Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 July 8 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I note that since much of the argument is predicated on the poor quality of the article, the article may be recreated with adequate sources and no pro-mainland or pro-Taiwan bias Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Chinese memes war on Facebook[edit]

2016 Chinese memes war on Facebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page should be deleted because the quality of this article is atrocious, and it is filled with grammatical errors, original research and nonsense, not to mention it contains personal attacks on the parties involved, and the page has not been improved despite the various tags. Lasersharp (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I doubt that this is a single event worthy of a separate article, but probably part of an ongoing series of arguments on the Internet between pro-mainland and pro-Taiwan Internet users which may go on for as long as the mainland and Taiwan are under different governments. This particular article appears to have been written from a pro-mainland perspective in violation of neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This event received significant bi-partisan coverage in English media also, see Foreign Policy, Washington Post and CNN. The problem is there doesn't seem to be a term that describes the event in English, nor is the event prominent enough to warrant its own article here as mentioned by User:Metropolitan90. On the other hand, Merge is another option since this event took place as a response to the results of 2016 Taiwanese presidential election, perhaps some of the information can be incorporated into a "Aftermath" section on that page. Alex ShihTalk 14:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice that all three of the sources cited by Alex Shih indicate that this campaign was a reaction to the election of Tsai Ing-wen as president of Taiwan and don't even mention Chou Tzu-yu. Yet this article says, "The conflict was initiated when a Taiwanese teenage pop star Chou Tzu-yu waved the national flag of the Republic of China (Taiwan) in a South Korean TV show", and emphasizes the issue of Chou Tzu-yu waving the Taiwan flag much more than the election of Tsai Ing-wen in relation to this campaign. I don't really know what to make of this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice the Wall Street Journal source in the article, which is much more comprehensive. I think this is a case of poor translation that led to misinformation. Chou's incident (videotaped apology) literally took place the day before the Taiwanese election. It was merely one of the reasons (this is stated in the Chinese page) that led to cross-strait exchange of trolling, and it is the trolling that led to the organizing of this (massive) Facebook trolling event. Alex ShihTalk 17:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per WP:TNT. Egregiously promotional in nature as-written, and likely not notable as a stand-alone event. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eye killer[edit]

Eye killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crucian (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Crucian (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- there's nothing to merge as the article does not list independent RS on the topic. One of the sources is an "official supplement for the 3.5 edition of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game" and the other is an in-universe publication. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SoWhy 09:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Sussex[edit]

Owen Sussex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG, with a search returning very few results. Note that Hong Kong isn't a test-playing nation in rugby. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Cordless Larry (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OSTEC (talk)


Owen Sussex, was a prolific sportsman during the late 1970s and 1980s.

Owen Sussex has acheived International status in both Rugby Union and Track and Field Athletics, but additionally English County level in Basketball and Cross Country running.

This is much more notible that many existing pages which refer to, for example, English Football League Players or County level Cricketers which not only compete in a single sport but have not acheived an International status. They may be professional players but it is important to remember that Rugby Union and Track and Feild Athletics were both amateur only sports at the time - as was the Olympic Games.


Given that these acheivments were in the 1970s/80s it is not easy to find copies of Newspaper articles or similar evidence on the Internet although there maybe something from a private source.


Track and Field Athletics: Owen Sussex was also a Great Britain Junior International Athletics (Decathlon), Welsh Athletics International, English Public Schools Athletics International (Vice Captain) There can be no dispute that Great Britain Athletics, Welsh Athletics and English Public Schools athletics teams are true International Teams. Evidence that Owen Sussex was a Welsh Athletics champion in multiple events and is still listed in the Welsh Athletics all time records in the references.


Rugby Union: Owen Sussex was a Hong Kong Sevens Rugby International and Hong Kong national rugby union team (15-a-side) - this is evidenced by the attached pictures of the teams from that time. Owen Sussex was in the Hong Kong 7s team at the HK 7s for matches against Sri Lanka, New Zealand All Blacks and South Korea, and in the 15-a-side Owen Sussex was in the HK team for games against Sri Lanka and Fiji - not insignificant opposition.

Hong Kong was originally a British colony, but then a British Dependant Territory prior to 1997 and an SAR of China post 97, and fielded national teams in both 7s and 15-a-side tounaments and international test matches. Hong Kong also attends the Olympics as a National Team.

See below for Wiki extracts which indicate that Hong Kong is a true National Team that does indeed play international tests and that The Hong Kong Sevens is the standard in world class Rugby Union tournments, and not only predates but is also part of the World_Rugby_Sevens_Series and that the Hong Kong team plays in the tournament as a National Team.


Extracts From Wikipedia - reference to Hong Kong National Rugby Union teams and The HK Sevens:

/wiki/Hong_Kong_national_rugby_sevens_team

World Cup Sevens Appearances 5 (First in 1993) Best result 10th (1997) The Hong Kong national rugby sevens team is the national team representing Hong Kong in international rugby sevens tournaments. The team is a regular participant in the Rugby World Cup Sevens

/wiki/Hong_Kong_Sevens:

The Hong Kong Sevens is considered the premier tournament on the World Rugby Sevens Series competition. The Hong Kong Sevens is currently the seventh tournament on the World Series calendar (following the Canada Sevens), and is held annually in Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong Sevens were ahead of their time, and an influential force in the modernisation of rugby union, for example, the Hong Kong Sevens were one of the first rugby union tournaments to attract major sponsorship, ... They also provided a level of cosmopolitan international competition, which tended not to exist in rugby before the first Rugby World Cup in 1987. ... By 1986, the Hong Kong Sevens were held up as a positive example to others.


Bill McLaren, in his autobiography Talking of Rugby writes at length about his Hong Kong Sevens experiences: "I remember a big South Sea islander saying that, in his view, the Hong Kong sevens were really the Olympic Games of Rugby Union. Certainly, the Hong Kong event encapsulates all the really good things that the game has to offer–splendid organisation, wonderful sporting spirit, universal camaraderie, admirable field behaviour, the most enjoyable crowd participation, the chance for emergent rugby nations to lock horns with the mighty men of New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, Wales, Scotland and the Barbarians.

/wiki/World_Rugby_Sevens_Series

The World Rugby Sevens Series, known officially as the HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series due to sponsorship from banking group HSBC,[1] is an annual series of international rugby sevens tournaments run by World Rugby featuring national sevens teams. ... As of the 2015–16 season, the season's circuit consists of 10 tournaments in 10 countries, and visits five of the six populated continents. Australia, the United Arab Emirates, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, Hong Kong, Singapore, France and England each host one event. Canada was also added.


/wiki/Rugby_union_in_Hong_Kong:

National team Hong Kong has two 15-a-side teams - men's and women's ... They have competed in the first Asian Five Nations recently.

/wiki/List_of_international_rugby_union_teams: Hong Kong is listed and ranked 24th in the world

/wiki/Hong_Kong_national_rugby_union_team: table of the representative rugby matches played by a Hong Kong national XV to 1 May 2016.: Arabian Gulf Australian Universities  Belgium  Brazil  Canada  China  Chinese Taipei  Czech Republic  England XV  Fiji  France XV  Germany  Japan  Japan XV  Junior Japan  Kazakhstan  Kenya  Kenya A  Malaysia  Netherlands New Zealand U–23 New Zealand Universities  Norway  Papua New Guinea  Portugal  Russia  Scotland XV  Singapore  South Korea  Sri Lanka  Thailand  Tunisia  United Arab Emirates  Uruguay  United States  Wales XV  Zimbabwe

Ostec (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)ostec[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 22:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the tons of intricate detail only known to the subject, along with the creator's concerted efforts to build this page out both in mainspace and draft plus the creator's username matching the subjects initials tell me this is autobiographical. Don't create pages about yourself and don't post walls of text to try and stop deletion of something that is better suited to the subject's blog. Legacypac (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet the GNG. None of the sources provided in the article come close to this - they may prove the existence of the chap but there is no suitable, in depth coverage of him and/or his achievements. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NRU. If he has played in the World Rugby Sevens Series, Rugby World Cup Sevens, Commonwealth Games or Olympics, he'd meet that, but I don't see any evidence or specific claim that he has. Despite claims of his skills across multiple sports, someone who achieved moderately across multiple sports is likely to be less notable than someone who did very well in one sport, unless they can meet WP:GNG - and there's no evidence he does that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Agree requires more research to find evidence to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

This is not just about Rugby Union but also Track and Field Athletics: the subject was a Great Britain Junior International Athletics (Decathlon), Welsh Athletics National Champion, Welsh Athletics International, English Public Schools Athletics International:

So for Track and Field Athletics surely already meets requirements for Amateur sports persons - College athletes WP:NHSPHSATH Having won a national award (Welsh Athletics National Champion several times, Evidenced in references) and Gained national media attention as an individual (although these needs to be evidenced)

Would also meet requirements for Amateur sports persons - High school and pre-high school athletes WP:NCOLLATH (with more evidence) --Ostec (talk) Ostec (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. SoWhy 09:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Messerly[edit]

John G. Messerly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Have tried to find more sources per WP:BEFORE, and article appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, fails NACADEMIC, GNG. South Nashua (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep. several books, but by relatively minor publishers. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete several books alone is not enough to pass academic notability for a philosopher. Writing books is what philosophers do, and there is no evidence that his works have made a major impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found one review of his Piaget book [1] but it's not enough for WP:AUTHOR and the citation record, while not conclusive for this subject, also doesn't provide any help via WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 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) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Seong-ho[edit]

Sin Seong-ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to locate WP:RS showing subject meets GNG. Sources in article do not supply sufficient coverage. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 29 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) 23:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:RS thin on the ground, WP:GNG not met, WP:ILC not met. DrStrauss talk 09:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| babble _ 21:51, 7 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) 19:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public cardroom rules[edit]

Public cardroom rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In its current form, wp:DEL6 applies because it is essentially an opinion piece on what may or may not be the case in any particular establishment or location. A different approach to the same topic would be to research the concepts behind the rules, where they came from, how they differ around the world etc etc but in its present form the article, IMHO, serves no purpose. Northernhenge (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually rather like the content of the article. But it needs sources. I imagine they exist. I'm leaning toward keep, but without sources I'm a bit uncomfortable with !voting for it to be kept. Hobit (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a HOWTO guide, not an encyclopedic topic. Toohool (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it's accurate and could probably be sourced, it falls afoul of WP:NOTMANUAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is not a How To guide. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 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) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Chair[edit]

Smart Chair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional. No decent evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Doesn't meet GNG. Sources mainly look like press releases or reviews.PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete promotional brochure, not a WP article. Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:14, 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. The nomination does not provide a valid rationale for deletion. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America1000 02:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presans[edit]

Presans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

typical corporate profile! nothing much Light2021 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 7 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) 19:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High Performance Frigate Program[edit]

High Performance Frigate Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally fictious article. No references used. SRS 00t@lk, 21:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. If this article is legit, it would be premature and WP:Crystal applies. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" and the article has no WP:RS citations. Kierzek (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googling 'high performance frigate program bangladesh' returns only a couple of marginal-looking sources about this supposed program, so WP:N isn't met. The details in the article are hard to credit - only a handful of major navies would even contemplate a class of 16 frigates, and not the tiny Bangladeshi Navy. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per Kierzek and Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 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 keep in one form or another. I see no policy-based reasons for deletion without at least redirecting/merging. Consensus is slightly in favor or keeping it stand-alone but further discussion at the talk page might lead to a useful merge instead. SoWhy 09:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Australia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nintendo Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see what makes this independently notable. The majority of the article's claims are unsourced, and for the ones that are, they are just a statement they made regarding a game/pricing in the country. None of this makes the division independently notable. I propose we just delete the page, there is nothing important here to even merge that isn't already on the main Nintendo article. Our standards and policies have evolved since the last time this was brought up for deletion in 2008, and many of the arguments there (well sourced and well written) no longer apply. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to me to have sufficient of a life of its own in Australia and Oceania to have its own article. Seems to have sufficient WP:NEXIST to claim GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's the thing, there isn't really any sources that exist that give independent notability to the division. Almost the entirety of the article is just listing Nintendo-related things that happened in Australia and commentary on pricing and distribution in the region (which isn't just a problem for video games). Both of these do not establish independent notability, and the actual notable info could just be included as part of Nintendo's main article, like Nintendo of America/Europe is. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that none of these are sufficient? Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the exact ones that give independent notability? Simply being passively mentioned in an article doesn't make something notable, even if covered by reliable sources. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Nintendo. No evidence of independent notability, appears to fail WP:NCORP. Arguing keep with a rationale of WP:NEXIST requires some proof. Anyone can CLAIM there's sources. Where are they? The existing sourcing isn't good enough, but if you have found something better, please share. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nintendo. An insignificant brand of a notable company. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wow, this is a full-blown article. While in principal merging the info into the Nintendo article would be okay, there is way too much info to be merged into a section in the main article so it would create undue weight there and the main article would become too long. What we do in similar cases is find a reasonable good title and split out the info into a separate "sub" article. So, we'd arrive at basically the same situation we are already in, hence no need to merge in the first place. Just keep and improve it, perhaps splitting out info on other large subsidiaries with their own history into separate articles as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you guys voting to keep are missing the point. The main issue is the lack of independent notability, not the general lack of sourcing and writing in the current article (although those aren't helping). As per my nomination, the majority of the article is just mentioning Nintendo-related things that happened in Australia and commentary on pricing and distribution in the region, which could just as well be applied to Nintendo of Korea and Europe, yet articles for them don't exist due to the same issues raised here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the notability guidelines laid out in WP:CORPDEPTH. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." That seems clearly to have been done here. The article has obviously demonstrated that the sources available make it "possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub." While many of these multiple sources might not be extremely in-depth, they are non-trivial, in that they go beyond the level of the examples of trivial content listed in the guideline linked.Landscape repton (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would someone please take a hatchet to this article's unsourced text, so we can get a fair look? The article is based on asides about "Nintendo in Australia" which, like "Nintendo in X country", should be based in the original article and spun out summary style. Do any sources discuss "Nintendo Australia" as a company with decisions independent of Nintendo & its subsidiaries? Or is the coverage just about sales in the Australia region? For it to warrant a summary style, we'd need to see it in the main article first. My hunch is that the broad sales claims, pared to due weight, would fit just fine in the parent article. This needs a much closer look than has been provided above. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 17:34, 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 speedy delete. Author deleted page RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Series 2[edit]

Series 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no content and should be speedily deleted. Speedy deletion notice was removed. So, I am re-listing it here. Fbdave (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Admittedly it was only created seven hours ago but there is no evidence of any development of the article. If it ever is created properly, it needs a better title. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Before creator blanked the page it seems like a fake Big Brother style article. This isn't the only article like this as the same user created BB S1 and BB S2. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the creator blanking what little content there was, I think we can move this along. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 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 merge to List of regions in Faerûn. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great Dale[edit]

Great Dale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of regions in Faerûn. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High Forest (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

High Forest (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no citations to 3rd party RS. Two sources listed are in-universe, such as "an accessory for the 2nd edition of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. I'll note that K.e.coffman's opinion is not policy based, in that primary sources are perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial content; they just don't count towards notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 08:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Sporting Clube de Portugal season[edit]

2017–18 Sporting Clube de Portugal season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON applies here - the season has not started yet and the article consists of a single sentence. Consensus on these articles is to "not create them until the season starts", if memory serves. GR (Contact me) (See my edits) 20:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 06:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the changeover to a new season is normally regarded as 1 July. Numerous other 2017–18 seasons are already created as any transfers, friendlies etc that now take place are counted for the new season. Article needs expanding, not deleting. Kosack (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article needs expanding, the information on transfers and so is already out there. Kosack explained it best in the !vote above. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge obviously WP:TOOSOON if no content can be derived from reliable sources because nothing has happened yet. Merge to Sporting Clube de Portugal per WP:NSEASONS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the club's entire pre-season schedule is available and they have already played their first friendly. I should imagine the club has made several incoming and outgoing transfers as well. I think it's more a case of the creator not knowing how to expand rather than nothing being available. Kosack (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable and relevant. GiantSnowman 16:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:NSEASONS. Although matches have not started, activity directly impacting the season has occurred (seemingly since the AfD was started). Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:NSEASONS states: "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." Many keep votes seem to think that prose content like this can be created. I want to know whose burden is it to show that this indeed is the case. I think this is analogous to: WP:MUSTBESOURCES. It is not sufficient to simply argue that prose content could be generated. The possibility to create prose content should be demonstrated, conclusively by actually creating prose content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The season has started. Not the competitive matches, sure, but teams are back to work, any news are relative to the 2017-18 season. So keep. - Nabla (talk) 21:40, 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) 19:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Australia bilateral treaties[edit]

Albania–Australia bilateral treaties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

we do not create articles simply for listing bilateral treaties (especially when so few exist between these 2 countries). there aren't even 2 treaties. The second is actually an exchange of notes recognising the original treaty about the same thing. So there is actually only one treaty

It could be merged into the bilateral articles but that is being considered for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania–Australia relations LibStar (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 7 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) Lourdes 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O'Hara's Playboys[edit]

O'Hara's Playboys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band fails WP:NBAND - no hits, no awards, no national tours, no notable band members. Please do not remove this nomination or I will bring the matter to an administrator. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for correcting me on the TV appearances. I did not not see this recent addition to the article.Rogermx (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: On noticing this AfD, I recalled this band from a childhood misspent listening to Radio One (and given their origin, possibly previously on the pirate Radio Scotland). Name familiarity is not notability, of course. Looking for more sources, I can see forums mentioning a serious vehicle crash in Germany in 1962 and their later residence in Sheffield, but not coverage in the reliable sources needed to permit addition to the article under WP:BLP. However, I think the combination of singles and LPs on major labels of the time (Decca, Fontana) and the band's appearances on major TV programmes in both Germany and the UK are enough to make this reasonable for encyclopaedic inclusion. AllyD (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Speedily deleted as a copyvio of the Institute's own "about" page, at the foot of which we're told: "Copyrights to CEQ materials on this website are owned and/or administered by Tulane University" (with no mention of any kind of copyleft). -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commitment to Equity Institute[edit]

Commitment to Equity Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely self-cited, so if it does pass WP:GNG, there's no indication of that on the article. Hard to see there is any content here that couldn't go on Nora Lustig - most of what we have got is straight-up PEACOCKery. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:18, 7 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) 19:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Englander[edit]

Elizabeth Englander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been tagged for notability for 9 years. Autobiography; I don't think it meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A GS h-index of only 10 is inadequate for the highly cited field of pop-psychology: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete. She has one highly cited work, Understanding Violence (review), and her research on bullying and 'sexting' has attracted some media coverage [2][3][4][5]. But I think it's borderline whether that meets the threshold of WP:PROF or the WP:GNG, and given that it's an autobiography that has had unresolved issues for years, I'm leaning towards delete. Maybe someone can have another stab at it in a few years. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citations not high enough for WP:PROF#C1 and the article makes no case for any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Harris[edit]

Jill Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has a WP:TOOSOON vibe to it. Therainbowsend (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (never was listed first time)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiVirusC(talk) 17:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the previous few voice-actor AfDs. No claim of notability; and in fact no prose content at all apart from a one-line description. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draft. WP:TOOSOON indeed. No convention appearances in Animecons.com. The shows in which she has the starring voices are non-notable productions that have not appeared on anything beyond Funimation's own web channel. In other words, they aren't regular shows on Cartoon Network / Adult Swim, broadcast television, or even Netflix / Amazon. One Piece Film Gold, while a notable film, her character isn't even listed among the starring roles so it might as well be considered an additional voice. No secondary RS coverage on the actress herself, only cast announcements. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could locate no reliable sources. Esw01407 (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to draft: Article is not ready for publication. Bio needs to be longer than one line, and all of Jill's roles need to be sourced. I'll gladly work on the draft until it is ready for republication. Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:00, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Google domains[edit]

List of Google domains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Should the project contain a list page where not a single entry has its own article, and the references are either non-independent or links to domain registry databases? The notability guideline for lists suggests no. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:56, 7 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. Alex ShihTalk 11:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China Students abroad[edit]

China Students abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure how to even categorize this. Appears to be a news article, not a Wikipedia article. KDS4444 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it even worth doing that? What would be the point? All that does is create a redirect from a very strangely phrased article title, which I am not sure justifies it. We should not fear deletion for deletion's sake, and limiting the number of searchable article titles is in the interests of the project overall. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. A "merge and delete" could be problematic; I think the article can be deleted under "copyright violations". STSC (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it could be developed into something, but has no value as written. Can be recreated if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 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. Per G12 due to numerous copyvios RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CDM Electronics, Inc.[edit]

CDM Electronics, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references given here are problematic either because they are primary sources or are only trivial mentions/ business listings or come from sources that may not be reliable and independent. That the company exists, I have no doubt... Existence doesn't equal notability, and I am not seeing discussion of the subject in multiple reliable independent verifiable sources. Further, the awards received do not appear to be notable awards. KDS4444 (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD G12. There isn't enough room in the G12 template on Twinkle to list all the urls this article is copying from, but a quick spot check shows that even the stuff that doesn't appear on Earwig is lifted from somewhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 7 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 provided, consensus changed in favor of keeping based on the sources provided. SoWhy 09:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmartPLS[edit]

SmartPLS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful notability. The first two sources cited are to the vendor's own web site, the next two are co-authored by Ringle, a creator of the product. The final two I don't have access to. I've found nothing better. Maproom (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. The Geisser article from 1974 is available through JSTOR; predictably, it doesn't mention this software, and I think it's pretty safe to assume that the other ref from the same year will not mention it either. The four sources written or co-written by the author of the software can be discounted, which leaves nothing … except that this does appear to be independent in-depth coverage of a kind. Alone, it isn't enough. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I forgot to mention that the page is an unambiguous attempt at promotion – and Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the SmartPLS page

  • Note: This comments stems from the co-creator of the SmartPLS page, --Nojokes375 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)— Nojokes375 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • SmartPLS is one the leading software product to conduct PLS path modeling analyses. The product is semi-commercial: SmartPLS 2 is a freeware while SmartPLS is commercial. The software is mostly used in academia and researchers cited the use of the software more than 6,000 times in their articles so far (source: Google Scholar). The page contains general information about the webpage similar to other product pages such as Coca Cola, WarpPLS or SPSS. More specifically, the page explains what the SmartPLS software is and can do; future extensions of the page will include information about the history and additional useful information to describe this important product that supports thousands of researchers. Also, additional explanations and reference to research articles that describe the specific methods and algorithms implemented in the software will be provided.
  • If there is an issue with the citations, this can easily be corrected. The first citations refer to the two different software versions (i.e., the freeware SmartPLS 2 and the commercial product SmartPLS 3) as they are cited in research publications. Citations three and four refer to books that explain the PLS path modeling (or PLS structural equation modeling) method in general. The last two citations are research articles that established the Blindfolding method that has been implemented in SmartPLS.
  • Deletion of the webpage due to some concerns regarding the citations seems harsh and not in line with the Wikipedia deletion policy. If the SmartPLS page violates any Wikipedia regulations from a content point of this can easily be adjusted. But please do not delete the entire page of a software tool that is broadly used by researchers.--Nojokes375 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC), co-reator of the SmartPLS page.[reply]
  • The software is a very often used software by research all over the world. Therefore, it seems good to have some information about SmartPLS in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.193.165.68 (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes with regards to the previous comments:

  • SmartPLS has significant coverage in reliable sources. The following references have been added to the wikipedia page that reference these sources, e.g.:
    • Mühlhaus, Daniel, (2014). Strukturgleichungsmodellierung : eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung in die Kausalanalyse mit Hilfe von AMOS, SmartPLS und SPSS. Springer Gabler. ISBN 9783642350115. OCLC 879744378.
    • Temme, D., Kreis, H., & Hildebrandt, L. (2010). A comparison of current PLS path modeling software: Features, ease-of-use, and performance. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 737-756). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
    • Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1-32.
    • Garson, G. David (2014-02-08). Partial Least Squares Regression and Structural Equation Models: 2016 Edition (in Englisch) (2016 ed.). Statistical Associates Publishers.
  • Besides the publications that are co-authored by one of the developers, but with additional highly regarded researchers from the field:
    • Hair, Joseph F.; Hult, G. Tomas M.; Ringle, Christian M.; Sarstedt, Marko (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Hair, Joseph F.; Sarstedt, Marko; Ringle, Christian M.; Gudergan, Siegfried P. (2018). Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Also some references to the methodological underpinnings of the software have been added.Nojokes375 (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC); co-creator of the SmartPLS page[reply]
  • Comment 1) Do not continue to add bolded !votes: you only may only apply one. 2) who's "we"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But if a software supports/implements/provides a certain algorithm or method, it may be useful, informative and reasonable to cite the research article that explain the algorithm or method. If such useful information and proper way of citation are unwanted in Wikipedia, such citations could be easily removed. The several remaining articles explain and refer to SmartPLS. A link to the Google Scholar results (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=smartpls) that show thousands of research articles discussing and using SmartPLS in their empirical research will be added, as on the WarpPLS page. Nojokes375 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC), co-creator of the SmartPLS page.[reply]
  • Comment The references you've added above appear to be more for Partial Least Squares Path Modeling, which was deleted for copyright reasons. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though the first page has been deleted, a corrected and improved version of the partial least squares path modeling page exists for a long time on Wikipeda. --Nojokes375 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC), co-creator of the SmartPLS page.[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete

  • SmartPLS is the standard software for running PLS-PM analyses, a method that has gained vast dissemination in the social sciences (see: Hair, Joseph F.; Hult, G. Tomas M.; Ringle, Christian M.; Sarstedt, Marko (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.). Prior versions of the site that seem to have promoted the software have been revised. I don't ssee much difference between this site and other sites on statistical softwares like SPSS and SAS (software). Similar issues have been discussed for Stata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stata) but the site has not been considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.200.70 (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can provide references to multipage reviews of several versions of Stata in published magazines (eg. PC Mag), could you say the same about SmartPLS? Pavlor (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Do NOT delete" this page - SmartPLS is also the software that is the backbone for a just published book on advances in PLS-SEM modelling (Hair, J., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M. & Gudergan, S. 2017, Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), SAGE.) such that a specially dedicated, objective site defining key elements is of benefit to the PLS-SEM community. Specifically, because there is a key emphasis on methodological advances on this site, keeping it would be rather beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.62.162.186 (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Do not delete: This is a very helpful wikipedia entry providing you with relevant information on PLS and on one of the key tools to use as an empirical researcher applying PLS-SEM. In light of deciding upon which software to apply, the information provided here is of high use and has high academic quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfg77 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have this AfD page on my watchlist for some time and I must say I never saw so many obvious SPA editors in single discussion, until now. I see they have no idea, how AfD works and how futile their desperate attempts are. However, I´m willing to review sources and base my "vote" on their content. Please, could some of the "Do not delete" editors highlight two best sources about subject of the article (eg. reviews of SmartPLS software)? Pavlor (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist: Please discuss which specific sources address the topic in depth, not mere mentions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 19:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Number of mentions is irrelevant. In depth coverage in reliable sources is what you need to prove notability of SmartPLS for inclusion in Wikipedia. Eg. article (not only short news) about SmartPLS in published/online magazine (not blog or similar self-published media) written by someone not affiliated to SmartPLS would be such source. Pavlor (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even tough the high number of peer reviewd (top-level) journal articles that use SmartPLS substantiates the relevance of the software in academia, it's certainly the content of these article. Alternatively, to find hundred of article, use a full text search in JSTOR, EBSCO, or ABI/INFORM. But you find examples of what your are asking for here
- Garson, G. David (2014). Partial Least Squares Regression and Structural Equation Models: 2016 Edition (in Englisch) (2016 ed.). Statistical Associates Publishers.
- Weiber, Rolf; Mühlhaus, Daniel (2014). Strukturgleichungsmodellierung : eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung in die Kausalanalyse mit Hilfe von AMOS, SmartPLS und SPSS. Springer Gabler. ISBN 9783642350115. OCLC 879744378.
- Temme, D., Kreis, H., & Hildebrandt, L. (2010). A comparison of current PLS path modeling software: Features, ease-of-use, and performance. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 737-756). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
- Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1-32.. Nojokes375 (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even though not included in the Wikipedia pages: You find plenty on YouTube tutorials explaining in-depth the statistical methods and how you can apply them by using SmartPLS (e.g., the vidoes by James Gaskin: https://www.youtube.com/user/Gaskination/videos)
Some pointers to text passage where you feel the text is "inobjective" would also be helpful. Since this is not promotional page but an objective source of information that is particular relevant to academic users of the PLS method and the software, changes where doubts in the objectivity of the text exist could be easily made by the Wikipeda community (and would be more constructive than simply posting "spam").Nojokes375 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube tutorials? You must be joking... My brief review of the four sources you provided:
  • Garson, G. David (2014)
(now) free textbook (ebook) by professor of North Carolina State University; published by him; author seems to be independent on smartpls company (no obvious association).
However, although this ebook is mostly devoted to smartpls, its form of publication makes this somewhat weak source.
  • Weiber, Rolf; Mühlhaus, Daniel (2014)
Ebook by University of Trier professors; published by Springer Gabler (solid German publisher); authors seem to be independent on smartpls company.
Solid coverage of SmartPLS. Although Christian M. Ringle (author of SmartPLS) was contacted for advice on this book, I think it is still subject independent source and good one.
  • Temme, D., Kreis, H., & Hildebrandt, L. (2010)
20 pages article by professors of German Universities; published by Springer (solid German publisher); authors seem to be independent on smartpls company.
I don´t see the article (behind pay-wall), but I hope it contains at least one page about SmartPLS (assume good faith...). Probably good RS.
  • Wong, K. K. K. (2013)
Article in online journal (of New Zealand), which claims peer reviewed admission (20 % acceptance rate), I can´t verify this; author is Assistant professor on Ted Rogers School of Management (Ryerson University, Canada), seems to be independent on smartpls company.
If this is really OK journal, it may be good source. Otherwise not.
Conclusion: At least two of these are reliable sources for Wikipedia, one (Weiber, Rolf; Mühlhaus, Daniel (2014)) offers really broad coverage of SmartPLS. I think this is enough to prove notability of SmartPLS for inclusion in Wikipedia. Pavlor (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If these are your sources, and only one article is enough to become Encyclopedic notable content, then you should read more about notability guidelines. Wikipedia will be filled with News paper articles. this is not a News Paper or journal. Light2021 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, several pages written by university professors and published by respected publishing house certainly aren´t comparable to "churnalism" we so dislike. Pavlor (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again you prove the point and even by your own analysis, a software published in journal? how that is relevant for Wikipedia? this is not journal, let them be there at their place, why we need a Wikipedia page for that?Light2021 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this kind of journal is considered strong source for Wikipedia... Pavlor (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pavlor: you have asked me to comment, so I will. The first three sources you mention above are books which I don't have access to. But your citations give URLs which are to advertisements for those books, which may confuse readers as to what you are actually citing. The "Wong" source is to a document titled "Marketing Bulletin", which is most unlikely to be independent. None of those four sources is actually cited in support of any statement; references which are not there to support a statement in the article probably ought to be deleted. Maproom (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Not having access is not a good argument; also questioning that Marketing Bulletin is an independent journal. Those four sources substantiate that SmartPLS is a globally accepted standard software. And again, there are very many articles in prestigious journals (see this long list on Google Scholat, https://www.google.de/search?tbm=bks&hl=de&q=smartpls, or conduct a full text search for "SmartPLS" in JSTOR, EBSCO, or ABI/INFORM) , many hardcover books the company is not affiliated with (see https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=SmartPLS), and also some dedicated software reviews from neutral scientists that compare SmartPLS with other software solutions (take this one as an example: oder http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2006-084.pdf). Nojokes375 (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC), co-creator of the SmartPLS page.[reply]
@Maproom: Thanks for comment. When I saw "Marketing Bulletin" I had exactly the same idea in mind as you. However, I found other papers cite this journal, so it isn´t probably pure marketing device - their webpage is here: [6] I can´t verify their claims and I have no experience in this field of study to judge this journal. As of the other books, the two published by German publisher Springer/Gabler are without doubt reliable sources in Wikipedia sense. Here are their entries on the publisher´s webpage (with introduction and summary of content): [7], [8]. You are right these sources really aren´t used in the article to reference its content. I will try to get access to them, but the article will be probably already deleted at that time... Pavlor (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More generally – I see an attempt to vote more than once, and a vote by an editor whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been attempts to push this product. This will leave other editors with a general impression of scamminess. Maproom (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: We have learned that this exchange of arguments is not about "voting". Again, the page is not about pushing a product. It provides information in an objective way about a software that is relevant in academia and for thousands of researchers. At some point the page has been set-up with detailed expert information and knowledge; other Wikipedia editors contributed in the past. Thereby, the objectivity and the content have been subject to continuous change and improvement in the spirit of Wikipedia. Nojokes375 (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC), co-creator of the SmartPLS page.[reply]
clear Conflict of Interest: I am co-creator of the SmartPLS page and this is very important to keep my page on wikipedia. is this even a point? Light2021 (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that your very actions in this discussion will lead to deletion of the article about your software? I´m convinced SmartPLS is notable piece of software (with published articles and books fully devoted to it), but your blatant disregard for nearly all Wikipedia "rules" really doesn´t help your cause. Pavlor (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: COI is not a reason for deletion, nor is "many people use this" a reason for keeping. If there are sources dedicated to discussing this software, that can be a reason to keep. Relisting to see if others accept the latest sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks notability even if sources could be established as viable. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pavlor (talk · contribs)'s analysis of the sources, which I quote below since it is hard to find in the above text:

    My brief review of the four sources you provided:

    • Garson, G. David (2014)
    (now) free textbook (ebook) by professor of North Carolina State University; published by him; author seems to be independent on smartpls company (no obvious association).
    However, although this ebook is mostly devoted to smartpls, its form of publication makes this somewhat weak source.
    • Weiber, Rolf; Mühlhaus, Daniel (2014)
    Ebook by University of Trier professors; published by Springer Gabler (solid German publisher); authors seem to be independent on smartpls company.
    Solid coverage of SmartPLS. Although Christian M. Ringle (author of SmartPLS) was contacted for advice on this book, I think it is still subject independent source and good one.
    • Temme, D., Kreis, H., & Hildebrandt, L. (2010)
    20 pages article by professors of German Universities; published by Springer (solid German publisher); authors seem to be independent on smartpls company.
    I don´t see the article (behind pay-wall), but I hope it contains at least one page about SmartPLS (assume good faith...). Probably good RS.
    • Wong, K. K. K. (2013)
    Article in online journal (of New Zealand), which claims peer reviewed admission (20 % acceptance rate), I can´t verify this; author is Assistant professor on Ted Rogers School of Management (Ryerson University, Canada), seems to be independent on smartpls company.
    If this is really OK journal, it may be good source. Otherwise not.
    Conclusion: At least two of these are reliable sources for Wikipedia, one (Weiber, Rolf; Mühlhaus, Daniel (2014)) offers really broad coverage of SmartPLS. I think this is enough to prove notability of SmartPLS for inclusion in Wikipedia.
    I found a copy of the Wong article at http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/v24/mb_v24_t1_wong.pdf. The article discusses SmartPLS extensively so this is another reliable source that establishes notability.

    I found a copy of the Temme source at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirk_Temme/publication/227133606_A_Comparison_of_Current_PLS_Path_Modeling_Software_Features_Ease-of-Use_and_Performance/links/5729ec7508aef5d48d30aa62/A-Comparison-of-Current-PLS-Path-Modeling-Software-Features-Ease-of-Use-and-Performance.pdf, where SmartPLS is mentioned 31 times. Here is a paragraph about it:

    SmartPLS: Since SmartPLS (Ringle et al., 2005) is Java-based, it is inde- pendent from the user’s operating system. Again, only raw data can be analyzed. The model is specified by drawing the structural model for the latent variables and by assigning the indicators to the latent variables via “drag & drop” (see lower panel in Figure 3). The output is provided in HTML, Excel or Latex format, as well as a parameterized path model. Bootstrapping and blindfolding are the resampling methods available. Like in VisualPLS, the specification of interaction effects is supported. A spe- cial feature of SmartPLS is the finite mixture routine (FIMIX) (see Chap- ter ??). Such an option might be of interest if unobserved heterogeneity is expected in the data (McLachlan and Peel, 2000)

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 05:44, 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) 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netfolder Production[edit]

Netfolder Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable company. Sourcing is thin at best with none of the cited references actually referring to the company itself. The documentary films mentioned appear to be obscure, unremarkable, and nearly unwatched. This appears to be an "autobiography", too, in the sense that the name of the user that created the article matches the name of a principal member of the company. Peacock (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG as there are no non-incidental mentions that are independent. Hazarasp (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Hall[edit]

Connor Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Young footballer who has not played in fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE Quentin X (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:01, 8 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) 19:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Quinncroft[edit]

Billy Quinncroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taking this to AfD as it has been A7'd, recreated, PROD'd, recreated, and is now being BLP PROD'd. Quinncroft plays for a semi-pro league that doesn't qualify him for WP:NFOOTY, flat out. He also doesn't qualify for WP:GNG by other means.

On top of that, this latest incarnation is by Footballagent123, which is a username that just screams undisclosed conflict of interest to me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all reasons above, plus is an unref blp. Seems to need a WP:SALT too. Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 06:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:00, 8 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 Kookaburra Sport. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kookaburra bats[edit]

Kookaburra bats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be a copy of some of Kookaburra Sport and provides no extra useful information. Spike 'em (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice thought, but there is nothing original in this page (well there was one sentence which I deleted as POV) to merge. A straight redirect will suffice. Spike 'em (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I suggested a smerge - that way if there is anything better written you keep it. I'd have used that as a way of avoiding an AfD and getting the job done quicker... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
smerge? Not seen that before, I think this is my 1st attempt at starting an AfD. Spike 'em (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe 'Short Merge'. Will be better if BST clears you. Greenbörg (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - there's nothing here worth keeping. In general there's no need to bring such things to AfD - a simple redirection with a note on the talk page is all that's needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge any left overs not already covered to Kookaburra Sport. Not separately notable although I would have used "kookaburra bat" as a search term before I would have used the term "kookaburra sport". Aoziwe (talk) 13:36, 8 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. as per WP:SKCRIT#6. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Caracas helicopter attack[edit]

2017 Caracas helicopter attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This "attack" resulted in absolutely nothing. This is not what Wikipedia is about Holy Goo (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep in one form or another. Even the delete !vote and nomination do not explain why this has to be deleted completely when a potential merge/redirect target exists. So there is no policy-based reason mentioned for outright deletion while there is no consensus whether to keep as a separate article or as a redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2012 but that can be discussed at the talk page. SoWhy 08:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WASP-56[edit]

WASP-56 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NASTCRIT, not notable. See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Time_for_at_least_a_one-liner_about_exoplanets.3F where it was realised that this object was not notable. I couldn't find any published research specifically about this star, only general catalogue listings, and a single paper reporting the discovery of three planets, one of them in orbit about this star. Lithopsian (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - my personal opinion anyway as we can construct a decent picture for the reader from information within the 8 references that have data on the star and its planet. Wikipedia has articles on many thousands of small towns with the same or less information available so I am not fussed about the number of stars with exoplanets now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Clearly fails WP:NASTCRIT - indeed I added it to that guideline as an example of a non-notable exoplanet before discovering that this article existed under another title. I spent an hour on NASA ADS, the Exoplanets Encyclopaedia, SIMBAD etc. hunting for sources on either the star or the exoplanet. The only discussion I could find was in the planet's discovery paper, where it is briefly presented as one of three newly detected exoplanets, but found to be unremarkable. No other commentary anywhere, just entries in tables. No attention in the popular media. What (very) little is known about this system is not only uninteresting but also not notable for our purposes. The article creator (Casliber) has been asked to provide sources demonstrating notability several times, but nothing has been forthcoming. Modest Genius talk 12:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I'd argue that the Faedi paper actually goes into a fair bit of detail about the system. More than many star systems we have articles on. And there are seven other papers that mention or examine the system, most of which is/are brief mentions I concede. Thing is, based on reliable, sourced information we can construct an article that is more than stubby. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are, at best, a few paragraphs specifically about this object in the Faedi et al paper. But a) they only describe a few basic observational properties, which could be used to fill out an infobox and little more; and b) as the discoverers of this object, they do not constitute 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the scientist(s) who discovered the object' (right at the top of WP:NASTRO). For your other comments, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies, and you keep saying that a more substantial article could be written, but the article has not been expanded in any way and nor have you pointed to the sources that would be required to do so. Even if a start-class article could be written, that still wouldn't satisfy the notability concerns. Modest Genius talk 19:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2012, at least until it is covered by more publications. Praemonitus (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have one good reference that has significant content. Searching, there are also other reliable references that have small amounts. There are also several tertiary type database sites that list this object. Overall Wikipedia is better off if we have such an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please point us to the other references? None are cited in the article, and I was unable to find any other sources that had more than an entry in a table. Modest Genius talk 10:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:06, 7 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. Obvious spam, creator reblocked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dasaran Educational Program[edit]

Dasaran Educational Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG and written like a advert . Possible case of conflict of interest as article was created by a username "DasaranEd". Probably a self promotion exercise. RazerTalk 09:27, 7 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 Complete Vocal Institute#Complete Vocal Technique.  Sandstein  10:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Vocal Technique[edit]

Complete Vocal Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Queried speedy delete as advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for changes to meet WP standards on non-advertisement rather than deletion:

  • Change introduction to reflect relevant aspects of the techniques more so than the development of the technique by the founding author, which can instead be developed into a 'History of CVT' section on its own
  • Reference the peer-reviewed articles from the academic journal JVOICE (Journal of Voice) where several articles have been published on Complete Vocal Technique, some by the owner of CVT, and some by non-affiliated researchers from other universities around the world (see an example here: [1] and another here [2] and another one here [3]
  • Reference the abundance of internationally acclaimed conferences in which CVT is being presented and discussed by non-CVI affiliated researchers and vocal coaches [4]
  • Change references to the educations in CVT into is own section with references to multiple companies offering such courses in various countries of the world
  • Reference the number of thesis work done by PhD students around the world. See for instance [5] as an example from the University of Vienna of Classical Singing.
  • Since CVT has become the largest agreed-upon method of vocal teaching in the world (at least comparing the amount of teachers of CVT to the amount of teachers from other methods such as Estill (EVT), Speech-Level singing (SLS), etc.) and should be represented on Wikipedia. Currently CVT accounts for 390 Authorised CVT Teachers [6] from 41 countries as compared to 240 from EVT with varying levels of method proficiency [7], and 21 from SLS with varying levels of method proficiency [8]

@Anthony Appleyard I only see one section in which you marked the CVT page as advertisement, which was the first section mentioning the founder of the technique. If this was written from a neutral point of view pr. WP guidelines §2.1.11 and placed as a section on the 'History of CVT', would this warrant not deleting the page? MathiasAaenThuesen (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.jvoice.org/article/S0892-1997(16)30218-1/fulltext
  2. ^ http://www.jvoice.org/article/S0892-1997(16)30414-3/pdf
  3. ^ http://www.jvoice.org/article/S0892-1997(16)30509-4/pdf
  4. ^ http://cvtresearch.com/conferences/
  5. ^ http://othes.univie.ac.at/26150/
  6. ^ https://completevocal.institute/find-a-teacher/
  7. ^ https://www.estillvoice.com/instructors/search/page:12
  8. ^ https://teachers.speechlevelsinging.com/index.php/directory_search/az_users/
  • At 01:10, 6 March 2017‎ User:69.165.196.103 tagged it as {{db-advert}}. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement in its current state. Query to MathiasAaenThuesen: Are you connected with the institute? If you have a conflict of interest, it should be declared sooner rather than later. --Finngall talk 18:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to Finngall: Thanks for reaching out on a talk, very helpful! I am a PhD student conducting a research project on CVT/CVI and a co-author on some of the recent published academic articles on the techniques. If possible, I am happy to receive the original text, correct/edit it, and send it to an editor for proof-reading (and check for neutral tone). MathiasAaenThuesen (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unsourced original research. Wikipedia already has an article on Complete Vocal Institute; there's no need for two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:02, 7 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. SoWhy 08:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3N170[edit]

3N170 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The prod was denied for - "Widely used part, frequently used as subject in research papers, and at least four manufacturers all point towards notability." Being widely used and having four manufacturers is irrelevant to the notability guideline. I saw some research papers while searching, but those were trivial mentions and no papers were solely or mostly solely devoted to this product. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article reads more like an ad than a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TH1980: Unless you think this is a WP:G11 situation, the article can be improved to address this issue and deletion is not required. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Some electronic components are so ubiquitous that they become the go to part for that particular application. Examples are the 555 timer and the 1N4001 rectifier. I'm not sure that this transistor has quite risen to that, but multiple simultaneous manufacturers are certainly an indication of widespread popularity. That is not proof of notability of course, but it is a strong indication, certainly enough to decline a prod. SL93 is also wrong that all the research papers are trivial mentions. This study for instance, looked at thermal modelling of MOSFETs. The characteristics of two transistors were studied in depth, one of which was the 3N170, so we can say that half the paper is directly about the item. SpinningSpark 20:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple manufacturers over many years is good evidence of notability in this field. Here are a couple more references [9], [10]. This product has been around for over 30 years so many sources are going to be offline. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim to notability. How is this part different than any other? The article doesn't say, and the only references are primary sources. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable computer part; no encyclopedic relevance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I second SpinningSpark. The product may be notable. The current article says almost nothing. My memory is dim, but discrete small signal MOSFETs were a big innovation. There were lots of (by necessity depletion mode) JFETs around (U310 IGSS < 150 pA, MPF102, 2N4416) with substrate connected to source. Enhancement mode MOSFETs with no gate protection became available, and ultra high DC impedance amplifiers (electrometer#Solid-state electrometers) were possible (don't use a socket; Teflon standoffs; cleaning required). Parts came with shorting wires because it was easy to destroy the gate insulator; parts were soldered into the circuit and then the shorting wire was removed. ESD conscious assembly became a big thing; floor mats and wrist straps. Then diode protected gates were introduced to allow MOSFETs with less trouble (but higher gate current). I cannot tell if the 3N128 (depletion MOSFET) has gate protection. It may be that the 3N170 was one of the first devices with gate protection. In looking at Google, a book covering ESD tests single out the device: "One exception was the VGS threshold changes in the 3N170 MOSFET."[11] If it is one of the first gate-protected MOSFETs, then there would be print media descriptions in Electronics and Electronic Design ca middle 1960s (and possibly not online). The MOSFET article does not address gate-protection. Another article addresses radiation dosing. A DTIC article considers it as single-supply voltage comparator in a point-detonating fuze. The device was made by many manufactures and could be notable, so I would not delete it. Glrx (talk) 06:20, 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 keep. SoWhy 08:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zambian Breweries[edit]

Zambian Breweries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no 3rd party evidence of notability. Unwisely accepted draft DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – GBooks and GNews links above are providing some sources, such as [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. More are readily available. North America1000 08:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significantly sized (market cap USD$376 million) public company manufacturing widely distributed consumer products. Most public companies are assumed notable partly because the regulatory filings and financial media create enough reliable sources and significant coverages. In this case the compamy is one of 22 listed on Zambia's leading stock exchange and there is the sourced statement "The company has a virtual monopoly on clear brew products in Zambia" plus they are the Coca-Cola bottler in Zambia which is likely pretty big business. It would be hard to spend much time in Zambia without enriching Zambrew with that kind of market power. Legacypac (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have focussed on content addition and admit I understand little of administrative functions of Wikipedia. How does a publicly listed company raise a red flag on the system as a non-notable company? It most certainly has larger production volumes than Bass Brewery and Dogfish Head Brewery and has 2% growth in beer volumes. &Brewt@lk 08:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless you can say why it is NOT notable! &Brewt@lk 09:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 08:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Dorsa[edit]

James Dorsa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a composer and musician, which makes no claim that he passes WP:NMUSIC for anything. As written this just states that he exists, and then contextlessly linkfarms a pile of primary source verifications of the fact without showing a single shred of reliable source coverage in media at all. Creator also claimed at the time, both in their edit summary and on the talk page, that they would continue working on the article -- but they have never actually touched it again since the original creation on May 6. In truth this is technically speediable, but this is a followup recreation after the first attempt was speedied, so escalating it to AFD was necessary. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  15:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  15:57, 21 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 01:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:41, 7 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. SoWhy 08:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Bennett (actor, born 1980)[edit]

Jack Bennett (actor, born 1980) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG; Article has been tagged for 6 months with a notability and 1 source tag and nothing has been added. A search throws up nothing of note. Domdeparis (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  15:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  15:43, 21 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 01:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with no prejudice against recreation if better sourcing can be found. Unfortunately, due to the relatively common name, I couldn't find sourcing on this actor. Being mostly on stage, he's not going to garner the same attention as someone on film or tv, but I don't know if the plays he was in were first run, or he was a replacement. Couldn't find enough to show he passes WP:GNG, and the article doesn't indicate he passes WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 01:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:41, 7 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triveni Sangam Bahuguna[edit]

Triveni Sangam Bahuguna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and there is nothing to indicate they pass WP:NACTOR either. Onel5969 TT me 15:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:52, 21 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 01:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – fails WP:GNG. The subject's name is Sangam Bahuguna. He is a non-notable regional theater director who happened to play a minor role in the Youngistaan film. As one of the film's leading actor (Farooq Sheikh) died shortly after finishing its shooting, a newspaper conducted Bahuguna's interview to know a bit about the last days of the deceased actor. Other than that, there's a couple of articles which discuss two plays directed by Bahuguna – [19] & [20]. I also searched Hindi newspapers, but I could only find this article of Hindustan (newspaper), which gives details of a play directed by him. All of these four sources give a passing mention of the subject. So, there's nothing here for a stand-alone article. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on an actor/director. The given references are very poor (listings) and do not support the claims in the article. My searches are not finding better and I also note the thorough analysis by NitinMlk above. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 10:44, 7 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. SoWhy 08:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon Smith[edit]

Lyon Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a voice actor, which just asserts that he exists, lists roles and sources them only to IMDb and another IMDb-style voice actor database, without showing any evidence of reliable source coverage about him at all. As always, every working actor in existence does not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed — he must be the subject of reliable source coverage about him to pass the notability standard for actors. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:NACTOR. I could not locate reliable secondary sources that establish notability for the subject. Comatmebro (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 22 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 01:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:36, 7 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) 19:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chestney[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kim Chestney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This scrapes over the CCS bar in my view, but still fails GNG. GoldenRing (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: She's probably as notable for being a trivial crime victim or NN psychic as anything else (which is not much). Note that this article has been repeatedly hammered by WP:SPA editors trying to promote the subject as well as the CREATE festival, and has been recreated after the previous AFD result of DELETE. Toddst1 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:34, 29 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) 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the article talk page, the current article was published during a Women in Red edit-a-thon (or two) in March-April 2016 and has been worked on by numerous editors since. References indicate WP:BASIC met. Hmlarson (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this lend support to a keep? I see that you have canvassed for this AfD [21]. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:GNG based upon the standard of coverage in multiple, independent third-party publications. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence of notability. Most of the sources cited aren't independent, being based on interviews with her; the rest don't mention her. Maproom (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Sources are not adequate to support WP:GNG or WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Rather than deleting the entire article, some of the details could be usefully included in Three Rivers Arts Festival.--Ipigott (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Current sourcing is either trivial mentions, or non-secondary sources, or aren't about her at all. Searches turned up nothing of the significant in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 01:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Ipigott's merge proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 07:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AfD has been canvassed [22] [23]. Some of the editors canvassed, including myself, have contributed to this AfD. I see no reason to change my vote. There is nothings to stop edits of Three Rivers Arts Festival but the BLP is meritless and should be salted to stop further recreation. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • I tried the find the non-neutral canvassing of this Afd in the links provided, but I can't see it. The Women in Red notice is a plain, neutral notice. Could you point out the canvassing in a diff? Thanks! 104.163.153.14 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[24]. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, I see it now, thanks.104.163.153.14 (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable person doing a regular promotional job in the arts. The achievements here are run of the mill, and the article serves as promotion. The sources are weak, and puffed up to make her look a lot bigger than she actually is. The use of the term 'artist' is also suspect as there appears to be little professional recognition for her art.104.163.153.14 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly doesn't meet BLP based on a surface reading of the Wikipedia page. I'm not certain CREATE Festival is a notable part of Three Rivers Arts Festival. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt per WP:NOTPROMOTION, the extensive WP:CANVASSING, and the failure to meet WP:GNG. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:24, 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) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Union (Kentucky) Bulldogs football[edit]

Union (Kentucky) Bulldogs football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:NSPORT. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Technically this article cannot fail WP:NSPORT since that guideline "does not cover sports teams". More importantly, a cursory examination at Newspapers.com shows consistent, varied coverage of this subject in reliable notable periodicals. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have specified that the subject doesn't meet any notability criteria including GNG. Also, any coverage you could provide is going to run into WP:ROUTINE. I meant to say that NSPORT doesn't have a carve-out for this subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sports team and part of a college program.  WP:ROUTINE applies to the notability of events, whereas the policy for inclusion of sources is WP:Verifiability.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. I'm generally skeptical about the notability of NAIA football programs, and when I learned about this AfD figured I'd find little or no coverage of the type needed under WP:GNG. I found that the program dates back more than 100 years and has received a fair amount of coverage: 2,680 hits on newspapers.com for ("union college" football barbourville). Didn't find anything in depth on the program. Examples of the coverage include (1) 1905 article about the first football game here; (2) 1928 article about a Union player having his chest crushed in a game here; (3) 1928 article from The Courier-Journal here; (4) 1930 article from The Cincinnati Enquirer here; (5) 1938 article from The Cincinnati Enquirer here; (6) 1938 article from the Chicago Tribune about the death of a Union football player here; and (7) 1942 article about decision to terminate program during WWI here. If more extensive coverage were to be found, I could be persuaded to switch to "keep". Cbl62 (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kobra98 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the coverage offered above is routine, as in: "1928 article about a Union player having his chest crushed in a game" etc. This is not in-depth coverage about the program itself, and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Routine" is a consideration for events, and this is not an event.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "program itself", if the death of one of its players that gave national coverage to the program is not about the program?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage is far beyond score listings with feature articles. This is clearly WP:NOTROUTINE coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  100 years of source coverage; and there are other articles on Wikipedia that cover this topic, so under policy there is no theoretical possibility that there is anything to consider with a deletion nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 100 years of significant coverage is more than enough. Smartyllama (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Skew towards keep.But a relisting would be good!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:36, 7 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 Lists of Transformers characters. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 19:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horrorcons[edit]

Horrorcons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not established for this article. TTN (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons, although Transformers (comics)#The Transformers: Headmasters, Marvel, U.S., 1987–1988 may also be appropriate. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect name only to List of Decepticons. There's nothing to merge as the content is largely uncited original research; what's cited is trivia sourced to in-universe publications and other unsuitable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 8 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 all three. If any of them is actually non-notable, merging/redirecting per WP:NALBUM should be considered before renominating. SoWhy 08:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Escapades (Azealia Banks song)[edit]

Escapades (Azealia Banks song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


The Big Big Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ice Princess (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasons: These songs establish no notability whatsoever. A few sources covering the song's release or a music video's release don't mean notability. Any details of music videos could be handled in Azealia Banks videography. These fail WP:NSONGS among possibly others.--Coglo1 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Escapades", it has now been released and has received coverage in reliable, third party sources (i.e. Spin, Billboard, XXL).--Wizardofoz30 13:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, "Escapades" should be deleted for now. As for the other two; they certainly have reliable, notable, independent coverage. --Aleccat 13:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep for "The Big Big Beat" and "Ice Princess" as they have both received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Sources covering the song's release and its related music actually does connect with notability as it shows that the subject matter received coverage. Redirect "Escapades to Azealia Banks discography as that one does not meet the notability standards, but a redirect seems more appropriate than a complete delete. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just wanted to comment that the nominator has been blocked indefinitely after being confirmed as a sock puppet. I am not 100% sure on how that would affect this nomination for deletion, but I would imagine this should be withdrawn considering this piece of news. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Big Big Beat and Ice Princess are kept.Any further discussion may only be related to Escapades (Azealia Banks song).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 09:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:14, 7 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 A.C. Cesena. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Cesena in European football[edit]

A.C. Cesena in European football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of a series of articles along these same lines, all very poorly sourced. None of which even suggest the notability of these particular games as a list. Seems to be the very essence of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Onel5969 TT me 14:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - in my view, it doesn't. But WP:OSE isn't a very valid argument. Onel5969 TT me 15:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How did I know you were going to quote that? The problem with that is if you're deleting this, but not the other stuff, what's the point at all? This is another matter in itself. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:MULTIAFD. Onel5969 TT me 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Precedent with the other articles seems to be these are notable. If people disagree, the solution is not to pick them off one by one, it's to establish consensus that this type of article in general is not notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, actually Smartyllama, if you read WP:MULTIAFD, the suggested procedure is to have a discussion on one, and see where it leads, then do a multiple AfD. Other than your WP:OSE argument, do you have a policy based reason for keeping this article? Thanks for considering. Onel5969 TT me 23:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it seems more in order that the article be improved rather than deleted. I see absolutely no reason why it should be deleted, it is notable enough for an article. Italia2006 (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How is this different from the main article on the club? Totally unwarranted stub. What possible additional content would it have? DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Perhaps a summary of their time first time in European football and how they fared, as well as the addition of any future European matches they may take part in. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - normally I'd err on the side of caution and say that the article needs improvement and not deletion, but since this club only participated once in European leagues what can realistically be done to have this article expanded. No comment on similar article but for this one at least all the information can just as adequately be contained in the main club article. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would not be opposed to keeping article as a redirect as explained in the two !votes bellow. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to section on main article, but keep as possible search term, similar to Bradford City A.F.C. in European football. GiantSnowman 06:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge and redirect. Include the match results in prose in the bit in the main article about qualifying for the UEFA Cup and the glory being short-lived. There's nowhere near enough content to warrant a spinoff from a main article that's less than 6kb readable prose. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to Delete: not convinced the article title is a likely search term. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's only one entry in this list and it could be easily merged into the A.C. Cesena article. – PeeJay 14:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per PeeJay and per nom Spiderone 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per GiantSnowman's solution. This is a classic example of an article which doesn't (at present, pending any "golden era" at the club in question) need to be spun out from the main article on the club. There's bound to be a point where a list of European campaigns by a given team over time merits its own article, but I'll hazard the opinion that one individual tie isn't that point and leave the question for those with more knowledge in another venue. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - they have played two matches in European competition, there is simply no need for a fork of such a small amount of content. I have already copied this section to the main club article. Fenix down (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I with Struway2 on this, I really don't see many people searching for Cesena in Europe considering they have had very little of it. Govvy (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect As the article is way too short in my opinion, I feel like that this deserve a redirect as this can be merged into A.C. Cesena article not its own seperate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt294069 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to FCI Tallinn. While Smartyllama makes a compelling argument for keeping the article, it's clear that editors who have commented on this Afd (post Smartyllama's comments) have tended towards a consensus of redirect. Hence, redirecting this article and am closing this Afd. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 19:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infonet Lasnamäe Stadium[edit]

Infonet Lasnamäe Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was No indication this stadium meets WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per GiantSnowman. Agree it's a reasonable search term, but there's no indication it meets WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC) I didn't realize that virtually every First Division side in the entire world has an article. Changing vote to Keep. If nominator believes first division stadiums are not inherently notable, picking them off one by one is not the solution. Start an RfC or something. Thanks to GrimRob for pointing this out. Smartyllama (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. My issue is with this article, and this article only. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So this article, and this article alone, out of the thousands of articles about first division soccer stadiums everywhere in the world, should be deleted? Is that seriously what you're saying. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding. Smartyllama (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you're misunderstanding is that I'm not arguing the notability of this subject in relation to others, but on own merits alone. Whether or not other similar subjects have received significant coverage, has no bearing on the fact that this one has not. There's a reason that other stuff exists (or doesn't exist) is one of the explicitly enumerated arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify why you don't think a stadium in the capital city of a European country for the 2016 champions is noteworthy? GrimRob —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the nomination, there is no indication this stadium has received significant coverage, meaning it does not meet the general notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every significant football team has a separate page for their ground, and it's in the template for a football team. GrimRob —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - a plausible search term, I have already migrate the small amount of content there. Fenix down (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge the few bits about stadium capacity, being 600 with 100 standing ect, At the moment it says on the club article a capacity of 500. It's really not necessary with so little information to be on it's own article, when a stadium merits it's own article it must be a fair size, have historical importance and a contribution to a wider community. Govvy (talk) 18:50, 8 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) Nördic Nightfury 06:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeshore Road[edit]

Lakeshore Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article about a municipal arterial road in a suburban city (memo to Ontarians: this is Lakeshore-Mississauga, not Lakeshore-Toronto), whose only discernible claims of notability per our notability standard for roads are that it happens to be (a) the direct continuation of a road with the same name in the next city over (see "memo to Ontarians" above), and (b) formerly part of a defunct provincial highway. Neither of these are claims of notability that guarantee a road a Wikipedia article in and of themselves, and the sourcing here isn't helping to get it over WP:GNG: the references are almost entirely to unreliable self-published roadgeek hobbyist websites and/or primary sources such as maps and local historical societies -- and the few sources that are actually reliable ones are not about this road, but just glancingly verify its existence in the "part of a longer entity" contexts I pointed out above. This is simply not what it takes to get the road a standalone article as a separate topic from Ontario Highway 2. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lakeshore Road doesn't run just though Mississauga; it runs all the way to Burlington, and also doesn't technically have the same name. Nor is it completely synonymous with Highway 2, as part of it was Hwy. 8. Also, the history and former street railway service along it makes it well beyond the scope of the Ontario Highway 2 article. Kingston Road is also a former part of Hwy. 2, and it hasn't been nominated for deletion. If users think the article isn't worthy of its own article, maybe it could be merged with the Lake Shore Boulevard article. --User:Transportfan70
Running through two suburban municipalities is not, in and of itself, a stronger notability claim than running through just one — and "was part of two highways" isn't a stronger notability claim than "was part of one highway" either. What gets a road into Wikipedia is reliable sourcing that supports a reason why it would qualify for an article. And while Kingston Road certainly has a problematic and not especially well-sourced article as well, you need to be cautious about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments: that article is not proof that this article needs to be kept, but rather it may well be the case that Kingston Road needs to be deleted too. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:06, 7 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 List of WSOF events. >Sixteen days open; apart from the nominator's implied delete !vote, we have one to redirect, and one to delete. The latter also supports redirecting. Per WP:ATD, there is clearly a consensus to redirect the article. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 10:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Fighters League 37: Harrison vs. Rodriguez[edit]

Professional Fighters League 37: Harrison vs. Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable sports event. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available independent sources that discuss the subject in any depth. - MrX 11:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:06, 7 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. Neither of the keep arguments cite any policy-based reasons to keep. The suggestion to redirect seems reasonable, but given that there was no discussion of it, I'm not going to implement it as part of the consensus. However, there's nothing to prevent anybody from creating the redirect on their own if they want. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Fighters League 36: Fitch vs. Foster[edit]

Professional Fighters League 36: Fitch vs. Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable sports event. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available independent sources that discuss the subject in any depth. - MrX 11:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is about a company that was renamed (from WSOF to PFL) and currently has 40+ stand alone Wikipedia entries on events. Keep. Udar55 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are a lot of these types of articles that should also be deleted for lacking notability. Do you have a policy-based argument for keeping this one?- MrX 12:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the launch of a promotion with a million dollar purse on NBC Sports (albeit, it was the WSOF before) considered "non-notable" ? There's more to MMA than the UFC. Nor is there a lack of independent sources, given every MMA news outlet carried the event. LFA events have wikipedia entries, as do Invicta (as they should, but they still only air on Fight Pass). Once again, MMA:NOT guidelines fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.161.194 (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not determined by the size of a purse. Can you provide any links to reliable, independent sources that have written about this event?- MrX 12:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that this event meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. There is nothing to show this has anything other than routine sports coverage. The fact that other events have articles has no bearing on this event's notability (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I have no problem with it being in a list of events, but I see no reason for this to have its own article. Papaursa (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amending my earlier comment as this has been brought up on the MMA talk page. A solution could be to do a yearly list of the events, similar to how Bellator MMA is now handled. If that is allowed, then I believe this stand alone page can be deleted. Udar55 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of WSOF events. Already mentioned there, per WP:ATD-R. Regards SoWhy 08:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 08:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judd Tully[edit]

Judd Tully (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From one side, when I search for him, there are hundreds of links, where he is author, but I didn't find a lot of information that maintains the notability claim as per WP:JOURNALIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Believe the author meets our notability guideline under WP:AUTHOR “…as a person being regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.” In looking at Google Scholar here[25] we can see Mr. Tully is a prolific author where his papers and books are being cited on an ongoing bases by other authors. In addition, when looking at were his work is being used we see an abundance of well-known and important academics using Mr. Tully’s work as referenced in the cites [26]. ShoesssS Talk 14:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I understand reservations about his notability from an digital media perspective. His work has only been more recently making it online. However he is really a ubiquitous figure in the artworld, especially in regards to covering the art market[1]. His oeuvre go back almost 35 years where he got his start writing with a lot of the early Contemporary Art Magazines and journals in 1970’s SOHO. I think the issue is maybe a chunk of his body of work is in print that has never been ported over to online sources. I’m working on digging some of those up and putting them here, but for now my entry is just a start.
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
    Tully is quoted widely and frequently as a source amongst established art critics. For example
    • Quoted by NY Times Critic Roberta Smith in an article about sculptor Donald Judd.[2]
    • Referenced as source in NY times obituary of Art and Auction editor Bruce Wolmer.[3]
    • Cited in NY Times by critic Benjamin Genocchio about the artist Reuben Kadish [4]
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
    He was one of the first journalist to cover the rise secondary market as a significant place to store wealth and use price collusion.
    • Art and Auction Cover Feature on Price Collusion[5]
    • Washington Post article for record Sale Sale of Van Gogh’s Irises in 1987[6]
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
    Tully has been writing for Cultural and Art outlets since the late seventies. Again a lot of these materials are extant as print and not digital. He has written for Flash Art, Art and Auction Magazine, New Art Examiner, ARTS Magazine, ART/WORLD, Horizons, Artnews and Artnet to name a few[7]. He does have several monographs that are sought after including Red Grooms Manhattan Rukus[8] and more recently Donald Judd solo show catalog at Mnuchin Gallery[9]
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
    I think other two sections above help illustrate this.

User:Meenween Talk12:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


References
  1. ^ Thompson, Don (Feb 21, 2012). The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art. St. Martin’s Press. p. 255. Always informed and readable is the writing of Kelly Devine Thomas of ARTnews, Carol Vogel of the New York Times, Jerry Saltz, fomrer art critic for New York's The Village Voice, Anthony Haden-Guest of the Financial Times, and Judd Tully of Art& Auction.
  2. ^ Smith, Roberta (October 2011). "Donald Judd: 'Stacks'". nytimes.com. The New York Times. Retrieved June 29, 2017. In the catalog to the exhibition at the Mnuchin Gallery, the art critic Judd Tully aptly calls the stacks "regal." They have the implacable presence of ships' prows or big trees but without the ponderous weight.
  3. ^ Kennedy, Randy (August 16, 2007). "Bruce Wolmer, Editor and Art World Explainer, Dies at 59". nytimes.com. The New York Times. Retrieved June 28, 2017. Bruce Wolmer, the longtime editor and publisher of Art & Auction magazine and an expert on the heavily moneyed byways of the international art world, died in New York on Saturday. He was 59 and lived in Manhattan. The cause was complications of diabetes, said Judd Tully, an art critic and the magazine's editor at large.
  4. ^ Genocchio, Benjamin (September 19, 2004). "ART REVIEWS; What He Learned in the War". nytimes.com. The New York Times. Retrieved June 28, 2017. And then he moved with his young family to a ramshackle dairy farm outside Vernon, N.J., where, after almost a decade in retreat from art, he began to make sculpture. His first works were squat, crudely fashioned figures in clay, the artist carving directly into the pliable material with the sharpened point of a rib from a pig he had slaughtered for the family table, the art critic Judd Tully writes melodramatically in his essay for the catalog. Later, Kadish began casting in bronze and making larger-scale pieces modeled loosely on Indian architecture and carved stone sculpture.
  5. ^ Tully, Judd (March 1, 2000), What is Price Collusion?, Art and Auction, pp. 43–56, As this issue went to press, another explosion in the wide-reaching Department of Justice probe of the art market detonated on February 21, with the twin resignations of Sotheby's longtime corporate leaders, chairman and majority shareholder A. Alfred Taubman and president and CFO Diana D. ("Dede") Brooks. "My decision is a very difficult one, but I have taken it in the best interests of the company and of my colleagues," said Brooks in a press statement. Breaking its stony silence, the company also commented on the 22-month-old antitrust investigation: "Sotheby's has recently met with the Department of Justice in order to discuss a prompt and appropriate resolution of this investigation, which will allow the company to put this difficult matter behind it." It also confirmed that the investigation and subsequent spate of related lawsuits "could well have a material impact on Sotheby's financial condition and/or results of operations." Sotheby's noted that it has secured a $300 million credit line through Chase Manhattan Bank to meet those 'future business needs." Sotheby's named former Columbia University president (and Clinton legal defense fund trustee) Michael I. Sovern as chairman. Sotheby's veteran William E Ruprecht takes over Brooks's position. Both Taubman, who controls 63 percent of the voting power, and Brooks remain on Sotheby's board, however. The timing and impact of the resignations could not haw been worse for the company as it entered the critical last two weeks of nailing down multi-million-dollar consignments for the important May sales. Already at a competitive disadvantage from Christie's recent lowering of seller commissions (see page 63), the firm is being hit where it hurts most, its vaunted bottom line. Wall Street reacted to the latest news with thumbs-down velocity, sending Sotheby's stock skittering south to a near-record low it closed at 150 on February 22—and also fueling rumors that the company was ripe for a takeover, given the grim scenario. Speculation centers on online giants amazon.com and eBay and the luxury-goods empire LVMH.
  6. ^ Tully, Judd (November 12, 1987), $53.9 MILLION FOR VAN GOGH, Washington Post, In the space of three minutes yesterday evening, "Irises," one of Vincent van Gogh's most beautiful paintings, was sold for $53.9 million to a collector whose identity was not immediately disclosed. The telephone bid, submitted by a European agent, shattered the previous record for a work of art sold at auction, the $39.9 million paid for van Gogh's "Sunflowers" last March.
  7. ^ "Klein Artist Works - Judd Tully Profile". kleinartistworks.com. Klein Artist Works. Retrieved June 28, 2017. New York-based arts writer and journalist Judd Tully has been steeped in the international art market since the mid-1970s. He discusses the trajectory of his career and elucidates the international art market, auctions, art fairs, and different levels of artists' careers. Judd Tully is an arts writer and editor at large for Art + Auction and ARTINFO. He has covered auctions, art fairs, and exhibitions for nearly forty years. He got his start writing for underground papers in Berkely, CA, before moving to Manhattan and writing about art for the SoHo Weekly News, an early competitor of the Village Voice. Tully was subsequently a freelance writer for the Washington Post, Flash Art, The New Art Examiner, and numerous other publications.
  8. ^ Red Grooms and Ruckus Manhattan. G. Braziller. 1977. Retrieved June 28, 2017 – via Internet Archive.
  9. ^ Andrew, Russeth (October 1, 2013). "'Donald Judd: Stacks' at Mnuchin Gallery". observer.com. The Observer. Retrieved June 29, 2017. In a catalog essay, art-market reporter Judd Tully quotes from a 1989 interview with Judd, new to me, in which the artist states with characteristic fervor, "I object very much when my work is said to not be political, because my feelings about the social system are in there somewhere. The idea is to have it all in there together—you can't pull it out." Take him at his word. While they're no doubt exemplars of wall power, presented in such a large group, they also have to be seen as emblems of American imperial and corporate might, these industrial materials repetitiously cut into lines of boxes like so many products, prisons or computer server cabinets. They harbor energies, beautiful and dark.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep in one form or another. I see no policy-based arguments for deletion without at least redirection to the election's page. There is no clear consensus whether to keep as a separate article or to redirect/merge but that can be discussed at the talk page. SoWhy 08:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Parnell[edit]

Archie Parnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable political candidate. All coverage is in the context of the campaign that he just lost. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The "de-PRODder" tried to make a comparison of Parnell to Jon Ossoff, but the difference in coverage between the two of them is staggering. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At the very least this AFD is premature. There is likely to be more analyses of this election and the concurrent vote in Georgia 6th in the coming weeks. Even as it currently stands the article cites a large number of reliable secondary sources, indicating significant media coverage. His campaign advertising style certainly seems have drawn significant coverage, and since Demon Sheep is an article, it seems that particularly covered works of political advertising are notable. From Wikipedia:POLITICIAN:

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." which Parnell does. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I didn't say other losing candidates aren't notable. I said Parnell isn't. The focus of electoral analysis will focus more on Georgia's 6th, where most of the lead up coverage was focused. The sources in this article do not establish notability per GNG. Re: "Demon Sheep", that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're debating Parnell, not one of the many other articles that could or should be nominated for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Parnell was covered by reliable, recognized secondary sources. The articles has several appropriate footnotes from distinct sources. He was a major party candidate in a congressional election which was frequently mentioned in the U.S. national press. He got more than 40,000 votes in a special election, meaning the people who showed up to vote weren't just filling out the down-ballot; this was the best-known, most important race on the ballot they were filling out. The article's existence serves a couple of identifiable research purposes in the upcoming weeks and months: (1) It's still news, and people may look up Parnell to understand what just happened, that is, who just lost that race. Indeed the article has 800 hits today. (2) There have been four special congressional elections in the Trump era, and it is natural that people interested in upcoming congressional races would review the other recent races and candidates and their successes; indeed Parnell came unusually close, in such a Republican-leaning district. I do not understand the argument for deletion or the goals that would be served by deletion. Parnell is in the news now. His name will be on the front pages of major newspapers, tomorrow. -- econterms (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stuff like "He got more than 40,000 votes in a special election" has no bearing here. He lost, so does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. As for "It's still news", Wikipedia is not a news site. The argument for deletion is that while there are some sources, they're nothing more than WP:ROUTINE coverage of a candidate for a federal office that do not go far enough in establishing WP:GNG. Now that he's lost, the coverage won't continue. He's in the news now, but he won't be next week, or even before the week is out. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks to me like the secondary news coverage is such that this article does clear the WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG hurdles. It helps to understand User:Muboshgu's argument for deletion: WP:ROUTINE. I don't think this case or coverage was routine, however. I have also argued that inclusion of this article makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia; it helps someone research and understand this nontrivial election, which has a substantial article of its own. -- econterms (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The number of sources here is completely in line with the number of sources that every single candidate in any election could always show — so yes, it falls under ROUTINE (and WP:BLP1E, for that matter.) To escape routine, campaign-specific coverage has to go well beyond what every candidate always gets — such as Christine O'Donnell, whose article cites 160 distinct sources rather than just nine, because the coverage of her campaign went global. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to South Carolina's 5th congressional district special election, 2017. As I wrote for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanner Ainge, the community consensus has been that being a candidate for the national legislature is not a claim to meet WP:Politician or WP:GNG. The current consensus is that electoral campaigns are events and the electoral contest is notable, while the individual participants are not (unless they meet WP:Politician or WP:GNG independent of the campaign or subject to coverage that is "far" out of proportion to what is expected). For subjects running for the U.S. Congress, a redirect is appropriate to the page about the specific race in question. In this case, while a special election, is special, I do not see coverage that is out of the ordinary for this subject. --Enos733 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This special election received far more attention than do most Congressional elections. Detailed information about one of the major candidates helps inform the reader about that election. I reject "redirect" because it would mean either losing a lot of the information about one candidate or cluttering the article about the election with it. The best way to serve the reader is to keep the election article, with basic information about the candidates, and have daughter articles giving more detail about each candidate. JamesMLane t c 10:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments like these show the need to better understand the difference in coverage of an election vs. coverage of a candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any compelling reason to delete this article. This was a candidate in one of two compelling and newsworthy special-election races seen as a referendum on Pres. Trump. Why would we delete the article? Moncrief (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compelling reasons to delete: GNG, NOTNEWS, COATRACK re: Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. Special elections always get media coverage, and are always seen to some extent as an informal referendum on the president and/or analyzed as possible portents of what might happen in the next regular congressional election — so those claims do not, in and of themselves, make a non-winning candidate in the special election more notable than the non-winning candidate in the same district in 2016 was. And as for the national visibility of the SC5 race, it was very much in the back seat of that car compared to GA6 — I'm Canadian and GA6 was getting coverage here, while even as a regular reader of American political media such as Politico and Daily Kos and The New York Times, I remained completely unaware that SC5 was happening at all until watching the live coverage last night. So there's a case to be made that GA6 was significantly more visible than special elections usually are, but it does not follow that SC5 was too.
    Accordingly, we have to judge this according to our normal standards for political candidates, by which candidacy is not notable in and of itself and rather he has to have already cleared a notability standard for some other reason before being a candidate — and that requirement just isn't being demonstrated here at all. There's certainly a legitimate case to be made now that the coverage of Jon Ossoff has nationalized to the degree needed to get him the highly rarefied "notable as candidate because the coverage exploded so far beyond normal that GNG has been surpassed" treatment — although I still maintain that the article was premature at the time it was first created — but the degree of coverage needed to get Archie Parnell over that same bar is not in evidence. As noted above, what we're looking for here is not coverage about the race qua race, but coverage about him qua him, and the sourcing here is showing "about the election, with namechecks of Parnell because he's a candidate in it", not "about Parnell as a person". Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The high level of coverage had to do with the nature of the election, not with any thing notable about Parnell. There is no justified reason to have a stand alone article on him, and doing so is an extreme case of presentism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 14:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reflecting on the various arguments for deletion. The conversation is interesting. (1) COATRACK is an important point in principle, but not relevant to this case. The sentences in the article and its past versions are about Parnell, not some other person or idea or ideology. (2) The Tanner Ainge case's arguments are relevant but the conversion of that article into a redirect is not itself a strong precedent; Ainge had not even been in a primary election, whereas Parnell was in one and won it. (3) These elections are what that bring coverage to Parnell, right. His coverage is associated with a congressional election, events before, during and analysis after. He's not notable for other things. But he is interviewed and quoted in several articles, and there is discussion of his unusual ads, and there is news coverage afterward of why he did well in the election. People in sports, science, etc, are also notable for the things they do. He's done notable things. (4) Parnell got 42K votes; the article has had 10K visits ; and there are plenty of distinct footnotes on him in the article. These numbers illustrate that this person and his campaign are of some interest, and each day we keep the article we are doing a service as a reference work to readers. -- econterms (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Winning a primary election to become a general election candidate is not an WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — our notability criteria for politicians are based on the holding of political office, so a person has to win the general election and not just a primary. So no, Tanner Ainge is not irrelevant here — and neither is he even the precedent setter per se, he's simply one recent example of standard practice that's pertained for years.
And the number of votes a candidate got in the process of not winning the election is not a notability claim either — for the purposes of accruing notability as a politician, the determining factor is the mere fact of whether they won or lost the general election, not how many votes they did or didn't get. There are some legislative seats where the total number of eligible voters in the entire district is smaller than the number of votes that a minor candidate can get in a more heavily-populated electorate — so our notability criteria are based strictly on the objective fact of whether they won or lost, and not on how many votes they did or didn't get in the process of winning or losing. And the number of people who viewed an article isn't a relevant factor in determining notability either — it's impossible for us to determine how many people read an article because they were actively looking for one, compared to how many people clicked on it just because it happened to exist as a bluelink in the election article, so we can't base notability on readership stats.
And finally, the number of sources present in the article is not showing him to be more notable than every other non-winning candidate in every other election — every candidate could always show this number of sources, so election coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE unless it attains a volume far out of scope to what could be simply expected to exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We include candidates who lose, but receive significant media coverage from reliable sources all the time. From people like Goodspaceguy to Jon Ossoff. These candidates both have never held political office, but have received significant media coverage throughout their political careers. The same is true of Parnell, whose advertising and surprise victory (surprisingly close result. Thanks to @Muboshgu for catching the mistype) has garnered him significant post-election coverage, as can be seen from recent additions to the article. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Goodspaceguy and Jon Ossoff are the exceptions to the community consensus regarding unelected candidates. The community has recognized that perennial candidates, like Goodspaceguy, can be notable, with a recognition that those candidates may "use their candidacy for satire, to advance non-mainstream political platforms, or to take advantage of benefits afforded political candidates" (or parties). Other candidates are kept, like John Ossoff or Christine O'Donnell, because of the unusually high level of international and national coverage accorded to the subject (and we must compare special elections to special elections and regular elections to regular elections). WP:POLOUTCOMES says this - "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." All of the relevant information about a losing candidate can be placed into an article dealing with the specific race in question. --Enos733 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Surprise victory"? Parnell lost. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, my typo, sorry.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As correctly noted by Enos, Ossoff and O'Donnell both qualified for the "special case" exemption, where there was simply so honking much coverage about them that they passed GNG on the grounds that their candidacies were quite plainly significantly more notable than the norm — Ossoff's article cites 56 sources, and O'Donnell's cites 160, and both of them even got covered in international media that normally devote zero attention to US election races anywhere below the presidential level. That is, they didn't automatically get articles because candidate per se — they got articles because their candidacies passed the high bar needed to qualify as special cases. An article which cites just nine sources is not clearing that same bar — every candidate in every election could always show that many sources, so that doesn't represent enough coverage to make him a special case over and above most other non-winning candidates the way Ossoff and O'Donnell are.
No candidate in any election ever fails to be the subject of some reliable source coverage — so it's not enough to just say that coverage of his campaign existed, because coverage of all candidates in all election campaigns always exists. To deem a candidate notable for being a candidate per se, what we require is that the candidate got significantly more coverage than what all candidates routinely get. Ossoff and O'Donnell got a lot more than usual; Parnell did not. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To attract more uninvolved users
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOL. Parnell certainly does not meet GNG. While special election candidates tend to have media coverage, it is WP:MILL in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOL; unelected candidate, press coverage largely related to their fact of being a candidate and not sufficient to demonstrate their notability independent of their standing as a candidate. Mélencron (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

Arguments that this is original research are not convincing since this is an editing issue, i.e. cases where the "diagnosis" was made by the editor adding the information and not the source can be removed. Same goes for mentioned problems with retrospective diagnosis which is basically an OR argument against this list, arguing that the sources are not reliable because they cannot possibly correctly assess the mental status of those listed without providing sources that say so. Whether sources can or cannot be trusted is in the end always a question that has no impact on the existence of the list itself. That no sources can exist has been claimed but not been proven.

So the guideline to consider is WP:LISTN with some arguing this list fails the guideline because it's not possible to define strict enough inclusion criteria. However, there is no consensus that this is actually the case and the arguments that this is an encyclopedic topic that can be covered in a policy-compliant way (after some editing/removing) have not been refuted sufficiently to result in deletion. That said, if such changes are not made, another AfD might well result in delete. Regards SoWhy 09:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of mentally ill monarchs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of mentally ill monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is all speculation, and there is no way to verify any of it. The cites are either ancient sources (ex. I love the Bible, but citing a monarch as insane (Nebuchadnezzar II) from it is strange) or modern scholars who speculate as to explain the behavior of ancient figures. Or just uncited lists.

Proper diagnosis of psychological disorders did not exist at the time, and to label these figures with our definitions of mental illness is revisionist history, imo.

See also: reasoning for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mentally ill modern era world leaders. That is the AFD which directed me to this article, and the same logic applies, though even more strongly, as that one is at least regarding more modern leaders. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 18:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also there are many cases where the article uses modern terms ("mental illness", "X personality disorder", and other modern diagnoses), yet cites historical sources that use contemporaneous/historical terms. There's no way the historical sources say (or can be used to reliably infer) that someone has "histrionic personality disorder". --Hirsutism (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments above and at the AfD for the other list. We already have an article on retrospective diagnosis, which explains how it is often problematic. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just like the other AfD. Barbara W. Tuchman is an historian, not a psychologist. These works border on OR and it's very sloppily done. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential keep but prune. There are a number of monarchs who have been awarded the epithet "the mad" by historians. A few like George III have had episodes where they were mentally incapacitated, something recognised at the time. Henry VI of England had a period when he did not speak. However megalomania, fits of anger and the like are history's judgment on people and are the result of a retrospective judgment by historians, which others may dispute. Prune down to indisputable cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the "mad monarch" is a well-known trope and has been the subject of academic attention. Googling mad / mentally ill / insane monarchs finds multiple websites / news sources that have compiled lists of their own, so this is not WP:Original research to compile such a list. Fordiana (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well documented that there are/were several monarchs with mental health issues. I think the main issue is the title, which needs changing to something a bit more neutral, but that's for the talkpage of that article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly speculative, retrospective diagnosis which is always problematic. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, and good nomination. Assessing mental illness in western medicine is not an objective test, it's the subjective opinion of experts, who don't always concur, and who have a history of huge conceptual U-turns and rethinks. What degree of mental illness qualifies somebody for the page? Even if we somehow had an objective test, and IF there was an objective retrospective psychological diagnosis for dead people, does applying today's middle class standards of behavior to European monarchs ruling centuries ago, or Ivan the Terrible, does that make any sense? Is that Americentric at the very least? You'll have your own answers to these points, but I see them as seams of continued uncertainty and argument that make the list impossible to do accurately. --Lockley (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or what about applying it to 18th-century rulers such as Agaja King of Dahomey, or 19th-century leaders such as Shaka. Those two I don't think are likely to fall into this category, but I am sure we could find some articles somewhere that would support categorizing some leaders in 18th or 19th century Africa in this manner. The fact that the list currently lacks any Asian, American or African monarchs except extremely ancient figures shows that it is a very narrow list, reinforcing a very narrow understanding of history. I do not believe for a second that there was never an emperor of China or Japan who had some form of mental illness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- have these people been diagnosed as "mentally ill"? Highly POV title and the list best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to something more appropriate like List of monarchs speculated to have suffered from mental illnesses or something like that, and limit entries to those where an academic source can be found. The topic is certainly notable, but the name is inappropriate and extends certainty in an uncertain field. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because mental illness among monarchs is a well attested historical phenomenon and cultural trope. The fact that a given monarch may or may not have been diagnosable based on 21st century diagnostic manuals does not remove the utility of the category. The converse is the absurd situation of nobody living before the advent of the DSMV ever being able to be described as "mentally ill" Slac speak up! 21:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And we also to be consistent need to include in the list every monarch who ever suffered clinical depression. Actually what is absurd is your insisting that "mental illness" should make people be treated in a seperate class.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We need to make sure that what is here is supported by high quality references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - no rationale has been provided in the article (or here) that meets WP:LISTN. The current article is a bad collection of biblical references (!), ancient or old sources, popular media, and serious history. This would need TNT and a complete rewrite in any case. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Mental illness is not always a permanent condition, some mental illnesses are very short. What next "list of physically ill monarchs". This article by its very title perpetuates antiquated and troubling approaches to mental illness that marginzalize those who suffer in unfortunate ways. Wikipedia is not meant to right great wrongs, but it should not actively create wrongs either. Unless we are prepared to include every monarch who at some time suffered clinical depression, then this list is highly disputable. Considering how many monarch there have been historcally, this is a very problematic list. Do we include the rules of any recognized protectorate, or does the monarch have to be fully indepdent? Who was and who was not a monarch within the Holy Roman Empire in the 18th century?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve, such as reducing the list to only include indisputable examples (as someone mentioned earlier). The subject of mental illness among royalty has been the focus of many academic papers, books, movies, websites, etc. so it I think it's appropriate to have an article about it on Wikipedia. There are a number of monarchs throughout history who were well-known for mental illness including King George III of England; there was a even play and movie specifically focused on his mental illness, The Madness of King George.SMDWiki (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list like this needs clear, tight criteria for inclusion. It also needs reliably sources. I do not think a useful list could be compiled based on reliable sources. A list like this is no credit to Wikipedia as it stands. I think some users underestimate the difficulty of making a useful list of this nature with reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR applies and really an incomplete, subjective list, fails notability guidelines, see: WP:LISTN. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 07:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM[edit]

Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable device. Kindly see WP:MILL, WP:ENN. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is there no end to this flood of nominations? Can you not wait for the consensus of the 15 or so you've already separately created? Samsara 16:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A counter argument has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I see no counter-argument to waiting for consensus. Samsara 22:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is appropriate to have an article about and easily notable. You have misunderstood the word independent. Being a separate, reliable publication IS independence. WP is not paper, and just because you don't like these, doesn't mean they don't belong. Pschemp (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per argument given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeiss Batis Sonnar T* 2.8/135mm. May elaborate further and more specifically, but the number of noms made by the nominator in this category is rather overwhelming and should probably have been bundled as the same argument applies to all. Samsara 19:57, 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 keep. I like TenPoundHammer so it's tough to close this Afd as a Keep. But consensus seems to be that a new Afd needn't be opened so soon on the heels of the previous Afd. I can understand TenPoundHammer's logic of a no consensus supporting the need for a re-nomination, but as of now, the editors who have commented on this Afd seem to be against the same. That said, if there are any more clarifications required, please feel free to talk me up. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 19:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cascade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are mostly about the theater that used to be on the site, not about the shopping center proper. Delete or remake into an article on the theater. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TPH, the previous AfD closed less than a month ago a day ago. This is too soon to perform a WP:KEEPLISTING. --Oakshade (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AFD closed the same day this was opened . MB 01:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right! Didn't read the dates correctly.--Oakshade (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close - The previous AfD, which went on for a month, was closed as no consensus by Sandstein on the same day this was opened by the same nom! Let it sit for several months and then try again. --Oakshade (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPASR is reason not to immediately re-nominate. It applies to AfD's with non-prejudice "no-consensus" closes, which it wasn't. You could've brought it to DRV if you felt it should've been closed by Sandstein differently. --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: @Oakshade: What if I just want a consensus? It was clear the last AFD was "no consensus" and I'm not disputing that. I relisted immediately because I wanted a consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Though WP:NPASR wasn't mentioned in the last AfD by the closure, given the trend of that AfD, this's relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 05:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per immediately prior AfD. We don't need another one this quickly. Smartyllama (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons in prior AFD. MB 23:06, 7 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. SoWhy 07:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hole in the Paper Sky[edit]

Hole in the Paper Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film fails WP:NFILM. Appears to be a WP:PROMOTION violation by a WP:SPA. GretLomborg (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per topic meeting WP:NFILM. I will not vilify a new editor simply because his edits are limited and show inexperience, and instead look to a film's coverage directly and in some detail in sources such as Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel, TopNews, iTechPost, SoundTrack Geek. These can be added through regular editing. That his NEW contributions was tagged for a speedy just one minute after being contributed and while it was being actively edited is worrisome. Deletion of an arguably notable film is not per policy nor guideline and it might have been better to suggest he begin articles in a draftspace. Best for the project is to allow him to add sources.
This article has been sitting out there since 2010, so this isn't an instance of trying to delete something while its being worked on or "vilifying a new editor." Those sources are very shallow, for instance the LA Times does no more than list this movie with the rest of Jessica Biel's work. One is just a one-man blog and doesn't even cover the movie itself. The only one that's close to good is the Orlando sentinel one, which fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. The movie fails all the tests in WP:NFO of WP:NFILM. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Had this article been brought to AFD back in 2010, I'd have agreed with a deletion. But being released and having coverage, we do have WP:NF met... even if weakly. Needs more research, thank you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the coverage is too weak and shallow to meet WP:NFILM or the WP:GNG. At best it should be merged into Jessica Biel. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First step should be to improve the article, and/or tag it for improvement, not list it for deletion. Please review wikipedia policy WP:BEFORE Powertothepeople (talk) 14:42, 9 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. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Netherlands)[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Netherlands) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and so we don't need separate articles - Sources so far in the article are extremely poor and unfortunately I cannot find any better, Fails NOTTVGUIDE (to a certain extent) and GNG –Davey2010Talk 16:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and pending the outcome of:
These articles serve as pointless content forks. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Nordic)[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Nordic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network and so we don't need separate articles - Sources so far in the article are extremely poor and unfortunately I cannot find any better, Fails NOTTVGUIDE (to a certain extent) and GNG –Davey2010Talk 22:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and pending the outcome of:
These articles serve as pointless content forks. Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merging or renaming can be discussed elsewhere. SoWhy 08:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Spectrum +3 character set[edit]

ZX Spectrum +3 character set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable character set. Unreferenced. Natg 19 (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable character set articles created by the same user:

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

@KAP03: who nominated other character set articles by this user.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to ZX Spectrum character set Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [EDIT: and Rename -- see below] or merge into ZX Spectrum character set. All character sets of mass-produced computers and devices (and those of influential solitaire computers like of the main-frame area) are important to be documented and relevant for computer historical research and to develop conversion tables to modern character sets like Unicode for data/program transfer, therefore it is very important to preserve such information. In this case, we already have an article on other Sinclair Spectrum character sets, so it makes sense to merge this article into that main article, however, I would also find a separate article justified if there would be a strong reason to keep it in a separate article. One such reason could be that at present the article only documents the character set variant for "Language 0", but there have been variants for other hardware languages as well, which will certainly be added over time. Also, in contrast to the nominator's claim, the article wasn't unreferenced at the time of nomination (in fact it was well documented from the typescript of the former user manual). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having looked into it a bit more (and added some to the article), the Spectrum +3 character sets are so radically different from the other Spectrum character sets, that I think, they deserve their own page and merging them into the existing Spectrum character set article should only be considered as a "last resort" measure. In fact, the character set looks so orderly, that it is quite possible, that it is derived from some more generic character set support concept in some versions of Digital Research's CP/M Plus (although I can't remember a LANGUAGE command right now). If so, this would sky-rocket its relevance. It might also have been supported in other localized CP/M machines as well. If that would turn out to be true, more links for CP/M related articles to this one would be added (and it would be odd to point them to a generic Spectrum character set article, as the other Spectrum computers could not run CP/M), and the article could possibly be renamed into something like "CP/M Plus character set" or so later on, but this is something that needs further research and does not directly affect this AfD, except for that it underlines that this character set is relevant to be kept in Wikipedia, and ideally as a separate article. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After some more research, I have changed my vote above to "Keep and rename" for the following reason: This character set is actually used by Amstrads/Locomotive Software's adaptation of Digital Research's CP/M Plus on more systems of the Amstrad CPC / Schneider CPC and the Amstrad PCW / Schneider Joyce series (including PCW 8000, PCW 9256, PCW 10, PCW 9512, PCW 9512+) as well as on the Amstrad ZX Spectrum +3, plus various OEM machines. It was also used by LocoScript. In documentation and in the net I found various alternative names for it: PCW character set, Amstrad PCW character set, CP/M Plus character set and Amstrad CP/M Plus character set. Notability is therefore clearly given. However, I suggest to rename the article to Amstrad CP/M Plus character set. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep ARIB STD B24 character set. This is obscure, as it's a Japanese-market character set hosted on an English language wikipedia. Yet ARIB is the relevant international standards body, and if they've defined this, and it's used (and it is!), then it's notable. It's even mentioned, in an upcoming announcement, in the Pufferfish CJKV book, and that's truly ancient now. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 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 04:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both ARIB STD B24 character set and OMS encoding. For the same reason already stated, character sets are highly relevant information for an encyclopedia and notable. While I am not familiar with these particular character sets, the fact, that an ARIB standard and a TeX implementation exists indicates already that they were important enough in some environments in the past, so it is our obligation (and should be our joy) to preserve the information for generations to come. Both articles even have references. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just looked it up. OMS is a standard TeX encoding for variable size math symbols. It was developed by Donald E. Knuth, the inventor of TeX. Documented in the TEXbook and various other places. Added ref to article. Not notable, huh? The nominator should be warned for not doing his homework before nominating articles for deletion. This is not only careless, it is destructive and this attitude drives contributing editors away from the project. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has gone through the creator's whole set of created articles and tagged them all. Some, like this, they've even snuck in as additions to someone else's unrelated AfD so that they don't show up. But when I raised this at another of their similar AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CPC character set, it just had an admin close the AfD seconds later as delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, for not doing the before work on this, but it seemed to me that these characters sets were not notable, and the information was not helpful with just the character set table. As to Andy Dingley's point, I did not nominate the CPC character set article - that was a a different user. Natg 19 (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keep arguments were neither refuted nor discussed further. SoWhy 07:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shroud (player)[edit]

Shroud (player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. He is not an athlete, and being a Counter-Strike: Global Offensive player is not sufficient for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a CS:GO player is not automatic notability, but Shroud is a star player on a top NA team, [27] and has generated lots of coverage. Examples of the more in-depth examples detail his revelation of problems with sound cues from the audience, [28][29], his expected retirement, [30][31][32], among others.[33][34] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:30, 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 05:18, 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 04:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jammu-Baramulla line. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 07:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baramulla–Kupwara line[edit]

Baramulla–Kupwara line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per the article itself, in 2009 only a survey was done regarding the line, but no work in action yet. As per the second the second source, "it has been exluded from the budget". No confirm statement regarding when it will be executed. As per WP:CRYSTAL. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CRYSTAL appears to apply, especially since there does not appear to be any coverage since the initial survey in 2009. Unless something has changed, this just appears to be a footnote rather than an article topic. --Kinu t/c 01:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information about this being an extension of an existing line was not mentioned in the article. However, given that, I would not be averse to a merge and redirect. --Kinu t/c 17:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to change my vote from keep to a merge to the Jammu-Baramulla line article. It would be hard to write a full article on this, so the addition of the content and references to Jammu-Baramulla line, mentioning the extension, should be good enough.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:02, 7 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor Esther Bharathi[edit]

Pastor Esther Bharathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Over-enthusiastic bio for "India's first transgender pastor". " The refs are Indian newspapers, which are no better than tabloids for materials of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:19, 29 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) 04:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Fails WP:RS. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is the basis for deletion really that all Indian newspapers are unreliable? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per rhododendrites question and that sources seem fine. Adding onto issues with this deletion, DGG are you saying that Indian newspapers are reliable unless they are talking about transgender issues? I'd like to know what you mean by "material of this sort." Rab V (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 03:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to pass WP:GNG, sources are perfectly reliable. Nominator has not given a reason on why Indian newspapers should not be considered reliable. Pratyush (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Probably passes WP:GNG. WP:INDAFD does not give me a reason to believe that Indian newspapers are especially unreliable. Ceosad (talk) 22:28, 7 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. I'm closing this early as speedy delete for being promotional , with the added factor of violation of the terms of use. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foundr[edit]

Foundr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are primarily HuffPo blog posts which have questionable status as a reliable source. Except for the single Forbes article, the remaining sources appear to be other startups with blogs operating a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" scheme of SEO optimization. No real notability established by a reputable source other than the single Forbes article. v/r - TP 01:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate - 02:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate - 02:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate - 02:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been mentioned at User talk:Noam Javits (reason: Article creator). —PaleoNeonate - 02:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially turning Wikipedia into a buy-my-book portal. WT:COI (permlink) has further substance from Tryptofish. — Bri (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:CORP at the moment. The HuffPo and Forbes sources are all contributor written which lack editorial control and are therefore not RS in our eyes. Many of us are aware that these pieces are easily bought via freelancing sites in an attempt to confer notability here, thus they can't truly be independent either. The Business Standard article is ok but it is brief and more about the founder than the actual magazine. Even if it were about the company, a single source is not enough. SmartSE (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG by a country mile. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So long as it discloses the article was started by a paid editor, the subject itself is potentially noteworthy. There's potentially a million readers of this magazine/site that could use Wikipedia as an independent reviewer. Samw (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever that vote is saying Wikipedia is, I'm pretty sure it is not. If you think it is potentially noteworthy that's not quite cutting it. You need to show us how it is noteworthy, in order to meet one of the guidelines WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:NBOOK. - Bri (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Samw I'm not concerned with whether this article was or was not created by a paid editor. I've a long record of advocating deletion of marginal corporate articles, and this happens to be one of them. I know it's been alleged, but I don't care. Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've examined every source cited on the page (including the two from Huff Post and the one from Forbes), and every single one is either a mirroring of a press release from the company, or a transcript or summary of an interview with the company founder. (The Forbes source is such an interview.) And reading them one after another, there is an odd repetitiveness, with each saying very similar things, that always trace back to material released by the company. I've also run multiple searches on various platforms for other sources, and found nothing more of any significance (including a lot of false returns for misspellings of "founder"). I'm just not seeing independent interest at the level that we need here (although I suspect that there probably will be sometime in the future). And to reply to the one "keep" comment above, Wikipedia obviously does not "review" companies. So this is a clear "delete" for me on notability grounds. Please indulge me one more thing: I know full well that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an invalid argument – but the origin of the page is described here, and I don't like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Managed to add some more notable references such as Forbes to the article. Should have the minimum at least needed now. Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least one of those was written by Foundr/Chan. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to the article written by Chan, you added one self-published Huffpost blog post, two self-published Forbes.com blog posts by the same author, and an article in a non-notable website. Neither meets the requirements of CORP and GNG. Coretheapple (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even without the proof of undisclosed paid editing, the article is not notable. Maybe wait a few years, but I doubt we'll ever find out if it goes bankrupt. Internet magazine startups are a dime a dozen. It does have some Huff Post refs - but we know that their blog posts are not reliable. I'm starting to think Forbes is pretty much the same. Do they still call it "The capitalist's tool"? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smallbones: Actually Forbes.com blog posts are also self-published and are in the same class as HuffPost. Note the disclaimer indicating that they are the opinion of the contributor. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all that's been said above, sources clearly come from press releases. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- notability not established, per available sources. Article exists for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete for reasons already listed. Entrepreneur.com article [35] cites this company as having payed for promotion. The first sentence of the ==history== section is blatantly written as a pro-company narrative. Delete with extreme prejudice. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "Forbes" ref clarifies by saying "Forbes BrandVoice® allows marketers to connect directly with the Forbes audience by enabling them to create content – and participate in the conversation – on the Forbes digital publishing platform. Each BrandVoice is produced by the marketer. Learn more about BrandVoice, or contact us at brandvoice.com. Opinions expressed by Forbes BrandVoice Contributors are their own." but the editor states it is from Forbes... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edayilakkad[edit]

Edayilakkad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Malayalam language: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quality issues, possibly beyond any fixing. See discussion at talk:, and at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#I.27ve_had_enough._.22Approved_articles.22_clearly_no_better_than_ones_that_skip_it Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per WP:GEOLAND an inhabited island is presumed Notable, and in my opinion that is an almost automatic qualification for inclusion if meaningful information can be verified. While I haven't yet found WP:GNG's usual expectation for significant coverage in any particular source, I have been finding a fair number of sources with various brief mentions. Note that source searching is difficult because there are several variations on the spelling, and because useful search results tend to be heavily buried under garbage search results. Alsee (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. An inhabited island in the U.S. would almost certainly be kept, and if this is deleted I'm sure it would just get re-created in a few years as India comes more online with sources. Alsee (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Here's the article at Malayalam language Wikipedia: ml:ഇടയിലക്കാട്. There are a mix of blog-sources as well as usable sources in that version. Alsee (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether an island is implicitly notable, it's about whether this article passes our standards to adequately demonstrate that. WP:RS and WP:V are strong policy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley, I do not disagree with your concerns about quality. However the excessive 11 keeps here indicate that you've missed a significant detail. Your first sentence got it backwards, it is about whether the island is implicitly Notable. Notability isn't a property of the article, it's a property of the topic. An article that contains zero evidence of notability is a Keep, if sources exist and the topic itself satisfies Notability. In the most extreme case you keep the article and delete all the junk down to a single sentence stub. An irredeemably promotional article on a company might get hit with an unsympathetic TNT, but we're going to salvage anything we can for a desirable article on an inhabited place. Documenting significant geography is about as close to objectively-desirable as it gets. Alsee (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". The language barrier and that it is small make it difficult to find sources, unfortunately. —PaleoNeonate - 05:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GEOLAND states: 'Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history.' This has a population of over 1000 people, plus a long history. Boleyn (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject passes WP:GEOLAND. Pratyush (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Pile-on per WP:GEOLAND + article has been markedly improved since nomination. Suggest WP:SNOW close or withdrawal by nominator. — JFG talk 12:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Markedly improved? By stripping fact tags and mis-linking words to the wrong article, just because they look similar?
If an article in this state is a "snow keep", then there is something wrong with our processes. This is not an article of encyclopedic quality, but Indian villages get a pass on all of our usual standards. Can you read this article and learn anything? Can you have confidence that any of those things were correct? The article is so poorly written as to be incomprehensible, to the point where another editor can't even fix it. Is it in a lake, an arm of the sea, or the Kavvayi Backwaters - and is it even salt or fresh water? An article in such a vague state is not fit to be in WP mainspace. Nor would we accept such an article, if it wasn't on an Indian village. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley, having a look at gmaps here answers some of your questions, my question is, can gmaps be used in this article to confirm these (and others like the 2 bridges joining it to the mainland)? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per past discussions, gmaps is a primary source and so the anally-retentive of WP editors just love to revert its positive use as a source, on that basis. Not a view I hold with myself. Pretty much everything I know about this backwater area (and a bunch of edits in the last few days) has been from using it as a source.
That's not the point here though. Obviously this particular article will end up kept, but we need to clear up what this issue is where Indian villages do not need to observe WP:V or WP:RS, let alone WP:CSD, and are permitted to stay on the basis of "we suspect that it exists", even when unsourced, misspelled, bloated with cruft and any content that is present is largely inaccurate. We are not here as a directory or gazeteer, we're an encyclopedia. If an article can't be encyclopedic, it shouldn't be here. Having an article title and a gmaps link is not enough, yet clearly those here think it is. Why is this? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we most certainly are a gazetteer. See Wikipedia:Gazetteer. Smartyllama (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article has many issues: it is written in terrible English, it has very few references, and large parts of it are unverified. However, these can all be fixed: the text can be copyedited, references can be found, and unverifiable parts deleted, and something will certainly remain of the article, likely far more than at most other geo stubs. Besides, I find it unlikely that anyone can not learn anything at all from the article even in its current state. Daß Wölf 19:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep meets GEOLAND and it isn't utter crap. I'm fine with the PRODing of random villages that have zero references and tell us how beautiful the palm trees are per TNT/WP:V, but this isn't that. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was fixable, and has been fixed to a great degree. bd2412 T 22:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is more useful to our readers with this page than without. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated place and a named natural feature. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC) ps. i have added some sourced words about fauna and flora. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 9 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) 10:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Blue[edit]

Prussian Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A once barely notable and now completely forgotten group about whom no reliable information can be found for more than half a decade. Not to mention the possible WP:BLP violation. It would be impossible to enumerate how many more notable figures do not have a page here but if we just stay within the same general territory, why is Andrew Anglin, who has gotten far more contemporary media attention, simply a redirect if we have this? I would also delete Dark Walker which is even less notable. Arcaesia (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is the third nomination, not second. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (American duo) ("overwhelming keep") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (4th nomination) ("speedy keep"). Station1 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "...about whom no reliable information can be found..." is not accurate. Links lead to articles at ABC News, the NY Daily News, the Telegraph, the ADL and the SPLC, among others. We may not like them, but they're notable. Station1 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. This article has problems, but reliable coverage exists in enough depth to indicate notability. If there are BLP violations, please explain them, either here, on the article's talk page, or at WP:BLPN. Grayfell (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet RS/GNG. Not sure on BLP alleged violation. Everything looks okay. South Nashua (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: enough RS already in the article to justify its keeping, and the fact they have featured in TV documentaries and a book should provide further references. Unless the nominator has changed their name or opened a new Wikipedia account, I'm puzzled as to why their only action on Wikipedia to date has been to nominate this article for deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I support re-naming this page so Prussian Blue redirects to Prussian blue, but there's no case to delete it. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was also surprised that the article about the pigment wasn't already the primary article, but best wait until the result of this AfD before proposing page renaming. Richard3120 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: They put out 2 albums, were known well in the news, drew the serious notice of the SPLC, & made more news with their conversion. They're a cobblestone on the White Nationalist road, to use a metaphor. Very worthy of inclusion... Veryproicelandic (talk) 06:47, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_July_7&oldid=1142618496"