNT. Do not confuse with Operation Lifesaver. Passes the GNG, was in the news a lot lately, including ABC news. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added many sources, and today I removed a lot of unnecessary text so the article isn't too big for its britches. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically promotional. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it would be better if the sources were attached to the words they support. Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether changes made by L3X1 might support a different outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sizemore, Bill (2004-05-17). "A Lifesaver for Wanderers: Project Designed to Track People With Alzheimer's, Related Disorders". The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on 2017-07-12. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  The article notes:
  
  Col. Gene Saunders Jr., the retired Chesapeake police officer who runs Project Lifesaver from a modest headquarters in the city's Great Bridge section, is reaping the results of the national publicity his organization has generated over the past three months.
  Since February, Project Lifesaver's high-tech locating system has been featured in the "Dear Abby" syndicated advice column, Reader's Digest, Parade magazine and CNN. The exposure has prompted 2,500 inquiries from as far away as England, Spain, Japan, South Africa and Australia, Saunders said last week.
2. Nussbaum, Debra (2007-01-21). "Keeping Tabs on Accidental Wanderers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-07-12. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  The article notes:
  
  The idea for Project Lifesaver originated in 1998 when Gene Saunders, now its chief executive, was a member of the Chesapeake Police Department in Virginia. “I went on a number of searches for Alzheimer’s patients, and some ended well and some did not,” he said.
  ...
  In 2001, Mr. Saunders retired after 33 years in the Police Department and started Project Lifesaver. There are now 558 agencies participating in 40 states and Canada, he said, with about 22,000 people wearing the bracelets. There have been more than 1,450 rescues, and no one wearing the tracker has been found seriously or fatally injured, he said.
3. Warner, Mark L. (2006). In Search of the Alzheimer's Wanderer: A Workbook to Protect Your Loved One. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press. pp. 126–127. ISBN 1557533997. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  The book notes:
  
  Project Lifesaver is a national program that provides trackable bracelets to families and communities. Units can be sold to individuals caring for a loved one with Alzheimer's disease or furnished to communities through sponsored donations. Sensitive tracking receivers are provided to member law enforcement jurisdictions.
  Each bracelet has its own frequency and emits a signal which can be located by a receiver (mounted in a police vehicle or helicopter). Project Lifesaver also works with local law enforcement to help find lost wanderers and trains police personnel to use the equipment and conduct the program.
  In addition, families can purchase compatible distance monitoring alarms that will alert caregivers when their loved one, wearing the bracelet, wanders beyond a pre-programmed distance from a base unit located within the home. Portable, hand-held tracking receivers are also available that will "point" in the direction of the missing person up to a mile away.
  Project Lifesaver has completed over 1,200 successful search and rescue missions for wandering victims of Alzheimer's disease, autism, Down's syndrome and dementia-related disorders. All persons were found alive and returned home—most within half an hour.
4. Jones, Verna Noel (2004-02-29). "Find a wanderer There's nothing more frightening than..." Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-07-12. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  The article notes:
  
  There's nothing more frightening than having a loved one with Alzheimer's disease, Down syndrome or autism wander away and get lost. Disoriented adults and children are at risk of injury or death due to the elements, accident or predators. Such tragedies can be prevented with the help of a national non-profit organization called Project Lifesaver.
  Project Lifesaver uses radio technology and specially trained search-and-rescue teams to help find people. Adults and children in the program wear personalized wristbands that emit a tracking signal. If a caregiver reports a person missing, the team responds to the wanderer's area to search with a mobile locator tracking system. Recovery usually takes place within 30 minutes.
  The lifesaver teams train not only in search and rescue but also in methods of communicating with the disoriented person, who may be anxious and mistrusting when found.
  Project Lifesaver was established in 1999 in Virginia and now operates in three countries and 33 states, including Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan.
5. Eugenios, Jillian (2015-05-31). "How tracking devices are keeping Alzheimer's patients safe". CNN. Archived from the original on 2017-07-12. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  The article notes:
  
  "It's getting to be more costly for agencies to deal with these issues," said Gene Saunders, founder of nonprofit Project Lifesaver International, which works with local law enforcement to use radio transmitters and GPS technology to find people.
  Search-and-rescue operations can easily cost thousands of dollars every hour. Saunders, who started his career in law enforcement, founded Project Lifesaver 16 years ago. Back then, the only technology available to track people was primarily used for wildlife.
  The first time he used the Lifesaver transmitter, which is locked onto a bracelet, it took only 90 seconds and two people to find the missing person. When that man had gone missing before, it took 70 officers nine hours to find him. Project Lifesaver technology is now used by 1,400 agencies in 38 states.
6. Johnson, M. Alex (2008-09-15). "Silver Alerts help track wandering seniors". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2017-07-12. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  The article notes:
  
  New Jersey doesn’t have senior alerts, so the Morris County Sheriff’s Office is trying something different, joining more than 700 other local agencies in 43 states that take part in Project Lifesaver.
  The program allows primary caregivers to outfit their elderly relatives with a radio transmitter worn on the wrist. When people are reported missing, one or two officers can usually track them within a few minutes.
  Last week, Project Lifesaver recorded its 1,700th rescue, according to the nonprofit Project Lifesaver Foundation, which was established in Chesapeake, Va., in 1999.
  Costs for Project Lifesaver vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction — Morris County charges $285 for the transmitter, plus about $15 a month for batteries and maintenance — and it covers only those people who are wearing the bracelet.
7. Silverstein, Nina M.; Flaherty, Gerald; Tobin, Terri Salmons (2006) [2002]. Dementia and Wandering Behavior: Concern for the Lost Elder. New York: Springer Publishing. p. 101. ISBN 0826196837. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  The book notes:
  
  Project Lifesaver
  
  The Project Lifesaver uses technology consisting of a small transmitter attached to the wrist of an Alzheimer's patient and a receiver that tracks a signal transmitted from this wristlet over radio frequencies. It is in use by search groups in several states, in some areas in conjunction with the Alzheimer's Association's Safe Return program. It is relatively expensive (current estimated cost is over $2,000 for the receiver and about $300 for the transmitter, with a small monthly maintenance charge). This technology may perform better when the receiving equipment is operated by a central law enforcement or search and rescue agency.
8. Sheehan, Jennifer (2014-12-15). "Project Lifesaver comes to the Valley". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2017-07-12. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  The article notes:
  
  Here's how Project Lifesaver works:
  A person living in a community that has a Project Lifesaver participating agency is enrolled and given a personalized wristband to wear. The wristband emits a tracking signal on an individually assigned FM radio frequency. Caregivers notify their local Project Lifesaver agency that the person is missing and a search team is dispatched, using a mobile locater-tracking system.
  Project Lifesaver trains participating agencies on how to use the tracking system and provides information on conditions like Alzheimer's, dementia, Down syndrome and autism. Funding usually comes from state or federal grants.
  Recovery time for Project Lifesaver clients averages 30 minutes, 95 percent less time than standard operations.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Project Lifesaver to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and consider any promotional issues to be minor and fixable with light editing. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. I'm happy to withdraw my proposal for deletion. Rathfelder (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as regardless whether or not a withdrawal has been noted, our fundamental policies are still considered and they're WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Promo given the current information and sources are promotional like a business listing, of which we're not and the first paragraphs of our policies note this quite clearly; see one of the quotes above for example Saunders who runs Project Lifesaver....featured in the "Dear Abby" syndicated advice column, Reader's Digest, Parade magazine and CNN. The exposure has prompted 2,500 inquiries from as far away as England, Spain, Japan, South Africa and Australia, Saunders said last week (it's the person's own words therefore not independent, regardless of the article publisher) and there's next one, while NYT, would not be enough for substance itself alone, the 3 is then literally a guidebook (WP:Not guide) hence the name "Workbook", but there's also the contents Each bracelet has its own frequency and emits a signal which can be located by a receiver (mounted in a police vehicle or helicopter). Project Lifesaver also works with local law enforcement to help find lost wanderers and trains police personnel to use the equipment and conduct the program. families can purchase compatible distance monitoring alarms that will alert caregivers when their loved one, wearing the bracelet, wanders beyond a pre-programmed distance from a base unit located within the home. Portable, hand-held tracking receivers are also available that will "point" in the direction of the missing person up to a mile away. and the next one, Chicago Tribune, is actually heavily similar with Project Lifesaver uses radio technology and specially trained search-and-rescue teams to help find people. Adults and children in the program wear personalized wristbands that emit a tracking signal. If a caregiver reports a person missing, the team responds to the wanderer's area to search with a mobile locator tracking system. Recovery usually takes place within 30 minutes. (WP:Not webhost and WP:Indiscriminate), but we have several others: The first time he used the Lifesaver transmitter, which is locked onto a bracelet, it took only 90 seconds and two people to find the missing person. When that man had gone missing before, it took 70 officers nine hours to find him. Project Lifesaver technology is now used by 1,400 agencies in 38 states. (CNN, literally the same as the guidebook) and subsequently (NBCNews, Costs for Project Lifesaver vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction — .... charges $285 for the transmitter, plus about $15 a month for batteries and maintenance — and it covers only those people who are wearing the bracelet., (2nd guidebook now: The Project Lifesaver uses technology consisting of a small transmitter attached to the wrist of an Alzheimer's patient and a receiver that tracks a signal transmitted from this wristlet over radio frequencies. It is in use by search groups in several states, in some areas in conjunction with the Alzheimer's Association's Safe Return program. It is relatively expensive (current estimated cost is over $2,000 for the receiver and about $300 for the transmitter, with a maintenance charge. (WP:Not webhost and WP:Indiscriminate), Here's how Project Lifesaver works: Project Lifesaver trains participating agencies on how to use the tracking system and provides information on conditions like Alzheimer's, dementia, Down syndrome and autism. Funding usually comes from state or federal grants. (WP:Not guide, WP:Indiscriminate, WP:Not how-to and WP:Promo). Every single source can and will be discounted by policy if shown to simply be replastered business information, wherever published since GNG actually says: independent nor significant coverage nor if still primary. We've of course allowed Draftspace if there's at all chances for an article, but since Wikipedia is not a webhost, we cannot guarantee articles should stay in mainspace in unacceptable state especially when WP:Not a company extension is policy. " any promotional issues to be minor and fixable with light editing" is unfortunately what can fully outweigh these policies especially when there's still the general concern of organized webhosting. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability is not established by the sources provided by Cunard; they fail WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:SPIP. For example, the NYT piece includes:

"...Gene Saunders, now its chief executive, was a member of the Chesapeake Police Department in Virginia. “I went on a number of searches for Alzheimer’s patients, and some ended well and some did not,” he said."

Another piece includes:

"...In addition, families can purchase compatible distance monitoring alarms that will alert caregivers ...!"

These are not truly independent sources, but instead rely on "human interest stories" from the CEO or look like republished press releases. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has been covered in four paragraphs of a Purdue University Press–published book, which passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP. Cunard (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why include such obviously re-warmed press releases as I quoted above? Perhaps a better approach would be to focus on two or three really good source and discuss them? This may simplify the process for all participants by allowing the discussion to take place focusing on the best sources one could fine. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the other sources like The Virginian-Pilot and The New York Times to be good sources as well. I do not believe these reputable publications would publish "re-warmed press releases". I placed the Purdue University Press–published book as the third source in my list because I wanted to highlight that Project Lifesaver has received significant coverage in multiple reputable publications in that it was "featured in the 'Dear Abby' syndicated advice column, Reader's Digest, Parade magazine and CNN" (The Virginian-Pilot) and that it has been covered in the American newspaper of record (The New York Times).
Cunard (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Indiscriminate, WP:Promo, WP:Not webhost and we are not a publicity platform. Sister Twister and K.e. coffman have shown this is the same press kit being recycled over and over in press outlets and does not qualify as independent coverage. As these two have shown, the main source is the CEO of the company. This is wp:churnalism and employs the same strategy as Video news releases. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH because the coverage is not independent, the coverage is regurgitated. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 20 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 09:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaskin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC.Absence of WP:RS. Winged Blades^Godric 15:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:20, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 09:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tune Up![edit]

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

Non-notable musicians. - TheMagnificentist 08:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:47, 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 02:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant notability or any music chart success. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:20, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 09:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BSOD (duo)[edit]

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

fails WP:NMUSIC unremarkable band. The sources are simply user edited wikis a track listing or a reddit. fails WP:GNG. Beatport is considered as a WP:BADCHARTS and should not be used ofr notability purposes. Domdeparis (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it fails WP:NMUSIC neither the singles nor the album charted and there are no serious reviews that could be found. Also fails WP:GNG it states in the article that the album was self-released so limited release so didn't chart.:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Agree that Beatport is a WP:BADCHARTS and not a sign of notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:20, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 09:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joy John Antony[edit]

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable, and the information in this article doesn't seem verifiable. The references simply list him as having won an obscure award. —Guan aco 07:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:53, 26 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)} 09:53, 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 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:. As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:20, 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. While a couple of sources were provided, their reliability was disputed as being repeats of a single press release with no further discussion on those sources nor mention of others.

The input by the founder of the subject (assuming it was really them) does not change this, since they themselves admitted, that they cannot provide any further coverage.

The subject might well become notable, even very soon, of a successful launch really happens, assuming that more coverage will be generated because of that. However, the potential for future notability is unfortunately not a reason to keep an article today. After all, who can see into the future? So Why 15:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThumbSat[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable startup company. Fails WP:GNG Andyjsmith (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the references and their website, this may be vaporware. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing anything in the nomination other than, "It's just not notable".

This is a startup trying something unusual and it is almost inevitable that their optimism is not matched by actual delivery schedules. Yet nor is it clearly not going to happen. I would welcome some newer news and better clarity of this, but I see no reason to delete it. Nor is it unsourced, as implied by comments here. Wired and Makezine are exactly who I'd expect to look to for coverage. As is space.com Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It's just not notable" is actually a very sound reason for deleting an article - read the guideline. WP does not carry articles about hopeful startups that almost nobody has heard of. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assertion, not a reason. Nor is "almost nobody has heard of" a reason: what we do care about is that Wired have heard about it, and chose to write about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any coverage of them actually launching a satellite, or of their business after the initial launch/PR push? Power~enwiki (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't satellite launchers, so no, there won't be.

If it a real business though - they've had a manufacturing plaint running in Mexico for the last year [23] and their SDR (Software Defined Radio) groundstation product is available and being well-received in the radio community. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have been largely silent for quite some time. Absent any evidence that they meet WP's notability guidelines the article must go. It sounds like you know where that evidence can be found, so can you add it please? Andyjsmith (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

[24]. Space.com.
[25]. Wired. (in German)
[26]. Digital Trends.
[27]. Mother Nature Network.
[28]. Wired.
[29]. Tech Times.
[30]. Geek.com.

These refs all date from October 2015 and appeared to be based on a single press release. There's been no significant coverage since then. So that's a definite failure of GNG. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New information and citations added June and July 2017 to reflect recent milestones and to define timelines. More to come very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WickiLogger (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC) — WickiLogger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, all that was added was a couple of promotional paragraphs and a link to an undated post on a lifestyle blog. There are no reliable sources dated after late 2015. Moreover the company website hasn't been updated since last year. Andyjsmith (talk)

Delete. no reliable refs for notability, and the argument replying to the AfD listing wads "It deserves to become notable someday/`` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

/* ThumbSat */ DISCLOSURE - T.S. Founder I appreciate that TS appears vaporware. Space schedules change. We keep low profile to avoid over-promising. We have permits, hardware, signed contracts with launchers and customers. First flight Q4 of 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.250.121 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLOSURE - Comment by ThumbSat Founder Sorry to sound like a tweet in the original post. I am not familiar with the editing features of Wikipedia.

To clarify the above, I can certainly appreciate the fact that ThumbSat might appear to be vaporware and a company that slowly faded into obscurity as many before have. I can also see and agree with the Wikipedia team's desire to purge articles of that nature. If the consensus is to delete the ThumbSat article as well, we understand completely. But I wanted to try to give an idea of the status of the company as far as the NDA's will allow.

After a setback in permitting due to government redtape, ThumbSat became cautious of over-extending itself online and in the media and continued to work quietly to finalize hardware designs, obtain agreements with launch providers and gather contracts with customers. We have not run into anything that most companies before us have not had to deal with, but if you've never tried to get launch and transmit permits for a satellite, most people are horribly unprepared for the level of bureaucracy and redtape. In our case, we're asking permission to launch thousands of satellites. As a result, every schedule that was discussed in 2015 has been made obsolete.

ThumbSat now has the required permits. ThumbSat has a launch partner that has now flown to space and we have agreements in place with several others that are up and coming. ThumbSat has functioning manufacturing facilities and existing hardware that has completed typical environmental, electrical and stress tests and performed well. ThumbSat has signed contracts with existing customers that are being kept updated with schedule changes and are comfortable with the communication they are being provided.

Assuming the launch provider does not slip, as of TODAY (and that's about all we can count on.) the maiden flight for ThumbSat is mid-September, 2017 with a 2nd flight 60-90 days after that. ThumbSat is ready to fly weekly, we are only constrained by the availability of a launch system at this point.

Getting to space is HARD. ThumbSat is hoping to make it routine enough to be bought by anyone who is interested.

I look forward to the continued discussion by the moderators and we respect the community's decision. It's a tough job and I applaud those of you who choose to volunteer your time to do it.

I will try to check back to see if I can answer any other questions.

Thank you.

Wade VanLandingham, ThumbSat

Please supply a reliable source for this claim, per WP:RS Andyjsmith (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a reliable source for what claim? That I am the founder? That we still exist as a business? That schedules slip? That we have the contracts? That we have the hardware?

What can I provide that isn't already in the article? I can send a photo of my business card or the satellite sitting on my desk, but don't think that would settle your doubts. ;-)

I will do what I can to settle questions you have in your mind, but if you need external news articles or tradeshow releases or business details, then much of that I will not be able to provide at this time, due to our previous marketing decisions. There is an announcement coming out this month, concerning a launch provider, but I cannot discuss most other business plans on a talk page of Wikipedia. The launch in Sept is with a leading figure in his field and he will make the announcements on his own schedule, when he feels it is appropriate, but I cannot comment until he does.

Thank you again for the discussion.

Wade VanLandingham, ThumbSat

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:C004:F640:8C98:4204:1BF3:1FB9 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that you have booked a launch for September (or any other time). It's not even on your own website! Andyjsmith (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Eroadster. The company may be trying to release a satellite in orbit (and I wish them best of luck for that), but it is hard to predict if and when it will be released. Unlike KickSat which has been released, this project is still on going and there is a lot of uncertainty (which I admit is common for space based projects). The news about the company seem to be only about the initial announcement in October 2015 which is usually reported by multiple popular science outlets such as Wired and Geek.com. This is an unfortunate delete. That said, I wish the team best of luck and hope their satellite launch succeeds.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:34, 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 Delete. I've skimmed the wall of text below, while it touches on everything from Chinese work permits to Israeli police procedures very little of it has any relevance at all to the question of whether Wikipedia can have an article about this person. However nested in between this is a pretty clear consensus for deletion and I will salt it given the number of creations. Hut 8.5 21:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hasidim[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable "academic", who is dean of a business school at Los Angeles University, which is a degree mill. Already deleted twice via AfD, but speedy was declined because this recreation is apparently not substantially identical to the last one. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the same editor has created Draft:Los Angeles University and Draft:The Zionist Billionaires Forum. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per nom and prior AfDs. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasidim is no longer under the category of academics.

He is in the category of Jewish activists.

There is no issue of copyrights becuase the Zionist Billionaires Website is no longer exist in its present form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the page was taken down about 15 months, here his page appears again, and this time with some 'citations'.

However, those citations are not credible, and once again there is an attempt to use our amazing platform for getting legitimacy to harm innocent people, who do regard Wikipedia as an ultimate source of knowledge - and to some extent in my opinion rightly so.

1) His Full name is Dror Daniel Hasidim. He addopted his middle name as his first name as to not be related to articles where his scams are written about. He imposed as a PhD doctorate from Columbia university who is the representative of Florida and Columbia State universities. For a sum of about 6,000$ he sold degrees to people, mainly public workers, who them claimed a raise in their salary (in Israel, as in some other countries, public sector workers are eligible for a salary raise if they get higher education).

He was not the represenatative of there universities. He just printed the degrees in a printhouse. Judging from his mediocre verbal and very poor written English - there is no doubt he did not complete a doctorate from Columbia University.

Here are links to articles - the first two are from known newspapers, the third is from a small niche site : https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1077008 http://www.themarker.com/law/1.502808 http://www.nfc.co.il/archive/001-D-92151-00.html?tag=9-20-35

I have the court ruling against one public sector worker who was sued for using the fake degree he purchased to obtain a raise in his salary. There the judge clearly states it was obtained by Hasidim, who did impersonate himself as a business PhD and the represenatator of Florida and Columbia State universities. It is a PDF file. If you regard it as relevant, please let me know where to email it to.

Although the file and the three links are in Hebrew, there are some fellow Hebrew speaking editors who will be able to tell us what's written.

2) He was born in 1968, not 1970. I think if you have access to his deleted profile from about 18 months ago, you will see his year of birth was claimed to be 1972.

We will now tackle the citations/references. There are the numbers of the citation as for the time when this email was written, around midday GMT on Saturday the 15th of July. As he recently often updates his profile, this numbers may get mixed.

Reference 1: The Zionist Billionaires Forum - a non-existent body. Just uses it to give the impression he is in close relationship with billionaires and top politicians.

Reference 2: The source of reference is to a sham 'university' where he is the 'Dean' of the business school. This univesity does not exist. Just an online sham, where he wrote about himself that he holds a doctorate degree, which is the source of reference 'confirming' its validity.

Reference 3: An article by a pretty much unknown (and perhaps somewhat naive) freelance writer, whose article in question appears in a website that ranks 4,480,247 in Alexa.

Reference 4: This is video was uploaded by his brother in law, Sachi Carmeli. Those teenagers look more like afternoon extra class schooling than actual MBA candidates. There is nothing in this video that proofs are even gives a serious impression that this is a lecture of a MBA class.

Reference 5: Luckily for us (and unluckily for Hasidim), there are quite a few Ukrainian speakers outside of Ukraine. The link does not mention that he is a lecturer there, but just that he is the advisor of some person who head the American chapter for promoting the international reach of the university. It is supposed he used his 'position' as the Dean of the non existent Los Angeles University. This is probably part of his plan to get legitimacy by Wikipedia.

Reference 6: The book he claim to have written is 'Raising Children in the Jewish Way' is in fact a what appears to be a very simple copyright infringement of the book 'Raising Your Jewish/Christian Child' by Lee F. Gruzen. If you will follow the citation he used, you can download 'his' book. You will see very clearly in the pdf file that he made a page with his own name and title, and then just one by one scanned pages of the book, which are identical to the original book. https://www.amazon.com/Raising-Your-Jewish-Christian-Child/dp/1557044147

References 7 and 8:

Regarding the other two 'books', seem like an amateurish copy/paste which is more the size of an article rather than a book. I am sure he cannot provide an ISBN number.

Reference 9: There is a similar type of plaigiarism as in Reference 6, but this time from the Israeli author Yael Tal. If you will download 'his' book from the link he provides, you see the page title (probably the 2nd or 3rd inner page of the book) which just the book's title written on it, used as the front page, and his name handwritten. Here is the link to the original book to purchase. http://www.booknet.co.il/prodtxt.asp?id=36700#.WWnhBYTyuUk

Reference 10: Israel-Far East Chamber of Commerce - a non-existent body. The ridiculous 9 years old 1 minute 20 seconds youtube video from a small local town Chinese tv channel is not a source that confirms that whatsoever. It talks about the Israeli city of Ramla.

Reference 11: This 9 years old youtube video just mentions about he delegation of the Israeli city of Ramla he was a part of.

References 12 and 21: The video does not mentioned Hasidim nor anything similar to his claim of 'leading delegations of high-tech companies and agricultural companies from Israel to various places in China'. Just the text above mentions it, while mentioning that he is the director of the (non-existent) Zionist Billionaires Forum. In addition, this website is the one where the plagiarised books appear, which is another indication of how amateur and not reliable this non-Alexa ranked website is.

References 13 and 22: Written by his friend Daniel Galily, who, in the link the the sham 'Los Angeles University' appears as 'Associate Professor' and 'Dean of student affairs'. This guy is only 30. The website he wrote in is not known in Israel and very low ranked. Here is a link by the notorious Haaretz daily which writes about Galily being a 'docotrate' who bought his degree from a non existent university in Hawaii. https://www.haaretz.co.il/blogs/taliherutisover/1.2799661

References 14 and 15: Does not mentioned he was an advisor to any of Israel's Prime Ministers. The two Chinese articles, whose sources cannot be confirmed by the scan, do not mention that. They just mention that he holds a position in the city of Ramla. Please note that Suqian is a tiny pretty much unknown perfecture in China, with about 4 million people. This is very small in Chinese standrads for a city, not to mention for a perfecture.

Reference 16: This is an article he wrote on the same platform as mentioned in references 13 and 22. Small not reliable website, which probably was arranged for him to write by his friend who is also, as mentioned, a holder of a fake degree.

References 17 and 18 and 20: There is nothing which indicates that this scanned paper is from the Maariv newspaper. Can be easily a self created page. My 14 years old daughter can do that. Reference 18 at some place mentioned a prediciotn for 2005, which means that this article is over 12 years old.

Reference 19: Derbi News does not exist and was during its short existence just a local newspaper with very poor circulation, hence its quick demise. It is from 1998, which is contrary to the claim it references "Since the early 2000s he has written articles in the Israeli press..."

Some of the claims above are on their own merrit sufficient to delete this profile and ban it from ever being established again. What this con-artist will do is simply once again attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's restrictions. His malicious intent is very clear. Wikipedia shall not be a platform for conmen to gain legitimacy! Weknowall1968 (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, you make a common mistake. This is not him but his cousin that have the same name.

See: Http://www.news1.co.il/showTalkBack.aspx?docId=92151&subjectId=1&talkBackId=1097014

His cousin was arrested in 2001 and the arrest received wide media attention, but he was not indicted because after examining all the evidence, the prosecution and the police decided to release him.

See: Http://www.tapuz.co.il/forums/viewmsg/434/113646160/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7 98% D7% 9% D7% A9% D7% D7% 98% D7% 99% D7% D7% 99% D7% A7% D7% 98% D7% A8% D7% A7% 98% D7% 95% D7% 94% D7% 94% D7% 99% D7% 99-% D7% 98% D7% A7

But I think you're right that it is necessary to add a special paragraph about the incident.

The Zionist billionaires' forum is an existing body. He just restarted his website, that is why you did not find it. I can assure you that he would not have written newspaper articles about him if he did not have an official website.

Hasidim succeeded in establishing this forum due to his family closeness to Israeli billionaire Nissan Khachuri.

See: Http://www.professorhasidim.com/nissan-chakshori-linkedin-recommendations/

The body has a tremendous impact, and if I leave you to talk with the people who work with them you will find that they are not interested in advertising and certainly not in a Wikipedia page.

The University of Los Angeles is an institution established by Chinese Professor Yan Wei (President). The institution was established two years ago and is currently in the process of accreditation by the US Department of Education. But because he was not fully accredited, I did not mention him.

According to the law in the US an academic institution must go a test period for two years before he get full accreditation.

You are right about the page of the Ukrainian institution and it will be amended accordingly.

Daniel Hasidim knew how to write the book about the tips for a better life because, he claims, that during his time as head of the EMBA program in Peking, he spent a lot of time with ancient Chinese Jewish tribes in China who taught him various methods of improving the quality of life.

See: Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU2ZRMbQhKs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the Israel chamber of commerce in China http://www.ischam.org/

His position in Ramla is mention in source 19.

J-TV is not a small media chennel. He appear on lists of Jewish publications of Jewish communities worldwide.

See: http://www.haruth.com/WWJewishPubs.html

I agreed with your comment on "Derbi News" and so I deleted the source

All the journalistic sources of this value are of newspapers with a circulation of millions of viewers and subscribers. Everything that they upload is reviewed by editors. I do not agree with the claim that the sources are unreliable.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, First of all, the cousin story sounds very unreliable. You did not provide any proof.

You ignore many of the points raised earlier. And the ones you refer to actually make matters worse and further indicate that this profile must be deleted as soon as possible:

Your first link is just a talkback. In other words, a reply of a person to the article. This is nor evidence nor a source. It can be written by anyone, including yourself or your friend. Please do not take the Wikipedia community for fools.

The second link is a bad URL. There is no website behind it. Again, are you taking us for fools?

Regarding your claim: "The Zionist billionaires' forum is an existing body. He just restarted his website, that is why you did not find it. I can assure you that he would not have written newspaper articles about him if he did not have an official website." You came up with this forum's story also last time. Nothing new, only this time you try to circumvent Wikipedia's guidelines. The person who wrote the article (in a pretty much unknown website in Israel) is himself, as mentioned earlier a person who is alleged to have purchased his degree. One dubious character writing about a scammer. Nothing more than that.

The 'endorsement' from Nissan Khachuri comes from your own website, which you probably wrote yourself. On the same token you can also write an endorsement from Barak Obama or Santa Klaus. Once again, you regard us as fools.

So you admit that the Los Angeles Univeristy' is not yet recognized, yet you deceitfully use it as a reference.

On the Facebook page of the 'university', on the 25th of February, the following is written: "LOS ANGELES UNIVERSITY WAS CHOSEN ONE OF THE 100 OPEN UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD" This totally contradict your excuses and clearly shows that you regard this made up institution as a university for at least 5 months already.

Did those 'ancient Chinese Jewish tribes' also teach you how to plagiarize books? Would you be kind enough to tell us where exactly they are located?

Regarding the youtube video of you talking, will get it translated just out of curiosity, but on the look of it – seem nothing much than you talking from your home or hotel somewhere. Can be done by anyone anywhere.

Thank you for the link of IsCham, but what relevance does it have to your Wikipedia profile? You are obviously not mentioned there, nor the organization you made up – 'Israel-Far East Chamber of Commerce'. Sorry to repeat it, but don't regard us as fools please.

But again, you are taking us for fools, as J-TV does not appear on the link you sent, which anyhow does not change the fact it is not even a ranked website.

Another lie is that Daniel Hasidim is regarding himself as a billionaire: "The Billionaires who agreed to be Forum members are: Daniel Hasidim…"

Dear Wikipedia community – it is now very clear that we are dealing with an immoral individual who is using our platform to perpetrate shams and in addition is regarding us all as fools. This profile shall be both deleted and never be permitted to be re-created. Weknowall1968 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me sir, I'm not Daniel Hassidim. I do not refer to Wikipedia as stupid and I would appreciate, with all due respect, if you would not use such expressions and maintain a mature and serious discussion, please.

First, you probably do not know the labor laws in China.

To obtain a work permit in China, it is necessary to present a certificate of "no criminal record". If the police arrested the object of the article, there is no chance in the world that he would work in China, as you saw in the other sources.

In addition, you can find mention of the metter in this source: http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-116641-00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I said that the university is in the process of being recognized. But I'm willing to accept the argument that the source should be removed.

Third, after your comments on the Israel-Far East Chamber of Commerce, I decided to change the caption accordingly. That's why it is not found.

Fourth, J-TV: The Global Jewish Channel is a very broad Jewish channel

See: Https://www.facebook.com/JTVTheGlobalJewishChannel/

Fifth, you're right about the list of billionaires. Hasidim is a registered member but not one of the billionaires. This will be corrected accordingly.

Sixth, I do not override regulations, I follow them.

The official website of the Zionist Billionaires Forum was added.

Thank you for your comments

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a promotional biography using dubious sources of an individual who fails WP:ACADEMIC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not dubious! You are welcome to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are either Mr. Hasidim himself or his lackey. It is very obvious from the manner you are battling to maintain this page, even though it is beyond obvious that this is a hoax. Your responses are easily to debunk and you ignore important issues like:

- The articles written from a pretty unknown website by your fellow 'Dean of student affairs' in your fake university – who himself is discovered to have purchased his degree. Looks more like a happy customer and a fellow perpetrator to me. This is regarding references, who are as for the time of writing, are numbered 18 and 26 (Galily) and the link to News1 he shared a few lines above.

- You plagiarize books and present them as your own. Even if you take it down, it merely manifest that you made an attempt which failed. Could you please refer me to where those books can be purchased online?

- The Zionist Billionaires Forum: you put on a website overnight. Probably used some easy to create platform like WP or the like. And who is the main face we directly see on entering the website? The same face from the old amateurish youtube videos – Mr. Hasidim. Looks like a non-existent organization with an instantly made-up website whose main purpose is to promote Mr. Hasidim and give him legitimacy, which will is used to gain the confidence of some innocent victims.

- Regarding the law in China: China and Israel do not have a bilateral extradition agreement. This is probably why Mr. Hasidim went there. Please look at the attached link: http://www.takdin.co.il/searchg/%D7%AA%20%D7%A4%20%D7%AA%D7%9C%20%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91%20%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%205504%2008%20%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%AA%20%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C%20%D7%A0%20%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A8%20%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D%20_hd_2460929.html

I received the following translation of the part relating to accused number 1 – Mr. Hasidim:

"… considering that accused 1, which is claimed by all to be the main criminal, escaped the country".

The labour laws all over the world pretty much require to have no criminal records. However, there is no proof that you were working in China. Perhaps you have just been there on any other type of visa. And who knows for how long… there are so many lies here by you that nothing is reliable anymore.

Claiming to be in China for 8 years… do you speak Chinese?

Seem you have been there as a fugitive rather than anything else. The video of the 'MBA class' looks more like a teenager business English class.

Regarding your following argument: "Third, after your comments on the Israel-Far East Chamber of Commerce, I decided to change the caption accordingly. That's why it is not found." I do not understand what you are trying to say. Can you please explain yourself clearer? Or maybe no need to waste our time here. Like the sham university and many of your shenanigans, this just seem another failed attempt.

- The year of birth is still lied about. He/you was born in 1968.

- You sent a link claiming J-TV appears there. You didn't expect us to check, but we did. When mentioned - you just ignored the claim.

You attempt to rebuff what you think you can get away with, and just ignore other issues.

I invite all fellow editors to read my above raised questions throughout this tread, which are followed by Mr. Hasidim's/ his fellow's replies. You will see the unrelated nor unconvincing arguments on one hand, and on the other you will see him not referring to quite a few of the raised issues.

I do not see a reason why not to delete this sham profile sooner rather than later… Weknowall1968 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that I am not Daniel Hassidim. I'd appreciate it if you will stop calling me that. It's not a matter of admiration, it's a matter of professional honor. To say that I do not upload good values, that I am a fraud, that I am a liar. I certainly did not expect such a reference from Wikipedia editor.

Second, NEWS1 website is a very familiar site with millions of hits. Everything uploaded there is checked by the newspaper's editorial board for reliability and accuracy. They understand that if something is written wrong, then they can be responsible. I want to remind you that you too have brought sources from this site. So you can not say that some articles are okay and other articles are not.

Third, the University of Los Angeles is not a fake university, it is an online university. I do not use it as a source because it is not yet recognized.

If you do not know what an online university is, then I suggest you freshen up with knowledge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kH-uYwt0qs

Fourthly, if I were to put up a site overnight , how did an article about it appered in NEWS1 a year ago? With a link to the site? Could I have turned back on a time machine and saw the article?

The reason there is no extradition agreement between Israel and China is because there is a law in Israel that says that a person should not be extradited directly to prison, but only for interrogation. The intention is to prevent a person from being extradited and imprisoned without a fair trial.

I repeat the fact - if Hasidim was arrested in Israel, he would not have been able to come to China. If you do not believe me, I invite you to ask someone who has issued a work permit in China.

You can not work without a work permit in China. Check the subject before you argue.

Fifth, Hassidim appears in the broadcast as head of the Israel Chamber of Commerce in China, but he does not appear on their website and therefore I changed it accordingly.

Sixth, the year of his birth is 1970. 68 is the year of birth of his cousin. Please look at the sources.

Seventh, if you do not believe the video was filmed at Peking University, then why do not you check? Why do not you ask someone from this university?

Eighth, I'm sorry but your argument about J-TV is incorrect. Much less common news sites are used as sources in Wikipedia.

Ninth, note that all the sources concerning the books are publications from a body unrelated to the Hasidim. He does not manage there and does not work there (J-TV).

A book does not have to be sold electronically, it can only be sold manually. This is the author's decision.

But I made sure not to bring a source from the subject of the page regarding his books (Wikipedia regulations)

All in all, the page meets the standard of Wikipedia regulations. I'm sorry if you disagree.

I must insist that you do not use hypotheses.

Inquire before you claim claims

I use chinese students. I send them the sources by WeChat

Thank you for your comments. I hope I didn't use too many harsh words.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - look like a noteble global Jewish activist, founder of the Zionist Billionaires Forum. Ovedc (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While notability isn't inherited, Ovedc, this "Zionist Billionaires Forum" doesn't appear to be notable itself. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Hasidim was arrested by the Israeli police on suspicion of selling fictitious degrees (and was subsequently prosecuted), as currently suggested in the article, then the media coverage of that might make him notable as a criminal, but it seems to be disputed (above) whether it was actually him or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well how could one think otherwise? Look how all your claims are debunk so easily. You upload poor references, which some of them you took down yourself after you realized that they have no standing ground. You operate on a trial and error mode. Regarding your claims from the last message (see how I address them one by one, unlike you who does only address what you believe you can get away with) :

Second I did use a reference from News1 and did mention that it is not a widely known source. The fact that anything can be uploaded there implies how articles are (not) filtered there. You fail to refer to the issue that all the articles on this website which write about him are written by his fellow 'Dean' in his fake university. How do you explain that? I mentioned it several times but you fail to refer to it.

Third: It is obviously a sham university. If you are not Hasidim or his lackey, how are you so sure about it? Looking at his history with fake degrees and the content of the website, it is a sham.

You are indirectly admitting that you presented an unrecognized academic institution as a recognized one. How do you explain that on the university's Facebook page (which has the picture of Hasidim at its font, and not of the university itself), it is claimed to be.

Like many of the websites you use as reference, it is Hasidim's face that appears there. These are self-promoting pages and nothing more. If it is not a recognized institution, as you admit, how do you explain the following (which you previously failed to address):

On the Facebook page of the 'university', on the 25th of February, the following is written: "LOS ANGELES UNIVERSITY WAS CHOSEN ONE OF THE 100 OPEN UNIVERSITIES IN THE WORLD" How can a university be chosen as something if it is not recognized as something? It is like to say that a dog, which is not yet recognized as a cat, was chosen as one of the 100 cats in the world.

Fourth: The article appeared on News1 a year ago, because, as mentioned several times, it was written by his fellow 'Dean' of his sham 'university'. Another proof is, that last year was 2016. Now we are in 2017. On the website the following is written: © 2017 Zionist Billionaires Forum | Powered by Beaver Builder 2017! Once again, you take us for fools.

In addition, the 'forum news' section is blank. Yes, it seem like a website that was quickly done overnight.

As it is active in Israel, it must be a registered institution. Can you please provide us with the registration number? Address?

Does Mr. Hasidim speak Chinese? You ignored that point.

Like in Thailand, many foreigners come to China on a tourist visa which get extended and then renewed upon re-entering the country, or a business visa which is valid for much longer. There are some people from my congregation whose children has done it in order to be able to teach English. Those are known tricks.

What evidence do you have that Mr. Hasidim actually remained in China for 8 years? There is no evidence he participated in high-tech delegations – but only one delegation with the city of Ramla, and even that is only based on two youtube videos from a small locality channel.

The third 'evidence', namely reference number 17 leads to a page which does not mention anything about it.

Fifth: Mr. Hasidim does not appear on any broadcast. You make things up. Please send us a link to such a broadcast. He does not appear on the website (very obvious why) – so why did you use it as a reference? You could as easily put a reference to the website of the FBI and claim he is a secret agent.

Sixth: I looked at the sources – the ones my contacts have with the Israeli police. There is no Daniel Hasidim who was born in 1970. There are 3 people who can be some type of Daniel Hasidim, who were born between 1965 and 1975:

1) Dror Daniel Hasidim. Born on 23.02.1968. From Givatayim. 2) Daniel Hasidim. Born on 08.02.1968. From Petah Tikva. 3) Danny Aharon Hasidim. Born on December 1966. From Holon.

Number 3 is seem to be absolutely not relevant. Number 1 is the main suspect of this fake profile. You already lost your credibility here, as there is no Daniel Hasidim who was born in 1970.

The Daniel Hasidim who is presented in this sham profile is the son of Josef and Dalia.

Now, please tell me, what are the names of the parents of the 'cousin'? You seem to know so much about him - I am sure you know his cousin's parents' names. Which one of them is the sibling of which of his parents? How many kids does this cousin have? How many sibling(s) does the cousin have? Name one of them (if there are any).

These questions are just to emphasize the scam even further. It already falls on the grounds that there is no Daniel Hasidim who was born in 1970.

Seventh: Why don't you prove it is from Peking University, and not some weekend class in an auditorium? The people there look like kids, not like MBA students. And yes, I know Chinese look young, but not that young. Was this the only issue, I would have been leaning towards you – but as all you sources are disputed and in a large number a hoax – I don't see a reason why this one is genuine. There is no clear evidence to either side. Nothing in this video shows this is a MBA class at Peking University.

Eight: You claim that J-TV is a well-known and respected media channel. Well, why is it that nothing about you appear on their website anymore?

Claiming that less common news sites are used as references on Wikipedia does not necessarily make it correct.

This is why we, the editors, as much as we can, are dealing with cases like Mr. Hasidim's. We clean up as much as we can, and put things into question where it is adequate to do so.

Your most used source, J-TV, 7 references in total – all are empty! All are leading to just a landing page with no relation to anything you write! Shame on you.

Ninth: Who is the source of publication then? Those books are not downloadable anymore, seem J-TV realized there are severe copyright infringement and took it down. You say the book is not sold electronically, but it was downloadable for free.

You tremble on your own lies. I kept a copy of the downloads.

Please explain the following sentence. It is not clear what you mean: " I use chinese students. I send them the sources by WeChat"

You also didn't elaborate about the 'ancient Chinese Jewish tribes'. Apart from your imagination, where in China are they located?

So many issues you just ignore or poorly excuse.

I hereby request this profile to be deleted and not permitted to be re-created again.

Our Wikipedia must be as clean and reliable as possible, and not act as a platform for con-artists to gain legitimacy.

This profile was deleted twice, and now is trying to circumvent the existing restrictions that got this page deleted in the past.

Please read the questions and doubts I posted throughout this exchange. Read the replies, and then my counter replies and evidence – or lack of evidence by Mr.Hasidim/his helper.Weknowall1968 (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

First off, you did use an article from NEWS1: Http://www.nfc.co.il/archive/001-D-92151-00.html?tag=9-20-35

Second, I'm sure the information is what it says in the sources, like every other page on Wikipedia (With far fewer sources):

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Zionist_Organization

Third, it's not a dummy university. I understand the confusion. In the United States open universities are built in the form of online universities.

Fourth, the sources are not self-image. I was deliberately careful not to put sources originated by the subject himself so that the value would comply with the procedures of Wikipedia.

Fifth, I do not know the names of the parents of whom you're talking about. If I talk to him, it creates a problem of conflict of interest.

Sixth , if a person does not appear in the records of the Israel Police, it means that he has never been interrogated by the police and has had any contact with the police - which proves my claims.

Seventh, it is not listed on the university's website that is active in Israel. Registered as an American institution.

Eighth , I can send the Peking University video to students studying there through WeChat and ask them.

Ninth, I know what years he was in China, because he had an interview with Ma'ariv a year ago. If I can not find this interview, I will correct accordingly.

Tenth, you're right about page 17, it could have been my mistake. I will check the matter.

As to whether Hasidim speak Chinese? According to Source 16 you can hear him speaking Chinese with the interviewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make so much effort with keeping this page existing and ignore so many of my good arguments – I can only assume that you are Mr. Hasidim himself or the least someone very close to him. In my opinion, all articles from News1 should be taken down, especially those written by your friend - Galily.

Regarding the sources: It is not about the quantity, but about the quality. In your case both are lacking. Reading through our discussion, one can see the quality of your sources are low.

Now let's break down the quantity – out of the 26 references:

- 7 are landing pages with no relations to you from J-TV. - 6 are articles of you being a fraudster.

These are already half of the references.

- 3 are pretty much unrelated youtube videos. - 2 are articles written by your friend, Daniel Galily – who appear to be part of your fraud scheme. - 2 are scans of very short articles in Chinese who discuss some co-operation with the city of Ramla.

And guess what, your bad luck is that I have sharp eyes: What is written in the scan from what is currently reference 13 above is 'Hasidim Dror'. Here is our proof that you are Dror Daniel Hasidim.

Let's remind ourselves what the Israeli police database shows: Dror Daniel Hasidim. Born on 23.02.1968. From Givatayim.

- 3 scanned articles from an unknown origin (you claim Maariv – but no proof for that). - 1 is an article written by yourself.

You yourself admitted that the 'university' is not yet recognized. You keep on contradicting yourself.

Why if you talk with him it creates a problem of conflict of interest? Please explain the logic behind this claim. If you don't talk to him – how come you are so sure it is his 'cousin'? Where is the proof for that?

From now any any person who did something bad can blame a cousin with an identical name or an identical twin brother? Is this the Wikipedia "the dog ate my homework" excuse?

You seem to be very confident about your knowledge of Mr. Hasidim/yourself for someone who claims not to contact him to avoid 'conflict of interest'. In addition, you say you can send videos to students. Isn't it a slip that exposes that the writer is Mr. Hasidim himself? As you don’t talk to him, as you claim, how come you know who his students are/were?

Again, you regard us as fools.

How did you get hold of the scanned Chinese and Hebrew papers you posted?

I see no other option than the fact that you are Mr. Hasidim, or the least a person to close him.

The records from the Israeli police are not related to people with a criminal record, but are from a database from all the people in Israel – regardless of whether they have a criminal record or not.

You fail to explain where all the references from J-TV had gone. You use references that lead nowhere. No references to the books you 'wrote'.

You fail to tell us where the 'ancient Chinese Jewish tribes' are located.

You fail to provide us with details about and existence of the Zionist Billionaires Forum. The funniest point where you undermine our intelligence is to claim that the part of the video where there is an audio dubbing is actually Hasidim speaking Chinese.

See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3dyCbQFRcc

Without understanding, one can clearly see this non-Chinese lady actually speaks Chinese. The sound is natural and the lips are in tandem with the speech.

Please find the interview with Maariv from a year ago. If it is from a year ago, there must be also an online version. And if you are not related to Mr. Hasidim as you claim to be, why would you potentially have an article about him from a year ago? Unless it is online of course… Weknowall1968 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the links in the references to the J-TV website in the article have gone dead. I've marked them as such. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

First, all the sources are from newspapers of millions of readers. They meet the conditions of Wikipedia.

Second, according to the sources, "Daniel Dror Hasidim" is the full name of the two men. It is customary for Jewish families from Arab countries to give their children middle names after the grandparents.

Third, the Israel Police database relates only to persons who have had contact with the police. The general database of all Israeli citizens is in the Israeli Ministry of the Interior.

Fourth, the videos are broadcasts of Chinese TV channels and newspapers in China with limited Internet access due to the Chinese government's blocking of Google, Facebook and YouTube.

Fifth, I did not say that the university is not recognized, I said it was in a process of recognition by US laws (test period).

Sixth, if it says in NEWS1 that it is his cousin I have no reason to doubt it because the article was reviewed by the editorial board before it was published.

Seventh, how do you know that the articles are not from Ma'ariv? Did you check the newspaper archives?

Eighth, I said I could ask college students from Peking University if they recognized the hall in the video.

Ninth, in an contact massage that I sent to J-TV, they said that they're checking.

And tenth, I'm looking for the article from Ma'ariv. It was on a weekend volume. Not every article in the newspaper upload online, it's two different systems of the newspaper.

I don't have his home number but I have found his facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/dchasidim?fref=ts

If you like you can ask him yourself, I cannot for obvious reasons

P.S. Just now, a Peking University student told me by WeChat that the EMBA program is one of the only programs that are taught in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)‎[reply]

Dror Daniel Hasidim is not the full name of two men. How did you come up with that? Where in the sources does it say that?

Not only Jews from Arab countries give their children middle names. Also Ashkenazi Jews do that. My husband is half of each.

Hasidim is from Iranian ancestry (his parents moved to Israel when they were in their teens) – Iran is not an Arab country.

Anyhow, that is not relevant, you are just schmoozing around to divert the conversation.

You fail to prove that there are two Dror Daniel Hasidim who are cousins.

Two cousins with an identical first name and middle name?

It seem you have invented the new "the dog ate my homework" Wikipedia excuse. Weknowall1968 (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli police (and most likely the police in most countries) has access to the Ministry of Interior database.

When they stop an individual for a traffic offence, which is unless in extreme cases not a criminal offence, the officer can instantly find his details on the database.

To claim that the police only has the database of people with criminal records is foolish – nice attempt though. Weknowall1968 (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the articles from News1: The articles written about Mr. Hasidim are written by one individual named 'Daniel Galily'

Daniel Galily appears here as a Dean in the fake university.

Very impressive for a 30 year old – wasn't it a sham university.

http://www.los-angeles-university.education/faculty/

What do we have here? One dubious character attempting to whitewash another dubious character.

Here is an article from a real news website – Haaretz – which writes about Galily forging a PhD from a fake university.

https://www.haaretz.co.il/blogs/taliherutisover/1.2799661 Weknowall1968 (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a university is in the process of getting recognition (which we know is not true) – then it is still not a recognized university.

Yet, it does present itself as such.

It uses the title 'university', selling degrees and claiming on its Facebook page to be chosen as a university.

Clearly a sham. Weknowall1968 (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the websites you mentioned are blocked in China does not change the fact that you misrepresented us a dubbing to be Hasidim speaking Chinese.

Such pathetic attempts only magnify the fact that you are either Mr. Hasidim himself or his lackey, acting upon his guidance.

Where is your proof that the article is from Maariv? You post a source, you are ought to provide proof that it is what you claim it to be.

This auditorium is a very common design which can be found in many universities and high-schools around the world.

There is no any special feature there that can distinct that auditorium.

You trying to convince us by having a few (paid?) Chinese to write to you that this is Peking University auditorium? Weknowall1968 (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your J-TV 'credentials' you were relying so enthusiastically on? What proof do you have that Mr. Hasidim is the author of those books and that they actually exist?

You keep ignoring my question about the 'ancient Chinese Jewish tribes'. I asked my Rabbi, he has never heard about it. Please let us know where, apart from your imagination, are they located?

There is nothing I want to ask Mr. Hasidim via facebook. I am conversing with him via you (I still suspect you are Mr.Hasidim).

What are those 'obvious reason' that you cannot ask him questions? Please elaborate. Weknowall1968 (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to check with the US Department of Education whether this university is in the process of being recognized.

In any case, until then it is not used as a source.

There are ancient Chinese Jewish tribes:

Http://www.nrg.co.il/online/11/ART2/507/263.html

I'm not Mr. Hasidim. If you want, talk to him directly.

I can not ask him because according to Wikipedia's procedures I must not have no contact with the subject of the page.

As for J-TV, they're still checking. They did not got back to me with an answer.

I'll send them another massage today.

The articles in NEWS1, that are written by Mr. Hasidim, are a source of the sentence: "He wrote articles in the Israeli press."

The other articles from NEWS1 were written by different source. The fact that the articles were approved by the editors of the newspaper, does not make them any different then the articles that you brought as a source.

About the videos, do you have a source that can counteract their credibility? If so, present them. If not, then they should be treated as reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, the sham university alleged process of being recognized is not relevant. Someone being in the process of getting an Olympic medal does not make him an Olympic medal holder.

The fact that it is presenting itself as a university and selling degrees already only magnifies the fact that it is a sham. In addition, on its Facebook page it claims to be a university. And what do we see on the profile picture? The campus? The classroom? No! We see Mr. Hasidim's photo.

Although it is not a used source, it was a used source and you claim it is a legitimate institution, while all evidence and logic is pointing to the other direction. Hence, the conclusion is that you are not a reliable source and you are part of the sham. Weknowall1968 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look more towards the middle side of this page: http://www.los-angeles-university.education/blog/

There we can see a link for the 2014-2015 admission.

"This entry was posted in Los Angeles University News on October 13, 2014 by Debra." "This entry was posted in Los Angeles University Schools on January 1, 2014 by LAU."

So for at least the past 3 years and 7 months you mispresent yourself as a university.

To check with the US department of Education…? I think I'd rather check with the FBI. Weknowall1968 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took a lot of asking to get some info about those 'ancient Chinese Jewish tribes'. However – you shot yourself in the foot again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzSiIrlsvz8 In the above video, Hasidim explains that those tribes are in the west of China.

But; Kaifeng is not in the west of China. Actually far from it – it is located in the east-central part of China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaifeng

Kaifeng is not a village, but a city of about 5 million people.

Hence, the Jews there are not a tribe, but just a community of city dwellers. The name Kaifeng is not mentioned in the video. Weknowall1968 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for now, 48 hours on, your most relied upon references from J-TV are non-existing.

Why do you make so much effort to contact J-TV them if you are not Mr. Hasidim or his close friend? Why do you make so much effort with poor argumentation if you are not Mr. Hasidim or his close friend?

The only source you are relying on, News1, presents one article writing by yourself and two by your partner-in-sham (Daniel Galily). After inquiring, I found out that News1 gives an open platform to writers. In addition, it is not a newspaper. It does not print. Merely an online platform.

It is your duty to ensure that the videos you upload are reliable.

Looking at all your lies and inconsistencies throughout this exchange over the past few days – you cannot blame anyone for highly doubting anything you write. Weknowall1968 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Zionist Billionaires Forum? Where are there offices in Israel? What is their registration number? Do you continually refrain from answering this in order to come up with something at some later point?

How did you get hold of the scanned Chinese and Hebrew papers you posted? You still didn't answer that. They are from many years ago. People don't even keep yesterday's paper…

Are you a Dror Daniel Hasidim hardcore fan?

You even posed an article (which you took down) from 1998. You are either Dror Hasidim or his close lackey that got those articles and orders from him.

Why would any random person who is not in close contact with the subject (or being the subject himself) be so obsessive about this sham page existing and being able to present antique articles.

And how did you get those Chinese articles? Those are not even links, but scans! Weknowall1968 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dani1587 and Weknowall1968: these huge walls of text you are posting are going to have very little bearing on the outcome of this discussion, because they mostly focus on the content of the article. That is a matter for the article's talk page. What is up for discussion here is whether the subject is notable, which is judged by whether there is significant coverage of him (note, not by him) in independent, reliable sources. Please see WP:GOLDENRULE. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry: Sorry and thank you for the clarification. It is just important for me to keep Wikipedia clean and reliable when I have information to the contrary. Weknowall1968 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt. Severe problems with the article, no particular notability, and a ridiculous amount of useless content on this AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked at the US Department of Education?

You can ask Yen Wei, no one can underestimate his credibility.

Http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish/chemen/2141/2011/20110405154405691293241/20110405154405691293241_.html

The university is not a source.

Most people that are living in China do not live in the western part. All mountains.

Most people live in the east.

Everyone in China knows that when they say "west" they mean the more central part.

In China, 5 million is a village, 10-12 million is a small town, and 20-22 million is a big city.

The Zionist billionaires forum has no office in Israel. On the contrary, they are not interested in official contact with the Israeli government.

Associations of billionaires (like the Bilderberg Group) do not need a registration number

You can not upload articles directly to NEWS1. The articles are sent to editors for review and to check reliability.

If someone thinks that the page does not have enough resources, I invite them to see the number of the sources on the following pages:

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raviv_Drucker

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Freedom_Alliance

There are many more articles about Hasidim in the Chinese media. But it is very difficult to find articles from Chinese newspapers on the Internet due to the difficulties made by the government.

But the articles on the page are on the Internet

If you do not believe them, then do what I did and contact the editors of the paper:

[email protected]

Have you asked Hasidim on his Facebook page if he can show you evidence that he and his cousin are two different people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've been arguing a lot here and it's starting to annoy other editors.

So I propose a compromise:

My page on Hasidim will remain and you could add what ever that you want about him on the page (as long, of course, as you can find references for it online or offline) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both deletion and article content are decided by consensus, Dani1587, so it's not in your gift to offer that compromise. Also, as you have been told multiple times, please stop posting irrelevant walls of text here, and please sign your posts. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to the attention of the editors that the link to reference 1 is leading to a dead page.

The claim of being named as best foreign professor in China is based on 2 dead links (references 1 and 3), a youtube video of an English class (reference 2) a short quarter page profile from an unknown source (surely not a newspaper as it shows 'page 125' at the bottom), It is claimed to be from 2002, but Hasidim claims to be in China from 2008. Hence, all 'references' are irrelevant to that claim. Weknowall1968 (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page that I brought to the editors is in the scope pf the category of "Jewish activists'.

I believe that the editors can see that the average number of references in many of the pages for Jewish activists / world Jewish organizations is 8-17.

And many of the references are from Israeli sources.

This can be seen from the examples I brought in the conversation and also from general knowledge about values in this category:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arik_Ascherman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Benkin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Borowich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviva_Cantor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helene_S._Coleman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Gold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Halevi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhas_Rutenberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Silberman

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Freedom_Alliance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Troy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Steinfeld

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ari_Lesser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Stone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephraim_Kholmyansky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_Kitson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't judge notability by the number of sources, Dani1587, but by whether the coverage is significant. A couple of in-depth sources can be enough to demonstrate notability, whereas tens of sources that only mention the subject in passing don't. See WP:SIGCOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right.

That's why I made sure to bring only newspaper articles where the subject of the page is the main subject of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani1587 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~), Dani1587, not by copying the unsigned post template. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 20 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) 19:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Mohammady[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No outstanding claim to fame and no major coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I had redirected to Farewell_Baghdad_(2010_film)#Cast, but even that was a stretch before it was reverted. For what it's worth, the current draft is also promotional in tone and the author appears to have (an undisclosed) conflict of interest affiliation with the subject based on their edit history and talk page messages. czar 05:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sourcing is extremely thin, not enough to meet WP:GNG and there's definitely seems to be a WP:COI problem with the creator/maintainer of this article. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable and reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I have created this articles a few years back and wasn't perhaps entirely familiar with the policies and standards -- my apologies. I agree with everyone and I suggest to either keep while removing loosely-sourced and promotional contents or delete the entry altogether. On another note due to the COI, I will no longer edit/maintain this article. sx19216811 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your notification of COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 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 delete. deleted as an attack page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stout Rule[edit]

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

Can't find anything about this online, probably A11. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC) The 5 pillars: #3 -Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute & #5 - Wikipedia has no firm rules.[reply]

It's clearly an attack or joke page against this person. Tagged as such. Speedy delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dice (video game)[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no sources cited to establish notability and no reason to believe sources are "probable". Two sources cited, one of which is to a WP article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I believe GameSpy is a valid independent source, and that second source is to a Russian game magazine (which I admit I can't read) but from following those external links in the citation it looks like a legit review of the game. I will try to find more sources from the "find sources" later today. If not a keep, then let's do a merge to Dragon Dice at least. BOZ (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just on some quick searching, I found a review of the game by the GameSpot staff: https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/dragon-dice-review/1900-2539990/ Will see what else I can find. BOZ (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is linked to by Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Game.EXE which looks like an index of the reviews in said Russian game magazine, and it mentions that User:Hellknowz can be contacted about it for more information. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, GameSpy is reliable according to WP:VGRS. --Izno (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As is Game.EXE. I've added a link to the Archive.org-hosted file for the game and removed the imgur/pastebin links. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - this article was a redirect to Dragon Dice since it's simply the electronic version which is already mentioned in the main article. GNG requires multiple independent sources for this version of the game, not just one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, no significant coverage in multiple independent sources to show it meets WP:GNG. Not enough standalone notability. A redirect would be okay, since the video game is covered in the target, but the redirect keeps getting moved back to an article. So if a redirect is the decision, then the redirect needs page protection. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much of the following relates specifically to the video game and how much to the board game since I'm at work, but the board game article could use improvement too:
- GameSpot review (the same link as BOZ above),
- Wired review -- board game,
- Igromania review and basic strategy guide,
- TechnologyTell passing reference -- board game,
- Wired Gamestorm passing coverage -- board game,
- Wired Gamestorm passing coverage -- board game,
- RPGamer passing reference,
- Kotaku passing reference, -- probably board game
- CNET in Spanish passing reference, -- possibly conflated item
- GameSpot preview
At a minimum, this is a ~~merge~~. It might be a keep, given a) the age of the game (and thus sources may exist which do not exist on the Internet) and b) the fact I can't review the sources I've provided to see whether the video game is separately notable. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also covered in a couple other magazines. I think I might just make this a weak keep and if/when the article's sources are exhausted, we can evaluate a merge then. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While there's clearly reasons to keep, I would strongly suggest that a merge is preferrable option. The physical game has a lot of game cruft (list of races, for example), and so if you trim down the rules, there's plenty of space to include the computerized version as well, which follows the same rules. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Masem this review of Dragon Dice tells us the game isn't/wasn't notable, unless it's notable as a lemon. It also fails WP:BTG so it probably needs to be combined with this AfD. The video game did a little better but the lack of RS tells us it's not notable, either. The magazine that supposedly had a review about video is defunct, and I'm not seeing that it passes GNG. I think what needs to happen here is a combo AfD of the 3 articles. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A negative review still counts towards notability. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, BOZ there is no mention of the games failure or how it almost bankrupted the company so if you're concluding that its notability is its failure, and if this AfD somehow ends in keep, the article needs serious editing to reflect the games notability beginning with the lead using what RS have written. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: I think this does meet the minimum sourcing threshold for a standalone article, but because there's so little more about it that differs from the physical dice game, the reader is better informed if this were part of the article on the physical game. If one is !vote counting (which one shouldn't) I'd consider that I'm saying "keep", but I really think the merge makes a lot more sense outside of this AFD. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable video game passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable in-depth (reviews) sources, such as WP:VG/RS. To elaborate against some arguments above: notability is WP:GNG -- being covered by reliable sources. It doesn't matter if it's positive, negative, success, failure, review, history, etc. We don't conclude anything from the content. It's the presence of content that determines notability. When the content is fleshed out and we can see how much there is, we can consider merging, but that's an editorial decision, not based on notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hellknowz if you're referring to the sources listed by BOZ above, the in-depth ones are reviews of the failed board game, not the subject of this AfD. Passing mention is not considered acceptable when determining WP:N. If there truly is the in-depth coverage you speak of, and if it is so readily available, then why haven't they been cited in the article? Hopefully the closer will not go by an !vote count and will consider the substantive argument and lack of RS. The board game article which is being conflated with this article represents most of the references listed above, and that article needs a serious rewrite because it fails NPOV and reads more like a weighted puff piece which doesn't reflect the reason it is achieved notability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not determined by sources cited in the article, but by the existence of sources. I see a GameSpot review, fullpage CGW review, a 3-page Game.EXE review -- this alone establishes multiple sources for GNG. Supplemented by GameSpy, Igromania. I don't have access to NextGen, which appears to have some content. Given our incomplete listings in reference library for older magazines, I suspect more. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:Notability which states "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. To go one step further, the reason it fails is also based on policy, WP:V and WP:NOT, WP:NTEMP, WP:SUSTAINED and that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The game was a lemon - not encyclopedic unless someone ate it and doing so made it part of game history. Do you have any idea how many games are introduced, last a little while, and fade off into the wild blue yonder. WP is NOT A LIST of failed games, either. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidence of notability is established in above keep votes. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With three reliable references (Gamespy, Gamespot, Game.EXE) and potentially more, I think it squeaks by the notability threshold._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:26, 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) 19:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury Buyers[edit]

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

Neither this article nor a Google search shows independent third-party coverage of the company. This article reads promotionally, and a Google search turns up the usual hits on any company. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:CORPDEPTH. Serves only to advertise the company. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: A promotionally-worded article which appears to have been referenced by just harvesting mention of the words "luxury buyers" rather than articles about the particular firm of this name. I see nothing to indicate attained notability for this venture. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP and WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tsebo Solutions Group[edit]

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

No indication of notability GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable subject, sources fail to conform to WP:CORPDEPTH. Not to cast aspersions, but there is a probable creator WP:COI as User:Royce van der Zwan (talk) shares a name similar to that of the marketing director of Tsebo. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition, highly promotional -- see the sections on Sectors and Footprint. A combination of a business directory listing and an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable--MassiveYR ♠ 20:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP and WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Tan[edit]

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

fails WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing Tan is known for is being the wife of a New York State Assemblyman. Notability is not inherited and a plethora of sources sill does not endorse notability where no genuine claims to significance or importance exits. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and IMO is clearly promotional in a run up to a forthcoming election.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is effectively a campaign brochure for a political candidate who fails our notability guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN - GretLomborg (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected city council candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates — our notability standards for politicians require them to hold a notable political office, not merely campaign for one. But this shows no preexisting notability for any other reason besides her candidacy, which is the only other way an as yet unelected city council candidate can get a Wikipedia article before winning a city council seat on election day. Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 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 delete Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Alexander[edit]

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

Article written primarily by two now-banned undeclared paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found and read the sock-puppet investigation and it was such a clear and well documented case of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI violations that the article should be WP:TNTed to deter such behavior in the future. GretLomborg (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advert and violation of our WP:TOU. Also G5 as created by a sock of an undoubtedly blocked account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was created by Justinjbasch (talk · contribs) who is not banned afaict. The editors the nominator mentions only edited an already existing article. So why delete instead of reverting their edits? Regards So Why 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as that editor has edited nothing else, it would seem at least a possibility that they are either the subject or a publicist for him. It was in 2013, too far back for checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSPAM which is a core policy that is incorporated into WP:N, our overarching notability requirement, as an equal prong to GNG. The content before the currently blocked editors mentioned above is clearly promotional language as well, which while not a G5 argument, is still an argument to delete as promotional content. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. Nothing more than a CV written in a very advertorial tone. Add to that, G5 which would also be a logical consequence to this 'Get me on Wikipedia' attempt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Early[edit]

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

Does not pass NARTIST. No significant critical studies or works in major museums.. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say she passes GNG, with article references 3, 4 and 6, as well as this. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thanks for that reference Shawn in Montreal, i have incorporated it into the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of these are significant critical studies. NARTIST is usually seen as an additional or alternative requirement to the GNG, and she does not meet it. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Irish Independent and other sources seem to cover WP:GNG. PamD 10:24, 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 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Got Communication[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. Last AfD 6 years ago only had 1 participant LibStar (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added review, added refs. Article now passes NALBUMS#1, 5.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been significantly improved since it was nominated. Now satisfies WP:NALBUMS.Dan arndt (talk) 11:32, 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 01:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reviews, sales, charting, depth of coverage. Current sources just verify it's existence but don't provide any real independent coverage. 1is just a listing, 2 is supplied by the band, not independent, 3 is a shop, 4 merely mentions it very briefly, 5 didn't work but looks like it was just a listing that verified a song was on a tv show, not coverage of the Ep. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:59, 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 01:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per duffbeerforme. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:14, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analogix[edit]

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

An unremarkable private company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is either promotional / routine coverage or republished press releases, as in: Analogix's ICVR Could Make VR HMDs Less Cumbersome, Analogix offers single chip USB, US Chipmaker is now China owned. Article tagged for notability since 2009. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 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 01:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass the WP:GNG test. STSC (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 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 no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article. Various policies have been presented as justifying a deletion (SINGLEEVENT/ BLP1E, CRIMINAL), but these have been countered by the fact that the most basic criteria for inclusion (NCRIME, GNG, and regarding depth etc of coverage, WP:ANYBIO) are met. No comment on waiting for this AfD to adhere to WP:BDP. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 16:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Phillips (murderer)[edit]

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

NN individual. Falls into the WP:1EVENT category. reddogsix (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First look: this person gets a blip or two of non-routine coverage from his efforts to avoid execution.[31] That said, the overwhelming majority of the RS coverage I'm finding is the expected appeals for mercy (he says he's a changed man) and the setting of execution dates. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information itself (which I believe could be fleshed out) does not merit deletion according to WP:NCRIME. It was a high-profile case with a lot of news coverage. However, the article for Ronald Phillips does merit deletion according to WP:SINGLEEVENT; I believe the information should therefore be migrated to an article about the case itself. UltravioletAlien (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per coverage. Per WP:GNG. The execution controversy story got plenty of attention. The article needs expansion but that is not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 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 00:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRIME: victim was not WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime was not unusual or noteworthy. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn individual and per WP:CRIME as noted above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that he fails WP:CRIMINAL. However, that does not supersede WP:GNG and as has been pointed out above, there has been quite a lot of coverage about both the crime and the attempts to execute him, sufficient to meet GNG (coverage that continues to this day, [32] [33] [34]). As for WP:BLP1E, this is a case of WP:BLP2E (the crime and the execution attempts) and BLP2E is not a thing. Plus, call me cynical but if they do execute him on July 26, this will soon no longer be a BLP. Maybe we should wait with closing this AFD until then? Regards So Why 16:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article currently is a BLP violating train wreck, but I think it could be cleaned up to a reasonable stub; as stated above, the sheer length of time he has spent on death row has attracted enough coverage to write something about it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:23, 20 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 Digital Quran. Leaving the history in place in case anyone wants to merge something. So Why 16:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quranic software[edit]

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

Software exists for reading and studying the Quran, but per several source searches, the topic does not appear to be notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the very least, it should be merged with Digital Quran. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ebook - GretLomborg (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to establish notability. Could be redirected as suggested above. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - both pages (this and digital quran) could be construed as advertisements for their external links, I'd suggest merging and removing external links, but I'm not sure which one is the better destination. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Digital Quran as sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 20 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 09:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JinSoul (single)[edit]

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

Non-notable single. I can't read Korean to know if there is even a hint of anything in the cited refs, but most are non-WP:RS and the single is only 1 week since release and no claims of notable-chart position. DMacks (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have just added official charting from gaon with refs for notability. Abdotorg (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I would prefer if the single had more independent coverage but it's positioning on a major chart displays its notability. Perhaps it was WP:TOOSOON to nominate this for AfD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it has a chart position, I do not object to keeping it. I do agree that it was WP:TOOSOON, a page that addresses creating articles before the topic is suitable (as was true when I nominated), not what TheGracefulSlick had in mind perhaps... DMacks (talk) 03:14, 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 keep (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shab (film)[edit]

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

Highly promotional article, created by a now blocked sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aditya n06 The Banner talk 11:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

checking WP:INDAFD gives Shab (film) results.

Keep because the project has had public screening and its production is getting coverage. We can keep an eye out for a return of puppets, but it's ours now and can easily be improved under WP:HANDLE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:54, 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 00:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an important film of director Onir. Rajeshbieee (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base your "important film"? It is not even officially released. The Banner talk 22:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: I agree that simply sharing an unsourced opinion that it's "an important film of director" is not exactly helpful. But not to belabor the point, a confirmed public premiere-release at the festival is just fine under WP:FilmRelease and WP:NF. An esoteric "official" release is not a mandate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Movie has released and has received unanimous poor reviews in most leading Indian news outlets. Rediff, Times of India, Indian Express, NDTV, The Hindu and Hindustan Times. No point in deleting now. Jupitus Smart 09:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The film has received large coverage in Indian media and was released all over the country. No point of non-notability. JayB91 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as keep, as nominator Much to my (pleasant) surprise, people were able to change this promo vehicle into a worthy article. Sourcing can be improved, but it is not an advertisement any more. The Banner talk 09:56, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezanga[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are brief mentions or from unreliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 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 00:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Not enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:35, 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 keep. After sources were presented, the only delete !vote acknowledges the subject as notable but argues for deletion anyway. However, unless this were a case of WP:CANTFIX, which it isn't, WP:IMPERFECT does not argue for deletion but fixing through editing. Until someone can do it, WP:STUBIFY might be applicable. So Why 10:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy Financial Services[edit]

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

I declined this PROD because the tag was removed and then replaced. Nonetheless, this appears not to have any indication of notability. I cannot find anything substantive in news sources. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~I see no EV~~^{02:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)} Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, just another business not unlike scores of others.^{Atsme📞📧} 00:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Subject is lacking in in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - per nom. Non-notable, and promotional. DaveApter (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 牛颖惠 (2016-05-19). "康宏金融陷2亿元兑付泥潭公司基金代销资质存疑". Xinhuanet. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
  The extensive article is an exposé of Convoy Financial Services' allegedly deceiving consumers and violating the law.
  From Google Translate:
  Internet science and technology expert Xiao Sa accepted the Beijing Times reporter interviewed, Convoy as a financial intermediary company, whether to take legal responsibility need to pay attention to the flow of investor funds. "If the investor and Convoy signed a tripartite investment agreement, the investor's money is directly into the fund company, then Convoy is not suspected of violation, if the investor's money directly into the Hong Kong financial, then Convoy Financial may involve funds Precipitation, this way, Convoy is likely to bear legal responsibility.
  Xiao Sa pointed out that from another point of view, if Convoy in the product promotion process exists to conceal the truth, false statements, or induce consumers to buy and other acts, then Convoy also suspected of breaking the law. In this regard, investors can sign through the investment contract and the occurrence of overdue Convoy after the practice of evidence.
  In addition, if the company has publicly stated on the site that the preservation of interest, according to the relevant judicial interpretation, will bear joint and several liability.
  The article also provides detailed information about the company itself:
  Data show that Convoy Financial was established in 1993, the current major members include Convoy Financial Services Limited, Convoy Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Convoy Securities Investment Services Limited.
  In February 2013, Hong Kong announced the success of CEPA (Mainland and Hong Kong on the establishment of closer economic and trade relations arrangements) to obtain a national insurance agency license, became the first in Hong Kong issued the relevant license of Hong Kong enterprises. And as early as September 2011, Convoy Financial in Beijing opened the first third-party financial center Convoy investment. After two years, Convoy Financial in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Jiangxi, Chengdu, Nanjing and other provinces and cities have set up branch offices.
  ...
  Convoy Financial's annual revenue for 2015 was HK $ 605 million, down 62% from 2014. At the end of 2014, Convoy's financial net profit of HK $ 246 million, net profit at the end of 2015 -4.67 billion Hong Kong dollars.
2. 马莉 (2016-05-13). "康宏金融违规推介基金　无视发行机构兑付危机". NetEase. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
  This extensively researched article is a second exposé of Convoy Financial's business and legal troubles.
  From Google Translate notes:
  Hong Kong stocks listed company Convoy Financial (01019.HK) is currently in crisis. By its Beijing Convoy, Convoy Bi and other mainland subsidiaries consignment of Peking University, and many other financial products, there are still unable to pay the situation, some products have been overdue for more than a year. As the first mainland in China issued a national insurance agent license of Hong Kong enterprises, Convoy Financial insurance agent in the Mainland harvest a large number of high-quality customers. But some of its non-fund sales qualification of the branch, but the use of the hands of the insurance customer resources, illegal referral fund products. In the customer signing process, not only the absence of fund companies, Convoy also accused of concealing the wind control measures related to the project. And in the relevant partner has been a redemption issue, Convoy is still promoting its products. At present, the amount of financing and capitalization of the project is still unknown. However, some of the project's responsibility has been detained by the police, the project has also entered the judicial process.
3. 韋君 (2016-09-30). "股市縱橫：康宏環球靜極思動可留意". Wen Wei Po. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
4. 韋君 (2016-06-15). "股市縱橫：康宏金融靜極思動". Wen Wei Po. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
5. 韋君 (2016-11-02). "股市縱橫:康宏環球夥拍富邦前景看好". Wen Wei Po. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
6. 高彰坡 (2016-01-11). "康宏易主有望倍升". Apple Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
7. 股佬開倉 (2016-02-17). "股佬開倉——康宏金融隨時爆上". Headline Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-07-03.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Convoy Financial Services to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy Financial Services (康宏金融) is listed on Hong Kong Stock Exchange. There are few English language sources about the company. But there are numerous Chinese language sources about it.
From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations:
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
The critical coverage Convoy Financial Services received from Xinhuanet and NetEase, as well as the analyst reports and articles in other sources like Wen Wei Po, Apple Daily, and Headline Daily, establish notability.
Any promotional issues can be resolved through normal editing instead of deletion per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
Pinging the editor who removed the prod: Atlantic306 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the prod removal was procedural but as this was a publicly traded company and Cunard has identified reliable sources it passes WP:GNG but it needs to be improved so that the controversies over its practices are documented and available to readers. Atlantic306 (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Cunardh as found sources, but I cannot tell if the bear on notability because I can not decipher the Google translation any more than I could the original Chinese. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 9 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 00:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cunard has shown that a proper article could be written, andI think he should write one based on the good sources he found. Not all dishonest businesses are notable , but this one seems to be. But the first step is removing this. Cunard, you've already done the work of finding the sources. Now write the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for conceding this business is notable. This article lacks the negative information but that is because it was created in 2010 and the negative articles were published in 2016. The article just needs to be updated, not completely deleted. I cannot agree that "the first step is removing this". Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. I wish I had the time to both find sources and rewrite every article at every AfD I participate in. But I do not.
Cunard (talk) 06:41, 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.