Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 May	5 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pennington[edit]

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

Non-notable individual with no viable third-party sources. Yet another article about a recently-deceased subject that has remained in neglect since its creation ten years ago. Only citations were a fifteen-year-old article from Jet magazine that no longer works, and a non-neutral site about an Atlanta gay-bar raid. Search additionally turns up multiple people from around the country with the same name. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Significant improvement has recently been made to the article in cleanup and establishing of subject notability, with a host of viable sources, so I'll go ahead and withdraw my submission. Just needs further expansion. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single RS to support this article, fails simplest of WP standards for notability Cllgbksr (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Someone who reportedly served as the highest-ranking official in the police departments of two of the largest cities in the United States would strike me as having some degree of notability, but if this article survives the AfD process, I would consider addition of reliable sources essential to this article's continued survival.--TommyBoy (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a gentle WP:BEFORE reminder. Here's the Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Advocate and The Times-Picayune all devoting full articles to him, and then there's a great deal more press that includes descriptions of his work over many years. Sustained, significant coverage, passes GNG. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't believe a person's obituary notices in newspapers serve as notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true of paid notices, but these are news stories about his death which is a different thing, and contain substantial detail as well as indications that he has been covered in much more detail in the past. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Keep: Richard Pennington, when he was the police superintendent in Atlanta and New Orleans, was considered one of the most prominent police chiefs in the country. In New Orleans he is widely regarded as the greatest police chief in modern New Orleans history, probably the best chief in the city's history--that is the overriding consensus. Under his six year watch in New Orleans, the murder rate dropped 50%(!). His methods revolutionized the department with the introduction of COMSTAT and other innovations, and he rooted out corruption that had plagued the depatment before he came. There plenty of other articles at Wikipedia about police chiefs from other cities who are less notable. Admittedly this article is lousy and needs much better coverage and sources--and you can find a ton of good sources. Anyone can go to the archives NOLA.com and find numerous Times-Picayune articles on him, or go to the Atlanta Constitution and find the same. Today his death was reported as the top story at the top of the front page (with a big headline) in the printed version of the New Orleans Advocate--about a police chief that has been gone for over 15 years(!). That must mean something. Keep the article. In a few weeks when I get some time, I'd like to do an expansion on it--I'm confident that we could get it to GA. Don't delete it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very notable it just needs links, somebody lay them down-- Stop deleting and start completing.Masterknighted (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Keep - His involvement in the Atlanta gay raids was considered a civil rights issue for the LGBT community. But this article needs expansion BADLY!! 205.144.213.202 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full obits in three reliable sources is plenty enough to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Institute of Computer Technology[edit]

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

A non-notable "school" that has no accreditation and absolutely no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually going to vote keep, then I realized that the Assam Institute of Technology is a completely different organization. AICT seems to be a training facility for Assam Electronics Development Corporation Limited (at least, based on this). Primefac (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The institute is not actually a school or college. It is a privately held "coaching classes", under "Electronics Development Corporation Ltd." which is a private company. The institute is not accredited by University Grants Commission (India), or any other government organisations. There are hundreds of such institutes in every average sized city of India. Nothing notable about this particular institute. And then there is ~~lack~~ complete absence of reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable for-profit company that fails to meet our guidelines on inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No different from the three non-notable corporate training programs where I have taught engineering and electronics. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG.- Mr X 13:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Probably should have been deleted A7, as there is no claim of significance (credible or not) in the article. Waggie (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Vile Jeremy (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Time Goes By (Canadian TV series)[edit]

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

Found no coverage of this TV series in reliable sources. This TV series thus fails the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the wayback machine version of the Queen's University database in external links no longer seems to be working, but the Canadian Communications Foundation ref, which was an initiative of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters in association with Athabasca University, is certainly a reliable source. However, WP:TVSERIES does go on to state "a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage." This is one that may take some news archive digging in papers of the day. ~~Neutral~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can find more solid sources. I searched all three databases that I can access for Canadian newspaper coverage dated 1967 — but apart from one brief blurb about its premiere in a "this week's television highlights" column (which I did add to the article), I was able to find nothing but its appearance in television listings grids otherwise. I will say, for the record, that as far as I know the Queen's University Film and Media directory was drawn at least partially from a book that would count as a valid replacement source if this series were covered in it, but I don't know its publication details in order to locate verification of that. And while the Canadian Communications Foundation is generally a reliable source, the entry isn't particularly substantive in this case. So yeah, as things stand right now we just don't really have the depth of sourcing required to make this keepable — recreation would be acceptable in the future if somebody can find stronger sources for it than I'm finding. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, there you go: Bearcat has worked a great deal in this area and if this is his determination, fine by me. Change to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For lack of sources and previous arguments. --Rogerx2 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in-depth to establish notability. Vile Jeremy (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Userfication available upon request. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

0000 (video game)[edit]

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

Per WP:NGAME. Video game currently in development lacking any sort of notable coverage of it's development. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe this isn't the time or place to ask this question but is the option of moving this page into the user/creator's draft page ever done? Bfpage _{let's talk...} 23:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DPR, "userfy" is a possible outcome at AFD. So yes, you could argue that right now. Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Sandbox having it in a sandbox until the game is released seems reasonable to me. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Sandbox having it in user space until the game is released and has more coverage seems reasonable. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Sandbox - Per WP: TOOSOON. It's not certain that this game will ever meet notability requirements, but at the least we'll need to wait for the actual release so we can get some decent coverage on the game.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Lakra[edit]

She is Celebrity and you can google and search about her. why to deletee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yash.Models (talk • contribs) 06:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Z list celebrity. Completely fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT scope_creep (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable, and the "sources" therein are laughable. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real notability or reliable sources - although Mia Lakra Wikipedia Biography is an amusing "source" - Arjayay (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Apple Store. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Store (online)[edit]

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

Recently merged with Apple Store, thus making this article obsolete. A consensus was recently established for a merge. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apple Store as a plausible redirect. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect: why delete? not merge or redirect? -- Taku (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was the one who asked DBZFan30 for help with nominating the article, as I haven't done it before. I had written relevant info from the online store article into the regular Apple Store page, and I was under the assumption that an article should be deleted following a merge, as I did not know a redirect was possible. Honest mistake from somebody not familiar with the procedures. In light of this, however, a redirect might make more sense than just a delete, so I vote for that. LocalNet (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectDoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice) 01:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect That's what usually happens after a merge. —JJ Be rs 16:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Apple Store. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2013-14 GNFA 1[edit]

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

Not notable. Third league of Moroccan football, and so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Truly beautiful table. scope_creep (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, non-professional level of football. Obvious WP:NOTSTATS issues. Fenix down (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTSTATS Spiderone 17:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:NOTSTATS. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone wants to, the other team articles can be nominated grouped together. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belize national under-20 football team[edit]

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

I can't find material to verify the existence of a Belize national under-20 football team. There is no mention of one, in particular, on the website of the asserted parent organization, the Football Federation of Belize, at http://www.belizefootball.bz/, though they do have links for U-17 and U-15 that lead to content-free pages. Largoplazo (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. Largoplazo (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up I forgot to mention that even if this is verified, notability remains an issue. Largoplazo (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author of the article has created similar under-20 football team articles for Anguilla, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Sudan. Largoplazo (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no evidence this team actually exists. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Competed in qualifying for the 2015 championship, the 2013 one, and earlier years as well. If nominator had bothered to do WP:BEFORE, they would have seen that. Smartyllama (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here are reliable sources for St. Kitts and Nevis and Anguila and for Sudan. This is why WP:BEFORE exists. Smartyllama (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. I know why WP:BEFORE exists. See my first sentence, above, particularly the first few words. I didn't find these when I looked. 2. Do any of these links demonstrate notability? Largoplazo (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highest level of youth football in Belize, notable. Giant Snowman 15:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - absurd nomination. A quick look at the last CONCACAF U-20 Championship qualifying shows Belize has a U-20 team (even if they did withdraw)—2017 CONCACAF U-20 Championship qualifying#Central American zone. St. Kitts and Anguilla can also be found. I'm puzzled why it would even cross anyone's mind that they wouldn't have a U-20 team. And then, why wouldn't one click on "What links here" and see in seconds all the links to the various tournaments they have been in. Or look in the Spanish version of the language, to see what they have participated in? This is a complete failure of WP:BEFORE. I'm also curious how User:Power~enwiki managed to endorse this - which makes me question the other AFDs he voted on, without much time to consider the topic. Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple google search shows a large amount of information on this team. I note specific coverage in Belize media including:

Article on 2014 U20 World Cup Qualifier
Further brief article on U20 World Cup qualifying
Lengthy 2010 report on match versus Nicaragua

Clearly notable national level football team regularly receiving coverage in own country's media. Would assume a more sophisticated search of local sources would reveal more. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the above votes have illustrated it well enough, this Belizean team has competed at professional international youth matches thus making it valid to keep the article. Sure the article is REALLY bad but deletion is not cleanup and the article can always be improved upon. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good grief, after a monumental WP:BEFORE failure on the very existence of the team, User:Largoplazo, instead of apologizing in wake of a clear snow keep, has left in place the claim that notability is an issue, despite Fenix's excellent research above showing extensive media coverate. I just can't comprehend that anyone could possess such gall and chutzpah, for not even trying to Google News it first. With 1,580 results, there must be some more there to prove notability. As one would expect in a football-mad country. Shameless. Nfitz (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wringing your hands to the very end, are you? (Note to others: This is in the context of a side discussion.) I forgot that I'd added that additional line under my nomination and overlooked it when I withdrew my nomination. So, my simple acknowledgement of my error on the nomination evidently not being enough to stop this, I learn from you that my latest sin is that I didn't withdraw my nomination in a way that pleases you. And you're the one who told me to move on. You're behaving like I've single-handedly destroyed Wikipedia. Give it a rest. Also, a deletion discussion isn't an appropriate venue for carrying out a vendetta. Largoplazo (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to say really, other than the mis-use of the word vendetta - which means "prolonged and bitter feud", not "fleeting cutting sarcasm". If you want, we could discuss further on your talk - but I don't see the point. Nfitz (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NickAtNyte[edit]

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

Fails GNG, non-notable outside of YouTube screen... Hawkeye75 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable YT celeb, of course, with zero reliable sources. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 03:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye75, that's fair. hillelfrei(Talk) 14:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editor note: sixtynine/@Beemer69: Please do not say bad things about the YT's name. "Wow, seriously (at the guy's name)". This is a living person after all. Jamesjpk (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about the article at hand, references 1-6 are reliable sources from trusted websites, such as redbull.com, pocketgamer.biz, autoworldnews.com, androidheadlines.com, moesport.com. Reference 6 (gfuel.com) is mainly a primary source but shows that this YTer is part of an e-sports team. Here are some reasons the article should be kept.

redbull.com, has over 4M visitors per month, and the YTer is featured on that website.^[1]^[2]
pocketgamer.biz, has over 372,000 visitors in the last 30 days. The YTer is featured on this website.^[3]^[4]
autoworldnews.com has over 311,000 visitors in the last 30 days. The YTer is featured on this website.^[5]^[6]
androidheadlines.com has about 1M visitors per month, and the YTer is featured on that website.^[7]^[8]
moesport.com has over 46,000 visitors in the last 30 days. The YTer is featured on this website.^[9]^[10]
NickAtNyte's YouTube channel has over 2M subs. He has had a collective view-count of over 613M.^[11]
NickAtNyte has been reported on by NaiBuzz, which has a monthly view rate of about 145,020 per month.^[12]^[13]

Comment And none of these sources meet Wikipedia notability requirements, while one of them doesn't even work. Site views are meaningless in that regard. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 07:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which sources do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and why. Can you also tell me the one that doesn't work? Also, can you tell me how site views are meaningless, and a Wikipedia Policy that proves that? Thanks! Jamesjpk (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, can you tell me how redbull.com doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, as a third-party source independent of the subject? Jamesjpk (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at WP:VG/S have Pocketgamer and Red Bull as reliable sources, so that's not the issue. The problem is that those two sources say little to nothing about the subject. The sources, to be used to establish notability, should cover the subject in significant detail. These are brief passing mentions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE, "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members". Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of sources providing third party significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I find these discussions of "independent references" for Youtube celebrities pointless at best. The case for notability is WP:ENT. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "redbull.com Website Traffic and Information | TrafficEstimate.com". www.trafficestimate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ Dyet, Alex. "Meet Clash Royale's top streamers". Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ "pocketgamer.biz Website Traffic and Information | TrafficEstimate.com". www.trafficestimate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ "Why Supercell built a company of startups, and how it works". pocketgamer.biz. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ "autoworldnews.com Website Traffic and Information | TrafficEstimate.com". www.trafficestimate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ News, Auto World (2017-03-07). "Clash Royale March 2017: March 2 Update Moved? Team Battle Feature Yet To Come". Auto World News. Retrieved 2017-05-06. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ "androidheadlines.com Website Traffic and Information | TrafficEstimate.com". www.trafficestimate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ "YouTube Gaming To Host Clash Royale King's Cup Tournament | Androidheadlines.com". AndroidHeadlines.com |. 2016-11-03. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ "moesport.com Website Traffic and Information | TrafficEstimate.com". www.trafficestimate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ "Recap of the Hammers eSports Clash Royale Live Tournament in Vegas -". 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ "teachboombeach YouTube Stats, Channel Statistics - Socialblade.com". socialblade.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ "Calculate Naibuzz.com Traffic Worth and Revenue". SiteWorthTraffic.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
^ "How Much Money Nickatnyte Makes On YouTube - Net Worth". Naibuzz. 2016-09-13. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

Delete -- does not meet WP:ENT & the sources available do not indicate notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think he does meet WP:ENT just fails WP:BASIC. hillelfrei(Talk) 19:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMRA[edit]

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

Fails WP:V as well as WP:N. There is, that I can tell, nothing online about "international marble racing association", nor about imra "marble racing". Largoplazo (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete It looks as if someone just made this up, likely Julian Ricci. The only online stuff appears to be this article and its logo uploaded and a free web site. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an elaborately detailed page for an international "sports" organization that appears to have no sourcing in the article or available in a Google search other than a hand-made website on Weebly. Alansohn (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 IMRA Algodoo Grand Championships[edit]

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

If this is real, there is certainly no information about it, or about IMRA "marble racing", or about IMRA associated with Algodoo, online, so fails both WP:V and WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Notability not passed as it is right now, not sure if this could be cleaned up. Not sure what this even is. South Nashua (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax, "Asian Marble Racing Confederation" only has Google results tied to this page. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Shirish[edit]

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

No notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable actor. Has acted only in one film, which seems to be an average movie (negative reviews by movie critics); that casts a doubt that movie is not much notable either. The actor has won only one award, "Edison award", which is not notable either.
Internet revealed his real name is "Shirish Saravanan". The article of film "Metro" has a wikilink to that name in the cast section, which redirected to the film itself. Giving me doubt that an article for his original name was created previously, which was later redirected; and maybe then this article was created. But that is just a doubt. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Penkala[edit]

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

Alex Penkala was a junior enlisted man with E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during World War II. He parachuted into Europe twice and fought in Normandy, the Netherlands, and Belgium (where he was killed in combat). He did not attain rank or receive awards to qualify him under WP:SOLDIER and his untimely death leaves him with no general notability. His portrayal in Band of Brothers on TV is as a supporting character. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sustained claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Deering[edit]

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

I can't find any sources for this guy except IMDB, does not appear to meet any of the automatic criteria at WP:COMPOSER. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a good few — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodeeandrews (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a good few what? sources? If you have some reliable sources please post the URLs here. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find them at the bottom of the page you want to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodeeandrews (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. Please read WP:GNG first. The sources provided do not suggest notability as Wikipedia defines it and they certainly do not demonstrate it. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable composer. Article has no third-party citations and the external links are not viable sources. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing around which suggests notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WM Motors XLD[edit]

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

From what I can tell, this concept car has never been made, but is simply altered photos of a Chevy Impala that WM Motors is using to attempt to drum up capital. WM Motors doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, and they don't appear to be notable, and this non-existent car appears less notable than the company that doesn't make it. The following is typical of what I found about this car and/or the company:

Jalopnik article about the company denying that it photoshopped a Mitsubishi in its renderings for an electric vehicle.
French article featuring pictures of the car in question, and noting that the company doesn't have a factory, but that it wants to build electric cars and release them by 2018 although it hasn't built any prototypes yet and these are computer generated artwork.
discussion forum making fun of the car that is the subject of the article.
WM Motors's page about the car.

So since Jalopnik isn't generally considered a reliable source, and discussion forums never are, the only thing resembling an RS I found is maybe the French article, and it's about the company, not the car. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage of this car in independent RS. Does not meet GNG. Note that the electric car company mentioned above is a Shangihai China based company that is different than the American WM Motor associated with this car, although the American WM Motors sells the Saleen brand in China. Saleen has an article, but neither WM Motors does. The WM Motors hoping to make electric cars in China, clearly will someday if it is successful. But not this concept car. MB 02:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Sable[edit]

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

Two previous afds closed without consensus but recent discussions have solidified that technical sng passes cannot take priority over failing to pass the gng, in this case neither award passes pornbio and the sourcing is clearly sub gng worthy. Press releases and promotional interviews do not gng make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a BLP lacking in reliable independents sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sources listed are iafd, promotional profile at Wicked Pictures, award materials, or interviews -- none are suitable for establishing notability. Awards listed are not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and here's to hoping we can be third time lucky!, Hasn't won any notable awards and nothing remotely reliable on Google, most sources are promotional and nothing more, Fails PORNBIO #1, #2 and #3 aswell as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No qualifying awards. Grossly inadequate independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass GNG. No qualifying awards to pass PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Chiesa[edit]

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

Was dePRODed by author. Concern was: Only book reviews. No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep as WP:AUTHOR. Multiple published books with non-trivial reviews. Sample reviews:

Subjectivity and Otherness: A Philosophical Reading of Lacan, by Lorenzo Chiesa. Gordon, David, In Library Journal, Sep 15, 2007; Vol. 132, No. 15
Review - Subjectivity and Otherness: A Philosophical Reading of Lacan by Lorenzo Chiesa, MIT Press, 2007, Review by Kamuran Godelek, Ph.D. Apr 22nd 2008 (Volume 12, Issue 17)

Publishing academics are notable for their works, which I believe to be sufficiently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re WP:PROF? I have posted a question in the talk page here - information found on DGG's talk page. I understand that it is not a formal rule although commonly accepted.Ananke83 (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Ananke83 — Ananke83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR. As an example of in-depth coverage of Chiesa's work, see Slavoj Zizek's "Disparities" (Bloomsbury, 2016), pp. 348-362. Chiesa is also mentioned on the back cover of the book along with Brandom, Pippin, Zupancic, Johnston, Malabou, Kristeva, Shakespeare, Schiller, and Beckett.

With a quick search, I have found at least ten books published by major academic publishers that engage with and quote Chiesa's work (see a sample on the talk page). This does not include journal articles and independent reviews of his work. According to WorldCat Identities, Chiesa has 28 works in 60 publications in 5 languages and 3,613 library holdings. . He is currently a visiting Professor at the European University at Saint Petersburg and was previously Full Professor of Modern European Thought at the University of Kent. Ananke83 (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Ananke83 — Ananke83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep -- notable as WP:AUTHOR with multiple published books and good library holdings: Identities.Smokingkills2 (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Smokingkills2 — Smokingkills2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also plenty of entries in Googlescholar, 985 entries Identities and Jstor, 82 entries Identities Smokingkills2 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Smokingkills2[reply]

Comment- just to let you know I have now amended this entry to take into consideration initial comments by Kudpung and all comments on this page. Ananke83 (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Ananke83[reply]
Keep - I am not sure I see enough reviews to meet WP:AUTH but he meets WP:PROF based on current position, publications and his impact in this field. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G4. There is close similarity between the two articles. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChemEqual[edit]

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

This is WP:SPAM masquerading as an article with literally no independent sources per WP:CORPDEPTH. If a passing admin could check the previous version of this article, it may be a speedy delete G4. shoy (reactions) 19:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Adam and Eve[edit]

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

WP:RNPOV, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:WPNOTRS, WP:NOTRELIABLE. A genealogy that relies only on questionable primary sources, does not distinguish various traditions, does not discuss related mythology, theology or archaeology. Awkward to use or edit, may need a rewrite. Redundant with more notable and better presented Genealogies of Genesis, Abraham's family tree, Generations of Noah, List of minor biblical figures, A–K PaleoNeonate (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Talk:Descendants_of_Adam_and_Eve PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:AMK152 (reason: article creator) PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:PiCo (reason: editor who suggested that it be deleted) PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Doug_Weller (reason: recently active on talk page) PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:It4history (reason: SPA, contributed significant content) PaleoNeonate (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete One of the comments from the previous AfD discussion is informative: "a fairly efficient way of showing the relationship between the progeny of Adam and Eve as stated in the Bible; this one goes 55 generations, although there's room for more (Jesus was at the 76th generation)". Other comments were that it is well referenced, granted, it's all to biblical references. However this nominator's argument is more compelling, particularly pointing to WP:NOTGENEALOGY and the other, similar articles that exist. My concern is that it's not complete and likely never would be and essentially, it's an aggregation of genealogies found in various locations in the Christian canon. My final point is from a Christian point of view: 1 Timothy 1:4 argues against this sort of article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Descendants of Adam and Eve according to the Bible" or something like that and then keep. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could be an interesting topic if it discussed how different genealogies were derived, significance of the genealogies, and differences between them. But as a simple list, it's not encyclopedic. Pburka (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - The original nom is correct in all criticisms, but let's add a big one - it is one monstrous pile of WP:NOR violations. This is not what Wikipedia is for.Agricolae (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Merge to Genealogies in the Bible. I think splitting the genealogy into more portions would make for a more useful and more readable page. Looking at Genealogies of Genesis, I imagine it might be nice to also have Genealogies of Chronicles, but as nom points out, Abraham's family tree and Generations of Noah cover some (most? all?) of that. I'd like to note that this article and Genealogies in the Bible were created by the same editor, @AMK152:, with Genealogies in the Bible about two years older. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genealogies_of_Cain_and_Seth. List and its selection seem to violate the policy against original research, as well as being redundant with existing articles. The note at the top about Cain is inappropriate for this encyclopedia, and the list then goes on to list him and his descendants anyway! The layout is really hard to read, and doesn't do a good job of informing one about the precise relationship as well as the layout used at Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genealogies_of_Cain_and_Seth and Abraham's_family_tree#Family_tree does. It glosses over any inconsistencies, which is part of the OR problem. Since this topic is adequately covered by other articles, my !vote is to redirect rather than delete; although I'm not sure how plausible a search term it is. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was the nominator of the previous AfD back in 2010, and Walter Görlitz is right - my argument then doesn't sound particularly convincing. But the list has not been fixed in the last seven years, and as Mangoe said in the last discussion, according to the Bible, everyone is descended from Adam and Eve, so the list makes no sense. St Anselm (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- what the what? This does not look like something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. I don't see a need to redirect, as the article history is not worth preserving. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to the bible, everyone is descended from Adam and Eve, and a "List of People" is not encyclopedic in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopediac, relies entirely on a primary source, and would be just about infinite if completion were attempted.PiCo (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubation - poor standardized according to WP. This article serves for me as a single and simple entry-point to Bible genealogies. It4history (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts would usually be expected to eventually become mainspace articles I think, but if you cannot succeed to have it incubated, possibly that you might succeed to get it userfied (I'm still unsure, but a possible idea). It may be a good idea to copy its source code, in case these options are unavailable, in which case you may want to move it to another Wikimedia or compatible software based Wiki. A way to download its complete Wikisource is to use this link. — Paleo Neonate — 07:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, I forgot to mention: if it becomes a blanked redirect, access to it will remain possible through a permalink, such as Special:permalink/778474483, but you would no longer be able to modify it. — Paleo Neonate — 08:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification. I like idea to get it userfied and will be happy to receive this article to address User:It4history/Descendants of Adam and Eve. The source is copied and parsed on github already but here I try to preserve modifications history of the article. Who may perform Wikipedia:Userfication#General_steps? It4history (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither draft nor user-space was ever intended to serve as web host for material deemed inappropriate for the mainspace. Agricolae (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If userfication can be done, a possible reason may be if the material is useful as an aid to edit Wikipedia (relevant to Wikipedia). Agricolae may be right that it's unlikely to be considered useful for Wikipedia. There is normally a delay of about seven days before the closer takes a decision based on the arguments and consensus of this discussion. I believe that it's possible to request userfication at WP:UNDELETE after an article is deleted, but it seems to not be possible for articles which were deleted through AfD (the current process). Apparently there is a list of administrators who may accept to receive userfication requests here. WP:AFDEQ has a warning about moving an article during the AfD process, I'm not sure if that can sometimes be done uncontroversially. I'm also wondering if Wikidata could not be a place were this type of list would be more adequate. If so, it may be "transwiki-able". — Paleo Neonate — 09:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original nomination is correct in all criticisms, with WP:NOR as well. Since the relevant related topics are covered in other articles, there is no need to move to draft or further develop. Redirect to Genealogies of Genesis. I see no future usefulness or reason for this to be included in userspace. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am not here to defend this article, merely to point out that Biblical genealogy is a serious topic, take a look at Japheth, for an example of this sort of article done fairly well. A good article tracing the significance of claims of descent form Adam and Eve would be a useful addition to the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has WP:NOR issues and is just a mess. Not sure how this was added let alone supported on Wikipedia. ContentEditman (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that a lot has changed since 2010 (time of the last nomination), when I initially wondered if this would be worth nominating again. Also, I think that various !votes of the last nomination mostly objected to the nominator's argument about it being useless (the nominator reason may have been filed hastily perhaps). — Paleo Neonate — 00:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and have it redirect to Genealogies of Genesis. We have several other extensive Wikipedia articles, including but not limited to Genealogy of Jesus, that covers biblical genealogies. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 04:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to userfying if User:AMK152 wants it. Otherwise, delete. Srnec (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know one of the concerns was that it was incomplete and needed work, which I could work on, but my schedule is hectic right now. Either put it in "User:AMK152/", "Draft;" namespace, or export it to my test wiki. Certainly the subject of Biblical genealogies is notable, much like that of European royalty, and such Biblical genealogies are covered in other articles, just not in a complete form. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 00:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doing more Original Research is not going to fix a page that is entirely Original Research. As to comparing to the pages of genealogy for European royalty, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Agricolae (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Descendants of Adam and Eve" is not a biblical genealogy. PiCo (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that every single reference given comes from the Bible, how is that not biblical genealogy? Agricolae (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The biblical genealogies are lists given in various books, with various purposes. One of them, Genesis 5:1, is indeed called the "generations" of Adam (not Eve), but that's the only one. It links then to the other "generations" in Genesis, but they continue only to the entry into Egypt. For the period after that it's possible to trace two lines, one for David and the other for the Aaronid priests, through to the end of Kings for the line of David and much further for the priests, but these can't be called a genealogy of Adam and Eve as that isn't their purpose and, more importantly, because it merges information that's given in discrete sources. It's an interesting study, but misleading to treat the various lines as if they were intended to deal with all humanity in some way.PiCo (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also wondered why you said that it was not Biblical genealogy, but issues like those you mentioned are also why I included "does not distinguish various traditions", so I understand what you mean. — Paleo Neonate — 08:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or rather split) -- This seems to be based solidly on the Hebrew Bible. This is thus not wholly OR, assuming it correctly reproduces Genesis. "Other traditions" are unlikely to depend on any ancient sources whatever, though I appreciate Islam may have a separate view. A lot of the names are blue so that a list article is potentially valid. However, this needs to be split into the Descendants of Adam, which is probably merely a redirect to the Cain and Seth article; descendants of Noah (since the Bible assumes all other antediluvians drowned); descendants of Abraham (or perhaps a generation or two earlier to include cousins, such as Laban and Nahor); Aaronic priesthood (possibly two lines); ancestry of David (back to Judah). I suspect that many of these articles exist so that there is nothing to create. I am surprised how many blue links there are in the list, and wonder whether a wholesale cull is not needed of articles on people who are only recorded in the genealogies in 1 Chron. 1-7. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Various somewhat contradicting traditions are found in the Torah itself. Making them all appear like one consistent line may perhaps be more synthesis than original research however, I'm not sure. — Paleo Neonate — 23:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a secondary source in sight, making it all OR. Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY and pretty much all the above comments. An unencyclopedic mess of an article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Even on its own terms, the article is misleading. It does not present "the" genealogy of these figures according to the Bible. There is a tremendous amount of variation between the various genealogies scattered about in the Bible, and so many judgment calls are required in trying to synthesize them that any proposed super-genealogy will just be presenting someone's speculative attempt to synthesize it all. This problem exists to the point of being insurmountable even if we just confine ourselves to the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. Once you add in the New Testament, with its reliance on the Septuagint (are we going to bring the Septuagint into this too?) you open up unfixable can of worms. I'm all for people trying to make their own super-genealogies off Wikipedia, but presenting this as if it is simply "what the Bible says" is wrong. Alephb (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Rivalries between sports personalities happen all the time and this one lasted a relatively short period of time with recent articles about "making up", etc. Probably better placed to write a few sentences in each individual's article, if this is even relevant with the 10-year test of notability. Jake Brockman (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable topic for an article. Could potentially be mentioned in the articles about the individuals, if it is sufficiently relevant in the context of their careers. --RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also per nom. Doesn't have the long-standing nature of sporting rivalries which do have articles. E.g. football rivalries sometimes up to 100 years in existence. Not even particularly significant in F1 terms; just a series of spats between teammates (not uncommon). Eagleash (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This does not match up to the guidelines about actual notable rivalries like, say Yankees-Dodgers rivalry, and was too short to remain relevant.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Branson convention center[edit]

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

Fails GNG, sources are not independent of the subject, and no Google hits from what I can find that constitute third-party sources. ToThAc (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many articles about events that mention the Branson Convention Center as their event site. Coverage by independent RSes appears to be almost entirely mentions in passing in routine event coverage. This [1] article has some coverage. Not enough coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can imagine a case for this being notable as a physical building, but as an event center, it is not. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Atash[edit]

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

unremarkable musician Mjbmr (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and MUSICBIO after searching for reliable sources and none appeared. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9814072356 (number)[edit]

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

This article survived nomination about 12 years ago, but I think it's time to take another look. The only real notable (and that's still being fairly generous) property of this number is that it's the largest base-10 pandigital perfect square, a fact that's already noted at the pandigital number article. Everything else listed is either very closely related to that fact, or pure trivia for bootstrapping notability. At WP:WikiProject Numbers, it seems that more is required for creation of a number article. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9814072356.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fwiw the closing administrator in 2005 in that case was literally 'counting votes' in a way that we wouldn't see in an Afd close today -- and coincidentally was indef banned not too long after. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To pass WP:NUMBER we need "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties". This number has only one property (of dubious mathematical interest since it is base-dependent), expressed in different but related ways in the article: the fact that it is the largest square with all digits distinct. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. WP:NUMBER lists three criteria but it's unclear how many of them a number needs to meet to be notable. 9814072356 seems to fail tests 1. (three properties) and 2. (cultural significance) but pass 3. (mentioned in literature - assuming the article's References are valid). If the pass mark is 1/3 then it's a keep; if 2/3 then it's probably a delete. I don't think the pass mark can be 3/3, as WP quite correctly has several articles about mathematically important integers with no cultural meaning. Certes (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This number is no more notable than any other ten-digit number. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the pure fact that there is now social history involved with this number... on wikipedia. It has now become (slightly) culturally significant. Also... how is this number NOT kind of interesting? 660099 ^ 2.. AND it uses every number from 0-9 only once? AND there's actual debate spanning multiple years about whether or not it should be kept? That made it interesting enough for me to learn about this specific number. Just my opinion, delete it if you must ;) Popcrate (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic, any article that survives a deletion nomination once and continues to have intermittent comments made about it becomes ineligible for ever being deleted in the future. I don't think it works like that. Moreover, there are 86 other pandigital perfect squares; this one just happens to be the largest. Should we have an article for every one of them? --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't logic, I just found the number itself to be interesting =). Probably because: base 10 specifically, the 66099^2, and the use of number each time (If it weren't base 10, it probably wouldn't be as interesting). I believe I reached the page by clicking a wikilink from the "Mathematics Portal" in the "DID YOU KNOW..." section. <-- This sort of thing has value. See Special:WhatLinksHere/9814072356_(number) and Portal:Mathematics/Did_you_know/69. Realistically... I say just redirect/merge it to Pandigital_number. --- Popcrate (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How It Began: A History of the Modern World[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast lacking any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC) This podcast has thousands of downloads in a short time and you can view the select bibliography on every page proving reliable sources.OliverSwan (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a blatant advertisement I do think WP:G11 may apply. Speedy delete. 17:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: I quite agreed. In this case, notability is not the issue. The thing was blatant advertising, and has been deleted as such. Dloh cierekim

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dreyfus Affair. Sandstein 16:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The public scandal of the Dreyfus Affair[edit]

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

This is likely a copy-paste of a public domain source ([2]), which in itself is not a problem, but it is basically a bad fork of Dreyfus affair: shorter but with more peacockery, less information, and some POV. It is not a good place for a redirect title, either, but it may be worth considering for history or avoiding to break links. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note The issue is wider than just this on article - as there is a part of a series - which includes Investigation and arrest of Alfred Dreyfus, Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, Picquart's Investigations of the Dreyfus Affair, Others look into the Dreyfus Affair, The public scandal of the Dreyfus Affair, J'accuse…!, and Resolution of the Dreyfus Affair -- which together cover the entire affair (in individual articles linked in a series). I suggest you take up the entire group of pages - and not just The public scandal of the Dreyfus Affair - taking out just this one wouldn't make sense.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And more, see: Category:Dreyfus affair.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep In September 2002, Dreyfus Affair was expanded by adding content from the Jewish Encyclopedia [3]. In December 2003, the article was split into sub-articles [4] - each of the articles Icewhiz notes were created then, I think. In April and May 2007, the French wikipedia article was expanded, largely based on Jean-Denis Bredin, L'Affaire, Fayard, Paris, 1993 [5]. In March 2013, the English language Dreyfus Affair article was expanded largely by translating the French language article [6]. Now, and since 2013, the English language Dreyfus Affair article is of similar length to what it was in December 2003 before it was split up. In my opinion, the section, Dreyfus affair#The case explodes in 1898 should be merged into the article The public scandal of the Dreyfus Affair and trimmed. The same is true about the other articles. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the Dreyfus Affair was itself a scandal (it says so in the opening sentence). Is this article about the "Public scandal of the Dreyfus scandal"? This does not quite make sense. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good point; if kept perhaps the article should be renamed Public response to the Dreyfus Affair. Also, it seems like the Jewish Encyclopedia article this is based on was written less than ten years after the trial, so I agree that some serious refimprove is needed. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current Dreyfus_affair#The_case_explodes_in_1898 does an excellent job of covering the reactions & with good sources, while the article under discussion is a reproduction of a dated document. I'd say delete -- if someone want to expand on what's in the main article, they should feel free to do so. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the Dreyfus Affair is already a large article with a series of "main" sub-articles. What we probably need is to keep the detailed main articles and to trim the general article back to a reasonable length. There are whole books on the affair. An encyclopaedia should not be reproducing books, or even full-length academic articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Dreyfus Affair. The parts taken directly from a public-domain source are more appropriate content for Wikisource than Wikipedia. As a stand-alone article, the content quality is too low to justify keeping the article as written, WP:TNT. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dreyfus Affair. Anything useful can be merged. The 2003 split was a bad idea and should be repealed. If there is some specific aspect the Dreyfuss affair that is notable, then that justifies a separate article, but splitting based on simple length metrics has resulted in the sub-articles not keeping up with quality improvements in the main article. The solution to an article that is too long is summary style, not arbitrary chopping. On the other hand the edit history of the page should be retained because of its age, long edit history, and relation to the main article. SpinningSpark 15:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Exemplo347 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CESNUR[edit]

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

There is no reliable sources that prove the notability of Cesnur in this article. In the list of sources there are references to the web site of Cesnur, but nowhere is there a description of the organization itself - only on their personal website. So it looks like an advertising of Cesnur - Juliano202 (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. The claim of "no reliable sources that prove the notability of Cesnur", and that "there are references to the web site of Cesnur, but nowhere is there a description of the organization itself - only on their personal website" are plainly false. I added this one and this one myself and informed the nominator, and they look like reliable independent sources describing CESNUR to me. If those are not sufficient, a Google books search quickly finds the following (and these are just the first four links, there are plenty more):

A Google scholar search (link above) shows me "about 1,840 results", and restricting it to English only via the search settings gets me "about 1,090 results". The nominator has clearly made precisely zero effort at WP:BEFORE. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep It took all of two seconds to find plenty of independent sources giving this organization significant coverage. The article's references may have been iffy before this AfD, but "iffy" means the nom should double check, not just assume it's not notable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the WP:GNG. Doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was carried out. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. JimRenge (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is the site of an anti-cult organization. This is a private site of the organization and it can not be a reliable source.
The site with a link to the university is reliable, but it does not describe CESNUR in any way, it simply indicates that this is a group of scientists.
In the book Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements is really a little better described organization. But this is a tertiary source.
Again, I have doubts about whether we can regard these books as independent sources. Juliano202 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The site with a link to the university is reliable, but it does not describe CESNUR in any way, it simply indicates that this is a group of scientists.

That is completely untrue. From the link:

The Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR) is an independent international network that engages in scholarly research and provides accurate information to the public on new religious movements, always protecting religious freedom while acknowledging the criminal nature of certain cult activities. It hosts annual conferences and topical seminars and also sponsors public lectures to promote its methodology. CESNUR's publications include a series of reference guides on new religious movements and the Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy (2001). In addition, it has provided scholarly criticism to the French government's 1996 Parliamentary Report on Cults. Professor Massimo Introvigne's publications collection on minority religions (on loan to CESNUR) includes over 20,000 volumes and manuscripts from almost 200 journals and is open to researchers. CESNUR receives financial support from the Italian government and has satellite offices in the United States and France.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that CESNUR is an organization in Turin. In your quote, it is said that CESNUR is "an independent international network that engages". It does not say that this is an organization. So you need to correct the article. - Juliano202 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So your entire argument is that the sources don't specifically use the word "organization"? Is that really it? An "independent international network" of academics who work together, which has a headquarters, and which organizes annual conferences and publishes reference guides clearly *is* an organization, at least to anyone who understands the English meaning of the word. We do not need sources for the accurate use of common English words. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an entire chapter on CESNUR in what is obviously an academic book: "CESNUR: A Short History”, in EUGENE V. GALLAGHER (a cura di), "Cult Wars" in Historical Perspective: New and Minority Religions, Routledge, New York – London 2016, pp. 23-31. I believe the proposal for deletion comes from somebody not liking the organization, which is of course understandable but says nothing about whether the organization is notable or not. Aidayoung — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry for not signing the comment - I did not learn how to sign it from iPad, Aidayoung — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC) PS I didn't solve the signing in iPad issues but I performed an "advanced search" on Academia.edu and found 474 articles mentioning CESNUR there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidayoung (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC) This matter is becoming increasingly strange. I have just been sent a post on Facebook from a recently created account where somebody who may well be our Juliano202 boasts that he will destroy CESNUR or something similar and shows that thanks to his efforts the page in English about CESNUR is now proposed for deletion. It seems that Juliano202 has a very primitive idea of how he can use or misuse Wikipedia Aidayoung (talk)[reply]

@Aidayoung: Increasingly respected Professor Introvigne, first of all I want to remind you that the Wikipedia rules are the same for everyone. Wikipedia is not interested in private opinions - only facts and sources matter here. Everything you write for now is your personal opinion. Unlike you, the administrator of Boing! said Zebedee made a great work - he saved the article of your organization in Wikipedia. I don't have enough evidences of the connection of your young account in Wikipedia with the administrator Boing! said Zebedee and a whole group of accounts that try to protect the article of your organization. So far, there are not enough facts to talk about corruption and collusion in Wikipedia. I paid attention to your article because it was made very poorly. Moreover the administrator Boing! said Zebedee agreed with my arguments. You can be a professor, but here you are just a user who has to prove the notability of Cesnur. The rules here are the same for everyone. A little later I will watch the materials that were given as arguments by Boing! said Zebedee. - Juliano202 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is disturbing. It's quite obvious that the article is not going to be deleted (and it's also been quite obvious all along that Juliano202 has some opposition to CESNUR). I think all we need to do for now is let this discussion run its course, and then we can deal with any further disruption that might happen. (I see you do not have email enabled, or I might ask you to send me that Facebook link.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Juliano202 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JimRenge (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I am honored that Juliano202 confuses me with Professor Introvigne. He should however have looked at the history of the CESNUR Wikipedia page. I did not create it and only by looking at the history myself I remembered that I did once two very minor edits. The page was created and expanded by users who, unlike Juliano202, have a large record of edits in different fields. I do agree that it is somewhat oldish and could be updated and improved based on the sources quoted in this discussion. I may do it myself in the future Aidayoung —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Power~enwiki (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Zographos[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN; some minor local coverage but well short of WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no inherent notability of local councillors. Getting some coverage for some controversial statements doesn't cut it. LibStar (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is more out there than in the article, including other controversies, and also reliable secondary source biographical material. There is material to support a more detailed article with appropriate references, but the subject still appears to be a local minor politician with no broader coverage, and does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Aoziwe (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local municipal councillors are not automatically presumed notable just for holding office — the depth of substance and sourceability has to show them to be significantly more notable than the norm before an article becomes appropriate. But neither the sourcing nor the substance are on the ball here — with just three sources of which one is a YouTube clip, and no substance that would make him anything more than a WP:BLP1E, this article is completely failing to do what it takes to get a municipal ward councillor in the door. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GEE JAY[edit]

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

Could only find press releases and YouTube videos of the subject who fails to meet WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of her doesn't bring up reliable coverage in independent third-party sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would like better sources, but I doubt they exist. [7] makes a borderline claim for notability, and YouTube public information [8] confirms part of it. The "19 million views" claim in the article appears unsourced. Power~enwiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Power~enwiki: Creating a cover of a popular song doesn't make one notable. There are no sources online that discusses the subject in detail. I don't understand your weak keep argument. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Delete The subject fail's WP:GNG & WP:MUSICBIO am in support of @Versace1608: cause an article can not be notable because of just recording a cover of a hit single. We have artist like Toby Grey who is much notable than Gee Jay yet she doesn't have an article yet. She made a cover for Kiss Daniel hit single "Woju" and made fame from their on, got nominated for top awards like City People Entertainment Awards & Nigeria Entertainment Awards not once's, not twice.--MKJ6006 (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608:, I have the feeling that MKJ6006 is a sock/related to Obari2Kay? Both have been involved in the unsuccessful creation of the Sugarboy article. Also, MKJ6006 seems to be promoting Toby Grey in this afd. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz:, Some one give's an instance of a known artist Toby Grey with GEE JAY that mean's he/she is promoting the name Toby Grey just like @Versace1608: giving an instance about Mayorkun and Dice Ailes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dice Ailes (2nd nomination) does that also means she is also promoting Mayorkun? @Oluwa2Chainz:.--Obari2Kay (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz: Thanks for reporting both users. I reported both of them in March 2017, but nothing panned out. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spam anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FMB Insurance Services[edit]

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

It's obviously written by the company. The user that created it is named FMB Insurance GabetheEditor^(talk_cont) 13:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COI concerns are valid, but that in itself isn't a reason for deletion. What is a valid reason is that I cannot find any evidence that this meets WP:COMPANY. The references given are either the company's own website or company-authored PR fluff. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of coaches who have coached 200 NRL games[edit]

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

This article was PROD'd by User:Schwede66 with the rationale: Wikipedia:Listcruft that does not meet WP:GNG - I feel there could be some weight in this argument but I also feel there is a chance this could be expanded into a perfectly valid list article, so while I'm personally on the fence a bit, I think it'd be a good idea to see what the project/community consensus is on deletion rather than it simply falling foul of an expired PROD. Skemcraig (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the above, if someone is willing to put a few sentences in then it would be of much more value. Not sure if it is a significant milestone for a coach though.Fleets (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now at least): it seems to be original research. If 200 games is a particular significant milestone then I would expect to see links to sources that discuss this and host their own lists of coaches who have reached the milestone. Mattlore (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If anyone was willing to improve the article, I could see some value in redirecting this to a more general title such as List of NRL coaches. As it stands, the 200 games is a bit of an arbitrary milestone, and should be deleted per WP:LISTCRUFT. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed with the above that if 200 games were considered an important milestone for coaching then there'd be lots of non-routine coverage of it when someone passes that point. But there isn't. At this point it's indiscriminate information. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as above. there is no indication that coaching 200 games is a significant milestone... it's not like when a player reaches 300 games which gets well documented. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (✉) 11:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boris, Prince of Turnovo[edit]

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

I'm proposing this article for deletion for the simple reason of lacking any real independent notability (at the present time) for an article. Though this may be a grandson of a presently far more notable person – being both a former monarch and prime minister – this article is about a private citizen. None of the information on the article is cited and nothing more can be said about him than that he was born. He may be a member of a former royal family but Bulgaria is no longer a monarchy for that to be of relevance. It is possible that because of who he is attention may be given to him in the future but presently this is not the case. Even the given article title "Prince of Turnovo" is uncited Re5x (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heir to the Bulgarian throne. Whether Bulgaria still officially has a monarchy or not, this is a big deal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ~~tentatively,~~ per Necrothesp. There certainly is a presumption of notability by being the heir to the defunct Bulgarian throne. There are five sources at the Bulgarian version of the article, which might be reliabe. [9]. At the very least, the content should not be deleted but should be merged to the article of his father, Kardam, Prince of Turnovo if there are insufficient sources to establish notability. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This Spanish source, from El Mundo (Spain) seems to be RS and is an in-depth piece on Boris, same with this piece from La Razón (Madrid). Simeon's own website confirms his title as well [10] Presumeably more European sources (who knew countries with monarchies are interested in dynasts?), including Bulgarian ones exist. Based on the sources above, this looks like it would meet the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't consider him notable, but suspect he does fall within the notability guidelines. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep heir to an abolished monarchy of the 20th century, experience indicates that the main dynastic events and kinships involving him will garner media coverage over his lifetime, as attested in the sources I've just added to the article." FactStraight (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus (Brand New song)[edit]

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

Non-notable outside of the album. Notability is not inherited. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are articles which have been at Wikipedia for a long time which are less notable. This is notable: "In the US, the single reached number 30 on the Billboard Hot Modern Rock Tracks chart." And so are these factoids: Song performed on Letterman and Conan O'Brien shows. Also, performed on television show Friday Night Lights.Article could use better footnoting. Knox490 (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Song was #30 on Billboard in 2007 (I added a source) which meets WP:NALBUM #2 Tobyc75 (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this song has charted that does not by itself establish notability. I've found no detailed independent RS coverage of this song independent of the album. Fails WP:NSONG. Gab4gab (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This song fails Wikipedia's notability guideline. As User:Gab4gab suggested above, the piece does not have any detailed independent coverage. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J2-L192[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all suffer from the same faults:

No indication that these particular haplogroups are notable; appear to be largely Original Research based on a series of non-Reliable Source community web pages hosted by a DNA testing company, from which unvetted scientific raw data is being extracted. Agricolae (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 13 April 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, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't claim to be very conversant with the the criteria applied to haplogroup notability, the sources provided seem quite weak and unreliable (as in, not peer-reviewed and formally published). Unless there exists some understanding similar to that on species articles - i.e., formal naming is sufficient for base notability - , delete in absence of better sources.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a formal standard for human haplogroups, but I don't think comparing them to a species is correct - the latter is only formallized when it is formally described in print - the act of naming it produces the basis for notability, a published scientific study focussed on that species. These haplotypes do not get individually published, for the most part - at most you might get a passing reference in a paper that is collecting broad sets of data (along the lines of: of the 14 tested we found three of them were J2, and one of these had a novel A-to-G mutation at position 29831 that we designate J2-L192), and that is the most detailed description it will ever receive. Certainly some haplogroups - some of the more basal clades have had whole papers covering their branching patterns and chronology, but I see nothing in these articles to suggest they have received that kind of coverage. Rather, this would be more like finding a crowd-sourced list of all of the different color pattern variations within the eastern newt and creating a separate page for eastern red spotted newts with 15 spots. GNG has to apply, and there is no indication that these particular haplogoups, well out from the base of the tree, have received any significant coverage at all (and that is setting aside the fact that they were compiled by original research from crowd-sourced unpublished on-line datasets). Agricolae (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all. This is an industry-specific term used in DNA ancestry analysis, but is not generally noteworthy. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dying Shadows[edit]

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

This was tagged for A7; it's ineligible because it doesn't fall into one of the categories covered by A7, but seems pretty clearly non-notable. GoldenRing (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: An article on a book published via Authors Press. The given sources are primary and a basic Goodreads page, neither of which meet the referencing requirements. My searches, including the tailored Wikiproject India search, are finding nothing better than sales sites. Fails WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG. (The contributing editor has also created a page on Surendra Pratap Singh (author), whose notability looks dubious.) AllyD (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio de Noli Academic Society[edit]

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

Non-notable organization that does not appear to be much more than a Wordpress blog Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- The article does not inspire me with confidence in its notability. A conference was held in 2010 and its proceedings were published. This was followed by a bulletin (?newsletter), but no regular journal is mentioned. However, I am open to persuasion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I agree with peterkingiron, looking for sources, I find a few mentions, but nothing in depth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Robichaux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional bio. full of puffery and uncited praise. The athletic career does not seem to meet the requirements,and there is nothing else substantial. I would not have accepted this from AfC. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Falls in line with WP:BLP guidelines, cited articles do not fall under the category of WP:ROUTINE coverage and external links lend credibility to the information as determined by WP:BLPEL guidelines. Additionally WP:SPORTSPERSON criteria are met as professional recognition has been achieved and duly cited. Furthermore the criteria laid out WP:ANYBIO of BIO are met. Fulfills the requirements of WP:NBIO and the WP:BASIC requirements of a notable figure. "Puffery" has been removed. Morrisowen8 (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)— Morrisowen8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Delete He fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters at WP:NMMA. He doesn't appear to have competed (or if he competed, he failed to medal) in a BJJ world championship so I see no evidence to show WP:MANOTE is met. There's nothing to show WP:NAUTHOR is met, especially since the books are self-published. I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG since most of the sources are either routine sports reporting, blogs, or employers. There's a lot of sources, but not enough good ones to convince me of WP notability.Papaursa (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Papaursa. There is a bit of WP:OVERKILL going on.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per Papaursa MMA achievements were updated. Morrisowen8 (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable; Wikipedia is not designed for personal bios. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Peluffo[edit]

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

I declined a CSD A7 as being a deputy mayor seems to clear the criteria and there are sources, which was then reverted with the summary "see talk page". Since the talk page had nothing on it, I'm coming here instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the following on the talk page. You probably just missed it.

According to WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). Note that this criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors. City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London, or cities with populations of greater than 500,000. Losing candidates for municipal election are not considered inherently notable just for their candidacy and are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated."

This page is about the former Deputy Mayor (not even the Mayor) of a town with a population of 2,000. I think that qualifies for a deletion. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the notability criteria, neither as a local politician (as explained in the comments above), nor as an academician (the page of the mentioned academic society is itself proposed for deletion). 86.120.254.110 (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Noli is closer to 3,000 people. For a few hundred years before 1797 it was a soveign place. On the other hand some small places not far from Caliabar in Nigeria were soverign in the early 1790s and I would not let stand a weak sourced article on their deputy mayor either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a discussion occurring at WP:POLOUTCOMES about the addition of the populations of greater than 500,000 phrase and whether that truly reflects the common outcome of municipal councilmembers. --Enos733 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a deputy mayor is in no way an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia — at the size of Noli, even the mayor wouldn't constitute an automatic inclusion pass, let alone a city councillor. But nothing else here constitutes evidence that he's more notable than the norm, and the depth of sourcing simply isn't solid enough to claim WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete, with the possible merge of some of the material to quantum computing DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous quantum computation[edit]

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

Article seems to fail both WP:NOTESSAY and possibly also WP:GNG. It does not really define its apparent topic, although it seems to be about the application of quantum computing to continous problems. I do not think the phrase "continuous quantum computing" is in common parlance with this meaning, however. The sources provided are applications of quantum computing to continuous rather than discrete problems; however I don't think they establish notability of this concept or phrase- none that I checked mention "continuous quantum computation" or any variant thereof. Porphyro (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to me the content could be merged into a section at Quantum computing. Continuous quantum computation was studied with DARPA funding. prokaryotes (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree- although I would suggest that the amount of useful material on the page as it currently stands is absolutely minimal. I don't think personally that every project given a funding grant is notable, also. Porphyro (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with you. prokaryotes (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This appears to be a personal essay on the topic. I'm not sure anything here is salvageable for our purposes. Continuous quantum computation may be a sufficiently notable topic for an article (unclear to me), but I think WP:TNT may be appropriate here. Ajpolino (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also happy to support merging the salvageable info into another article, but I lack the knowledge of the topic to do that. Kudos to@XOR'easter: for all the work they've put into this. Ajpolino (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I wrote a new lede (brief, but better than the cold open that was there before), and I condensed and reorganized the existing text so that it reads more like an article than an essay. The subject is definitely worth covering; one review by Braunstein and van Loock alone has 1350 citations in the Web of Science (and over two thousand citations by the more relaxed standards of Google Scholar). XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A comment- I think your lede is at odds to what the original article is supposed to be about. The article, and all its examples that I have checked, are about the application of regular quantum computing with a finite quantum dimension to problems that have a continous "flavour". The only source that uses the title phrase "continuous quantum computation" is the Columbia grant page, and if you check the list of publications there, they are about digital quantum computation. Given that "continuous quantum computation" is not a phrase in regular usage, I would suggest that an article under that name, with the lede you have provided, is not tenable. I have reverted your edits- though I believe they would be a good start for a page called "Quantum information with continuous variables" or the like. Porphyro (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Informally polling colleagues, it seems that the sense of "continuous" used by the original article is significantly less common than the Braunstein–Lloyd–van Loock–etc. sense. (If anyone is curious, I have a draft of "Continuous-variable quantum computation" here.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One confusing thing is that the final reference (Adesso, G., Ragy, S. and Lee, A. R. (2014), Continuous variable quantum information: Gaussian states and beyond, arXiv:1401.4679) is very definitely about the infinite-Hilbert-space-dimension sense. So, this article has been somewhat of a blend since (...checks history...) 2014. I take this to suggest that it might be better to start from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone over the article again, editing it for encyclopedic tone and so forth, I think the best course of action would either be to move it to something like "Quantum computation of continuous functions", or to merge it into an appropriate article (like quantum computation, as suggested above). There does appear to be a legitimate literature on this general area, but the current name for the article is quite confusing, and it is possible that there simply isn't enough article here to stand on its own. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with your colleagues, and the editors who added the paper you mention, that I would have associated the title with the continuous variables rather than the- actually slightly nebulous idea- of computation of continuous functions, so I would definitely agree that the page should be moved to a more appropriate title if kept. I agree that there is literature on this point, but I'm questioning whether or not it's a useful distinction- to make a slightly frivolous illustration it seems a little like having an article called "Scientists whose names contain only letters from the first half of the alphabet". It contains noteworthy subjects but the classification isn't itself of much note. Thank you for your work improving the article- even if the consensus is for deletion I think we can merge some of this content into quantum computation. Porphyro (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment – I generally agree that the separation of this corner from the rest of the field is rather arbitrary. In order to facilitate an eventual merge (which looks more and more like the best way to go), I've inlined the citations, matching the papers with their subjects. (Current total, including some I found during the process: 16 citations, by 11 authors.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be the research program of a single academic; without any notable results the program itself is not notable. As a "generic term" the article is low-quality and should be deleted as WP:TNT. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvagable to quantum computing and redirect to preserve history and attribution. SpinningSpark 14:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:34 (Needles//Pins album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM The album doesn't appear to have entered the charts anywhere, there is nothing about sales, of the 3 reviews 1 is a blog another describes itself as a zine (difficult to mesure its readership but it has less than 3k followers on FB) the other is also difficult to assess its audience but has 6k followers on FB and 8k on twitter. there is not enough information here to warrant an article and the information should be merged into the artist page IMHO Domdeparis (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, albums are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia just because they and the band that created them exist — they must have a concrete claim of notability, such as charting, and the articles have to cite reliable source coverage about the albums, such as reviews in major newspapers and music magazines on the order of Exclaim! or Rolling Stone. But that's not what's on offer here; the closest thing to a reliable source is Southern Souls, which isn't that close because it's not a music magazine, but primarily an archive of live performance videos. And, for that matter, even the band's notability per WP:NMUSIC is questionable at best — the only notability criterion it's really even trying for is "media coverage exists", but the media coverage it cites is all too blurbish to slamdunk that. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The album does not meet any criteria in WP:NALBUM. Thanks. AlexMichal (talk) 1:25, 11 May 2017 (PST)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abeer Rizvi[edit]

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG Saqib (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one film role is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the AfD process makes sense for people currently active in the entertainment industry. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse (software company)[edit]

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

no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP based on a news search that doesn't have coverage. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources needed to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling turned up nothing useful. I don't believe the sources exist. Msnicki (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 14:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Birch (priest)[edit]

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

Local historical church official with no assertion of notability. Listing in a WP:DIRECTORY of clergy does not pass the GNG. Reywas92^Talk 06:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was archdeacon from X to Y, no DOB/DOD, nothing else except that a person of such name held this position at a given time. Fails GNG, and fails Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy (I don't see archdeacons listed there). It is sufficient for his name to be listed at Archdeacon of Hastings. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will also comment that the main article Archdeacon of Hastings links to dozens others who have held this post in the past, and Template:Archdeacons in the Church of England has numerous more of these local offices, each linking to the past officeholders, for hundreds altogether. Virtually none of them are notable - numerous are just as short as this article, and others have a few biographical paragraphs that do not provide any additional evidence of notability - these simply are not individuals of note for WP, as Common outcomes suggests. It would be nice to hear suggestions for the best path forward; there are far too many to AfD individually or even tag them all (and bulk AFDs tend to be viewed negatively) Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per obituary in The Gentleman's Magazine, which I have added to the article. St Anselm (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, he was educated and later died. That part of the magazine is a gazette of Promotions, Preferments, Births, Marriages, and Obituaries, including a whole section on clergy who died. Where's the part that describes his notability, as "significant coverage" per the GNG? That distinguishes him from anyone else who held a minor, local church position? It's not even necessarily "independent of the subject" as an obituary may be submitted by the surviving family. Reywas92^Talk 06:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, "ordinary" clergy merely got listed (and I do not know if this was all clergy, or only those who met a certain standard of rank, although being a Vicar was a position of considerable importance in British society in that era) in the Gentleman's Magazine; but notable clergy got the detailed obit this one did.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The list article indicates that we have articles on all his predecessors and successors. We either need to keep them all, or undertake a wholesale purge of those who are not known for much else. We are dealing here with the established church. After the diocesan bishop and any suffrigans, the archdeacons are the most important diocesan officials. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am updating the page, but am !voting before I finish as it is almost time to close. I'll update this comment with more reasoning tomorrow, but for now I'll vaguely say that he gets a lot of passing mention in newspapers, magazines and gazettes as his position was somewhat honored, he has a plaque in his honor at Battle Abbey which is discussed in books about that, and his career is discussed in enough detail in various sources that we know when he was born, when he graduated from school, when he was given various appointments, when his children married, and when he died. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To update my !vote, looking at the obituary, it was certainly not submitted by his surviving family, as its elements are repeated in many sources from his lifetime and would have been known well enough at the time of his death. The obituary looks fairly standard for someone of this life station, which as Bearian notes, was very important in its time. The other sources present what might be called routine notices - and some are duplicated in other, similar notices, of course, those currently in the article seem to cover what I found. Particularly, a number of discussions of his son, a naval officer, mention him in passing. Other than the routine mentions from his lifetime, he is also briefly mentioned in a paragraph in book about Lord Byron, and markers in his honor in Bexhill and Battle churches are discussed in books about the history Sussex (currently reference 2) and Battle (currently reference 9). The article clearly passes V, NPOV, and NOR. As for GNG, it depends on things like whether or not one thinks that routine coverage of posting he held is significant, that discussion of his memorial tables are in depth coverage about the subject, that his obituary is independent, and so on; or that his posting as archdeacon passes NBIO (via ANYBIO #1, for instance). I should note that while the Archdeacon of Lewes is the senior religious figure for half of the Diocene of Chichester (which is led by a bishop), the religion wikiproject norability guide (an essay) states that "brief descriptions in genealogical records or church histories of specific individuals are not considered specific indicators of notability." On the other hand, if we think of one of the purposes of wikipedia as being a gazette of important people, places, and things, Archdeacons of Lewes probably would be included. As with a lot of articles, keep and delete both seem justifiable. To me, this individual seems significant enough for inclusion based on the current sourcing and I expect even more in depth references could be found in sources published in Sussex that are currently hard to find online. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the post of Archdeacon was, at the time, quite important. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per NCATH criterion 1:

Are, or were when living, a member of the Catholic Episcopate (such as the Pope, patriarch, cardinal, Archbishops, diocesan bishop, or other Catholic church equivalent)

--Mr. Guye (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not apply, this is an Anglican figure, not Catholic, and that is a project guide, not a set rule. Notability must still be established besides knowing basic dates of life events. Reywas92^Talk 05:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Changing my vote to Delete.--Mr. Guye (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I changed my vote because the subject was Anglican, and there is no way he passes GNG or WP:NBIO. However, I still disagree with you on the validity of WikiProject advice, as long as they are formed by CONSENSUS.--Mr. Guye (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Facts in article are reliably supported, his progression from Vicar, to Dean, to Archdeacon was the hallmark of a notable career in his era, and his notability is established by passing the obit standard. An Obit in the Gentleman's Magazine in 19th century Britain was the equivalent of an obit in the NYTimes in 21st century America. Kudos to User:StAnselm, User:MilborneOne and User:Smmurphy for the WP:HEYMANN upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an Anglican Archdeacon#Anglican_Communion is the sort of ranking churchman that, judging fromm the bluelinks at Archdeacon of Lewes seems to qualify under WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Virtually every one of those historical archdeacon articles (Lewes and other localities) was created by a single user, so no, there should not be any assumption that there is consensus for general notability. While others have found additional sources for Birch, many of the other articles are also just as worthlessly sourced to a single offline directory listing centuries of these local church leaders. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Held a notable position in the Anglican church, which I think is sufficient for establishing him for notable. I agree with E.M.Gregory's and StAnselm's points also. SJK (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moving the article doesn't answer the question of whether the article should exist at all, the central inquiry of WP:AFD. Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Birmingham[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory and this list does not meet the criteria at WP:LISTN. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of notable bus routes in Birmingham. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you genuinely suggesting moving this bare list of one bus company's routes, to a misleading title like that? How can you justify that? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a general guideline, we don't create lists of "notable" things. Each article needs to specifically define its own list criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very difficult to find sources for all of the routes since there are so many companies with their own routes. The word "Major" rather than "notable" could be better. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiImprovment78: To be clear - the problem is NOT the title of the page, so moving it will not solve anything. The move suggestion is not based on any policy or guideline so let's put it aside. The problem is two-fold - WP:NOTDIRECTORY states that Wikipedia is not a directory, and WP:LISTN sets strict notability criteria for lists, which are not met by this list of bus routes. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: Yes I know it says it at the bottom, I was just adding to what had been discussed. I read over them and I think whilst it is true it is not encyclopaedic, what criteria do other lists that are similar to this meet that this one doesn't? WikiImprovment78 (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Antal[edit]

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

The sources seem to fall into three main groups: dead links ([11], [12], [13]), cruft ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]), paid and blog interviews ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27]) plus a couple of miscellaneous items: a brief film review in a no-name publication and a pregnancy announcement in a tabloid.

I would submit that what is glaringly absent is the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" contemplated by WP:BASIC, and that we should therefore delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links??

Hi. I started this article because I saw D'Ora - Antal's film - and was compelled to research her because I believe she made an important story. It appears you have a particular interest in Romanian subjects - are you not aware of her? I found tons of articles (that had translations) about her and she certainly appears to be a person of note. Also, none of those links were 'dead' links when I posted this article so I would very much appreciate any insight you have about what I may have done wrong that caused them to break. I will be combing through the article again to find out. Also, Not sure what you mean about paid articles?? I sincerely would appreciate you explaining this to me so I can get educated on how to spot such things - as I was not aware. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- The links I said are dead don't work for me. In any case, two of them are tabloid trash, so probably wouldn't add much to a claim of notability. This would be a canonical example of a paid interview, specifically designed to boost the subject's image. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul - I finding better links and removing the 'tabloid' ones (I did some more research this morning). I'll be working on this today and after work for me tomorrow... Thanks again - I always appreciate learning and having the opportunity to get better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 01:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you so much for responding. I appreciate your time and help! I think I know what I did wrong on those broken links you are describing and I will fix them shortly; still not sure what you mean about paid for articles but I will remove the one you identified for sure! I'd love to know how to identify that kinda thing so I don't make the same mistake again! I'll be updating this article tomorrow! Thanks again... :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following User Biruitorul's Suggestions

Found five solid links to add to the new/updated link list that I fixed per suggestions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akrumoftruth, please don't label each of your comments with first-, second-, or third-level headings (headings marked with "=", "==", or "===") in AFD discussions. In fact, it's probably better/easier to just avoid making subheadings entirely rather than worrying about specific levels. The reason to avoid them is that AFD discussions are transcluded into larger daily logs of AFD discussions -- in this case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 8 -- and using first-, second-, or third-level headings will break the table of the contents for the daily log pages by making it appear as if each heading is a separate AFD discussion for a separate article, even though they are not. I removed your heading formatting marks ("==") above in order to fix the broken table of contents in the daily log page; it might take a few minutes, or in the worst case, a few hours, before the changes propagate to the daily log page's table of contents. Thank you. —Lowellian (reply) 01:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winged Blades of Godric - thank you for extending this discussion. I did my best to remove the links I'd posted that I believe originally caused this situation (still not 100% clear as to what the issue was, but I respect the process and always work hard to be a good contributor). I found several more links that I hadn't used originally that seem to better solidify Antal as a person of note. I will have more time this week to explore this article further and will continue to improve it. Thank you again - any insight you can offer would be very apprciated!Akrumoftruth (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 01:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete no showing of the indepth coverage to pass GNG. We lack an article on the film, so I have doubts it is notable, and even if it is, I am not sure a seperate article on her is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I am really not getting this! I appreciate you looking into this article User:Johnpacklambert - but if you did, are you not seeing the coverage of her film D'Ora - which is how I learned about her a few years back from BAFTA's (the British Academy of Film and Television Arts) support of that film and why I felt like starting an article about her - ? D'Ora is actually listed - as is she - in an article here about BAFTA that I found. Clearly she has gotten international attention for that film - which she wrote, produced and directed - and it appears to be of note because of where she is from and what she tackled in the film. Anyway - and as always - I do want to always be a student of wiki so, in sincerity John - I would appreciate you clarifying your proposed deletion of this a bit more so I can understand better your reasoning. Respectfully - Akrumoftruth (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juliancolton Thank you for re-listing. I have been keeping an eye on Delia as I am aware there is a new doc by here coming out (possibly out - researching). I saw a photo of her in OK Magazine last week and today I found an article that came out a few days ago from Watson Headquarters that pretty much says exactly why I felt compelled to write about this artist/filmmaker/advocate - "Antal has proved that anything is possible if you are passionate and believe in your vision." - anyway, I'm putting that link on her page now and keeping an eye our for more about this WE CANNES film. BTW, I do see now that I posted a few articles about her pregnancy when I first posted that I thought supported her credibility - and if that's why this deletion discussion started I do understand better now. OK, back to improving the article and thank you for extending this discussion... Akrumoftruth (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except that "Watson Headquarters" is an advertising agency for aspiring celebrities, not a legitimate news site. The fact that in 24 days of discussion you haven't managed to adduce sources conforming to WP:BASIC standards strongly indicates this individual just isn't notable, no matter how enthusiastic you may be about her. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biruitorul It is??? Please - I am asking in sincerity - show me how you identified it as a paid for advertising agency - I want to learn this because it seemed legitimate to me. I'm asking with a genuine desire to understand - I've never encountered this before in such a way. Thank you for any enlightenment you may offer. And btw, while I do think, or rather, thought Antal was of note, it was purely, and innocently of me that I began an article about her, so again, always the eager student - I would appreciate any response you can offer re identifying "advertising agency" type 'articles'. Thank you.Akrumoftruth (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biruitorul Yo - Just went and poked deeper into Watson Headquarters - I don't see anywhere where it is an agency? :-( - It just seems like a normal celebrity news and interview site that appears to have advertising and advice columns and reporters and tons of original content just like any other site and they certainly have loads of content about a variety of celebs and influencers - this is the link I am looking at now: http://www.watsonheadquarters.com/ and this is their about page: http://www.watsonheadquarters.com/about/ - Please trust, I'm not mad or frustrated you want this article deleted - just not understanding where you are coming from and eager to understand. Respectfully - Akrumoftruth (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First clue: the suffocatingly promotional language ("prophetic", "courageously", "defied all odds", "authentic", "natural explosive energy", etc). Second: advertising form, we brand you. It's pretty obvious what the company is about. Nothing wrong with that, just not appropriate as a source in a neutral encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a few other people to evaluate the quality of the article's sources and whether they comply with WP:BASIC and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines? There have been only three participants here thus far, and this discussion really needs some fresh eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having looked through each source and performed my own searches, I concur with the nomination. The General Notability Guideline is quite clear on the level of, and quality of, coverage that is required for a Wikipedia article to be accepted and most of the sources here are either gossip, advertorials or are about the documentary film rather than the person. There's no evidence of notability at this time. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akrumoftruth You seem to be most interested in the film Antal did - D'Ora? Since the links you initially posted for this article do appear questionable, why don't you create an article about D'Ora because that film on quick glance does appear to have credible links? Charleslechien (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charleslechien - thanks for the suggestion. Akrumoftruth (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a difficult one. On the surface, it looks like "no consensus" leaning towards "delete". In discussions like this, the easy way out is to call it "no consensus" and walk away, but I don't think that served Wikipedia best nor truly is reflective of our goals. Instead I have to look beyond this local consensus and consider "what would the community do" and what has been the outcome in similar discussion in the past when the vote was leaning delete and there were so many documentable problems with the article.

feminist makes a strong argument to keep, in that we shouldn't punish the reader because of the misdeeds of the author. If there is no debate about the content itself, that is as strong of an argument as you can have, but that isn't the case here. Even some "Keep" votes say to strip the article down, or it needs work, and this waters down feminist's reasonable concern. Obvious, some parts of the article have some merit, but most people seem to agree that most of it is problematic.

CBS527 makes a strong argument to delete and backs it with logic and links to prove their point. Others raise concerns about the sources, and of course the COI. Normally, having a COI isn't a problem as long as you can't tell by their editing. We all have a conflict of interest for some organization or group. When that conflict does raise it's ugly head by using your own published material as the main sources for the article, and you haven't bothered to have those sources vetting by others (WP:AFC is just one option), the community has most frequently opted for the WP:NUKEANDPAVE option. This is the community saying that deleting the article doesn't bar us from using any of the good parts in the future, but it is simply better to start from scratch than try to rehabilitate this article.

Finally, this is a complicated topic, beyond my simple brain to fully grasp. Because of that, fewer people can actually monitor the article and there is a higher risk of bad information being published here. This means we must be strict when it comes to which sources we use, something the current article fails at. I think the concern about this permeates the entire discussion. Judging the current arguments against the actual state of the article, and understanding the usual outcome for similar articles forces my hand.

In short, while an argument could be had to close as "no consensus", I think the community consensus (including the arguments here and previous cases) point towards delete. I will add two notes: There is no prejudice against anyone else without a COI recreating a proper article in this space, and I'm happy to userfy this article to anyone's personal space to facilitate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Envelope model[edit]

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

I've monitored this page since its creation and listing in the New Pages Feed. I personally think that there may be a WP:COI here, but I can't prove it, other than the fact that it was made by a WP:SPA and the article clearly and numerously states the creators of the model. Let's be honest - this wouldn't be the first time academics are trying to publish their research on Wikipedia. But again, that's just my spidey-senses tingling. For me, it doesn't pass WP:GNG and the article is written in such a way that it would not be understandable or to any value to the average Wiki user. Then again, I don't have a BSc in Maths so I can't really talk - a debate is strongly encouraged (I may be wrong about the importance of this). Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Envelop model appears to a legitimate concept.[28][29] Dean Esmay (talk)

@Desmay: Yes, but does it pass WP:NOTE? The sources are no WP:THIRDPARTY sources. If it doesn't then (in my opinion) it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Desmay: The "legitimate concept standard" does not keep an article from being deleted.Knox490 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 10:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article shouldn't be on Wikipedia because it does meet Wikipedia standards for notability. The article has a major sourcing problem. The article needs to be written so it is more explanatory. I have taken calculus/statistics classes and I don't understand the article. Delete the article and start from scratch. Knox490 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom that WP:SPA implies WP:COI. Article is horribly confusing and reads like an advanced mathematical paper. As such, not suitable for inclusion. All sources seem to be written by the same person so doubt it passes WP:GNG PriceDL (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I believe I have heard of envelope models in statistics before I even came to this page. I am not going to comment on whether it is too technical--it probably is, but that is no reason to delete it. Even if one or most of the editors has a COI, that doesn't mean we should delete a notable topic. I can see with Google search in main space, many articles and talks sourced directly back to R. Dennis Cook (Univ. Mich) and Xin Zhang (Florida State Univ.) come up. But regardless of whether they have done the most recent work, I see many other articles mentioning envelope models in statistics, such as in ultra sounds Modeling the envelope statistics of three-dimensional high-frequency ultrasound echo signals from dissected human lymph nodes by international authors, Review of Envelope Statistics Models for Quantitative Ultrasound Imaging and Tissue Characterization by authors in Montreal. I believe it might be used in wireless too [30] mentioning "statistical models of envelope distributions"; also [31]; and Envelope Probability Density Functions for Fading Model in Wireless Communications. There appear to be numerous other scholarly articles on the subject by other authors not directly related to Zhang and Cook [32]. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references you are showing don't seem verify what is contained in this article other than envelope modeling was used in their analysis.

Modeling the envelope statistics of three-dimensional high-frequency ultrasound echo signals from dissected human lymph nodes - Doesn't reference the Cook, et al proposal nor can I find any evidence that their formulations were used to arrive at the conclusions contained in this source.

Review of Envelope Statistics Models for Quantitative Ultrasound Imaging and Tissue Characterization - Doesn't reference the Cook, et al proposal nor can I find any evidence that their formulations were used to arrive at the conclusions contained in this source.

[33] - Predates Cook et all proposal and doesn't reference it

[34] - Doesn't reference the Cook, et al proposal nor can I find any evidence that their formulations were used to arrive at the conclusions contained in this source.

Envelope Probability Density Functions for Fading Model in Wireless Communications - Predates Cook et all proposal and doesn't reference it

[35] - almost all the papers listed predate the Cook et al proposal.

There is no doubt envelope models exists in statistics, mathematics and science research as your sources show. The problem with this article is that it states that generic term "envelope model" refers to a specific proposal and formulations of Cook et al. The article states "The first envelope model was introduced by Cook, Li and Chiaromonte in 2010 ..." which leads the reader to the believe that the term refers only to this specific proposal. An article on envelope model in statistics should define what an envelope model is and include a number of examples where it is used statistical analysis in various fields such as climate envelope models, financial envelope models, etc.

I would have no objection if separate article was resubmitted titled "Envelope Models for Efficient Multivariate Linear Regression" (or something more related to it's content) provided reliable, independent or highly cited primary sources were included. CBS527^Talk 13:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To analyze sources provided by David Tornheim.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f e minist 14:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment @David Tornheim: I think that allowing works that do not adhere to Wikipedia standards (especially WP:COI) by allowing them to skip Articles for Creation is a dangerous precedent. I need some time to review the links and information. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 14:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicnote: I'm not trying to set any new standards. What standard are you referring to that requires articles to go to WP:AfC? I was told lots of articles never go there, so I never really understood what WP:AfC was for. I thought maybe to punish certain editors who create notoriously bad articles. But I see there is a rule about COI editors having to create them. That sounds like a good idea. Are we sure that a COI editor created it? If so, I might change my vote. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what I meant by "Even if one or most of the editors has a COI, that doesn't mean we should delete a notable topic" is that we could get rid of the COI work, and just leave the stuff that is not COI. I think the problem is we don't know what is and is not COI. This is not like an advertisement. I don't know enough about this topic and I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Had the user gone through the Article Wizard (which is probable) they would have read: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. In my opinion this simply not the case here.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I apologise if I was too blunt and anything less than civil. I just have a problem with people ignoring basic WP:GNG rules. Because of the topic being a complex mathematical topic that very few people would have any interest at all investigating, let alone write an extended Wikipedia article about, my usual good faith is being tested with this article. I understand the procedures and realities of achieving a PhD and maintaining a 'status' in the scholarly world - through close friends. They are expected to publish, to be cited and well known. Because of these facts, I must take into account a possible WP:COI, that is more probable than the average 'possible' WP:COI for companies or people. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... AfD is flawed in many ways but at the end of the day it leads us to discuss these things in a very open manner. I am still unconvinced that this article in its current state meets WP:GNG among other rules. My reference to AFC was unexplained - it is mainly for people with COI but also for articles that have questionable notability and sources. Ignore all rules is a great 'rule' to refer to, it states that if it could benefit the project then DO IT!, but I find it hard to understand how allowing this to stay will benefit the project. People's references to complexity are generally there because 'complex' things should only be on Wikipedia that have unquestionably passed GNG, so that they are truthful and adhere to a potentially larger audience. A good example is this stub. I agree with @Cbs527: about WP:TNT. Let me know what you think. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicnote: Regarding COI, all we seem to have is bias towards the topic, and I have seen no diffs where the editors responded in panic to any attempt to delete it by saying, "I work for the author who told me this *must* be on Wikipedia, or I will lose my job" or anything like that. Their belief an obscure topic is notable and needs to be carefully explained doesn't make me automatically think they have something to gain by putting it on Wikipedia. If it was written as a puff piece, saying, "This is the best thing ever", then I would have a problem with that too. This might be a student who learned it in a class and thinks it is great stuff. I have seen plenty of people here on Wikipedia who take extreme positions with a consistent bias, by defending material that is not RS and delete material that is, that contradict the rules and the RS, and they don't get in trouble for having a COI and are even immune from being accused of having a COI, or even being claimed to have a bias (which indirectly suggests they might have a COI, which is "casting aspersions"). The reason is they are immune from criticism for bias and possible COI is because there is no on-wiki evidence they benefit from their biases: there are always alternative explanations available that cannot be proven because of anonymity protections. I don't agree it should be like that, but that is what I see. The only exception I know of this was WifiOne.

My parents are both professors, so I know quite a bit about how academia works. I doubt any of their students feel that a Wikipedia article is important for getting a PhD or tenure. For a while one thought it would be okay for an expert in the field to write about their work, since they are an expert in the field. They thought it strange that an expert would be prohibited from directly editing an article about their work, since they know it better than anyone else. My belief is that if the author did write something on Wikipedia, it would not be for the sake of promoting their work but just to make it easier for someone who wanted to read about it to get to it for free. That doesn't seem to me at cross purposes with Wikipedia and the purpose of Wikimedia. The two main authors are probably both professors already, so this is not going to get them a PhD. (that's easy to check.) And I can't see a Wikipedia article helping them get tenure either--the published works in major peer reviewed journals is what the university is going to care about, and any money they bring in. You do realize that Wikipedia is not well respected in the University, because experts are not verifying the material. One of the reasons I consider this to be notable, is that they have so many articles already in published journals, and there are many citations to the articles they have written. If there was just two or three articles, I would not find that notable, but they have quite a long resume of articles, and so I have a feeling they already have respect in their field for their work. This doesn't seem to be just a novel idea, it is one that a number of different publishers think is worth printing.

Also my last reason to vote keep on a an article like this is that the editors clearly put tons of work into it, and it is a real slap in the face of whoever did that to delete it and not even retain a copy. At an absolute minimum articles like this should be userfied IMHO. To slap them down so rudely means they would probably never edit on Wikipedia again, even though they are an expert in their field. I can tell you early on, when I tried to publish a picture I had been authority to publish on Wikipedia, I got so frustrated, I concluded it was not worth it, and I have never tried to publish a picture for any article ever again assuming it would take hours to figure out how to make whoever was anti-new image happy. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & WP:TNT - Fails WP:GNG. Title is misleading - "envelope modeling" is used in multiple fields, for instance weather predicting. Article focuses on "Multivariate Linear Regression Model." A google scholar search for "envelope modeling" doesn't show the MLR Model on the first two pages. Searching "Envelope model Efficient Multivariate Linear Regression""(See Here)". produces low citation counts (8-67 with most under 20). Article lacks sourcing to to establish notability as majority are primary sources with low citation values. Article is poorly written and difficult to follow and per TNT "hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over." CBS527^Talk 15:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cbs527 When you say it is "poorly written and difficult to follow" is that because of the mathematical notation? I have seen a number of math and physics articles written with more complex math than text, almost like a mathematical proof: Linear_discriminant_analysis and Uncertainty principle. With some editors, when I ask if we can simplify the language for lay people, they balk, and say this is simple wikipedia. I think we should write articles that are accessible, but I'm not aware of any policy that says the articles can't be incomprehensible to ordinary people and only understandable by graduate students of the field. If I am wrong, I would love to see the policy. I feel like I read it somewhere a long time ago. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean it is written more like a research paper than an encyclopedia article. An envelope model in statistics can be described with the majority of the article in text such as Envelope (mathematics). This article seems to exist to promote the research of Cook, Li and Chiaromonte on Envelope Models for Multivariate Linear Regression which is an example of a statistical envelope model. The majority of the content was taken from "here" (PDF).. Strangely, Envelope (statistics) has been redirected to this article.

As far as comprehension of an article the only policy I can think of that might apply here is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. CBS527^Talk 03:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, this article is written the same way: Sufficient dimension reduction. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: This acutally makes me even more suspicous, it has similar authors (of the theories) and is also written by a WP:SPA. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Tornheim. Appears to have WP:SIGCOV. We shouldn't punish readers by not covering a topic just because it was written by an editor who did not follow our policies. f e minist 03:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under condition of heavy slim down and simplification. This article seems well sourced (preponderance of specific authors is not really surprising nor a problem in specialist topics) and well structured. However, the level of detail, the inclusiveness, and the argument structure are far too much like a journal article. Have a look at, e.g., the last paragraph of the "Examples" section: that is a worked example using field data, intended to prove applicability, complete with extrapolation of required sample sizes for other SE ranges - dude! Wrong forum! Similarly, the bulk of the article before that develops the entire theory from scratch by proving propositions. Chop this down by 3/4 and we might approach a suitable Wikipedia format for general audiences.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I support tagging the sections/material that have the problems you describe. However, if these are just useful examples, not "proof of concept", then I agree with Sławomir Biały's take. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not a statistician, and haven't had the chance to do a detailed WP:BEFORE. However I understand it, the topic of the article seems like a fairly standard thing that one would like to do in statistics, namely project onto the principal components of a data set that satisfy some (linear) constraints. The article itself seems well-organized and clearly written. I (a non-specialist) could understand the first few sections, but not so much the later sections. I think that is to be expected for articles on technical topics. It could use an introduction written one or two levels down from where it is now. I also think examples should be clarifying for typical readers, rather than included as proof-of-concept for more sophisticated readers. But Wikipedia is not paper, and there is no reason an article cannot have both types of examples. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this also. I don't understand the material well enough to judge; otherwise I would help with these tasks. Thanks for the input. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article could use work, but that's no reason to blow it up. It needs to be made more encyclopedic and less like a mathematics doctorate, but deleting it seems like a heavy-handed reaction by editors that don't understand what they're reading. CrispyGlover (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whether or not we keep an article is based on policy, not if something exist, not on content, not on usefulness. At a bare minimum an article needs to meet WP:GNG or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline for notability. Even then an article is only presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article and not guaranteed as the article may violate a policy of Wikipedia.

This article fails to provide reliable and independent source. Eight of the sources are not independent and are primary and authored by R.D.Cook. the other two have just 1 citation, "here". and "here". which is hardly reliable. A bare google search of "envelope model", "here"., provides zero references to this "envelope model" and almost all of the "scholarly literature" listed on the first 2 pages predates the existence of this envelope model so of course they are useless for verifying the information contained in this article.

The sources need to be reliable, and independent and have significant coverage of the topic to establish notability. Neither the article nor any of the searches provided in this AFD appear to meet these requirements. So far none of the keep !votes have provided sources that meet the guidelines for notability that actually references the " envelope model was introduced by Cook, Li and Chiaromonte in 2010..." which is the topic of this article. Our main policy on what can be included in this encyclopedia, WP:NOT, excludes the inclusion of any article that is not verifiable by appropriate references. CBS527^Talk 04:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons for the nomination was that the article is too technical to be understandable for a Wikipedia audience, and your own Delete !vote appears to be of the opinion that the article is "poorly written and difficult to follow", and so you appealed to WP:TNT. So this plea to dismiss the Keep votes is a complete red herring, since the Keep votes were in large part responding to the deletion arguments advanced by yourself and the nominator. Just to reiterate though: it's a technical article, but I do not think it is the case that it is too technical for Wikipedia.

I'm rather mystified by your own opinion that there are no independent or reliable sources. Peer-reviewed papers discussing the subject are published in statistics journals of the highest calibre: Journal of the American Statistical Association, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, The Annals of Statistics, Biometrika, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Statistica Sinica. The original paper was cited 61 times (!), many of which in very high quality statistics journals, and most of which are independent secondary sources, meeting the most stringent of standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Furthermore, the publications of Cook, clearly a distinguished expert in the area of dimension reduction (look at the citation counts), are also dismissed as inappropriate sources for an encyclopedia article. But I think these higher quality sources are probably the best in this case. I also object to the implied idea that, because a certain group of academics seems to consist of experts on a particular subject, that their publications in peer reviewed journals should be dismissed as not independent. But in any case, it is simply false that there are no sources that are independent of Cook. Apart from the the envelope method is discussed (briefly) in this review article, and in much more depth in the articles "On the likelihood ratio test for envelope models in multivariate linear regression", JR Schott, Biometrika, 2013; "Near Optimal Prediction from Relevant Components", INGE S. HELLAND, SOLVE SAEBØ, HA˚KON TJELMELAND, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 2012; Supervised singular value decomposition and its asymptotic properties, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Gen Li, Dan Yang, Andrew B. Nobel, Haipeng Shena, 2016. And many more. The original 2009 Cook paper was cited 61 times, and the other original papers in this area each cited a few dozen times. This is clearly an actual topic in statistics for which an encyclopedia article is appropriate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - although the subject is cited by another group of researchers at Florida, their work is not sufficiently in depth about the subject that the article meets NPOV. The POV of Cook and his co-authors is that the envelope model is what they say it is. While they have created a model they call the envelope model, right now the best we can do is call it "Cook et als envelope model" or something like that. Also, there exists articles on Envelope theorem, Envelope (mathematics), and Ecological forecasting, so if kept, perhaps the article should be moved to Envelope model (statistics) and this page made a redirect to Envelope (disambiguation), or at least a hatnote one or more of those other pages added. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to follow up here, looking through a few of the 61 citations of the 2010 paper, I don't see any that refer to the Envelope model, although they do talk about some of Cook's results. For instance, in Ma, Y., & Zhu, L. (2013). A review on dimension reduction. International Statistical Review, 81(1), 134-150. quite a few of Cook's papers are represented, including the 2010 one, but Envelope is not used. I'm curious if I am wrong here, and the term is used more widely, or if it is more of a neologism? Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of words but very little content. Either WP:TNT or WP:GNG. I consider whatever this topic is to be significantly less notable than Envelope system, which has a similar title. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or rename to Envelope (multivariate analysis), if the article can be improved. Power~enwiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: IMHO I think that moving it is not going to change anything. There have been no edits on this article for the last two weeks and the main issues (relies on single source and too technical) have not been resolved. I'm not an expert in this so there is little I can do other than carry out my WP:NPP responibilities. If users who have a far greater understanding of this are not WP:BOLD then I think we can only either delete or move to draft, either way this shouldn't be in the mainspace. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was an undergrad math major and can't possibly improve the article due to the topic's obscurity and the low-quality of the current content. The "definition" section currently present is absurd. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished that ignorance of the background of a topic is advanced as a reason for deletion. The definition seems clear enough to me. The envelope is the minimal

\Sigma

-invariant subspace that contains the column space of

\beta

. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you're serious. The definition sentence you quote is aggressively unclear. What is

\Sigma

? What is

\beta

? Power~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it states quite plainly in the first section of the article,

\Sigma

is the covariance matrix of the error, and

\beta

are the coefficient parameters of the regression. Furthermore, I did not "quote" the article, contrary to your assertion. The sentence above is my own summary of the subject of the article. Perhaps, instead of dismissing the subject as too hard for you to understand, you might want to try to read it and understand the topic before commenting critically on it? Just a suggestion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article (very poorly) says that this is a specific example of Dimensionality reduction, and almost all the sources are from the authors of the original paper. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)co[reply]

Weak Keep: With the caveat of major improvements. Does not need to be completely rewritten to meet guidelines and given an (admittedly rather cursory) review of the sources offered here, I think the concept of the "Envelope model" might just meet notability guidelines. The article should be improved to reflect a broader idea of what an envelope model is and should be simplified to be more accessible to the average reader, otherwise we're giving undue weight. Waggie (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:TNT, no prejudice against recreating, although I would recommend going through the AfC process. Many of the "keep !votes" even agree that that the article needs improvement. In its present state, it would probably be best to delete and simply start over. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. If an article didn't need improvement, it would be up for FAC review, not a deletion discussion. The TNT argument is utterly spurious. In actuality, all of the TNT arguments here are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say the issue is more about notability than accessibility of content (as noted above the latter is not a prerequisite and could be improved by rewriting). As has been said before (but I believe it bears repeating in view of the turn the discussion took), almost all citations from the article include Cook as an author. Thus I would be included to delete the article as not notable unless people can come up with reasons why it is. A more positive outcome would be to include an extremely thinned rewrite of it as a paragraph in a related statistics article. jraimbau (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as written, the article is WP:TNT. Based on the original paper (and *all* the references are from one of two authors, who have collaborated on several papers), it is both WP:GNG ~~and WP:NOR~~. I see no reason to keep the article other than that there is enough mathematical mumbo-jumbo to confuse non-technical editors. After reading the original source, *I* know what most of it means, but I see no way any reader could do so from the article as written. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent citations are given above, demonstrating an easy pass of GNG. NOR is not relevant, since these have been published in top journals. TNT is just IDONTLIKEIT. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading WP:NOR, you're absolutely right that it isn't relevant; I thought there was something about "no re-publishing of a single published result" in there as well. I still disagree with your argument on GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems no admin wants to touch this, here's my assessment of the debate: There's no consensus here on Keep/Delete, and there never will be. There is a consensus that a lot of the article is un-intelligible to everyone involved here. I feel the article must be renamed (to clarify that this is a term in statistics or statistical modeling) if kept, but I don't believe there is a consensus for that. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation: I don't have enough backgrounds in statistics to tell whether this topic is notable or not. But I do agree there seems to be an issue of COI. The lede contains "The first envelope model was introduced by Cook, Li and Chiaromonte in 2010". The year 2010 is too recent for math, if not for other fields like Internet technologies. It is important to keep Wikipedia free from self-promotions and this argues for the deletion. Sometimes an article is underdeveloped even if the topic is notable. In that case, keep is a better choice. This one is rather overdeveloped in the wrong way; in that case, it's better to better to start over, provided the topic is notable. -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Very little reason was given to keep, and this borders on delete based on the merits. Number of books published is meaningless when it comes to notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Alan Prince[edit]

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

This is a non-notable businessperson who has written a dozen books but hasn't had anything substantial written about them. Fails WP:BIO. Incidentally the article was probably created for hire by an editor who is now blocked for sockpuppetry, dePROD by another sock. Bri (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are a number of NY Times and other reputable source articles that have been overlooked. 174.67.96.248 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a more helpful comment if you actually told us what those sources were. Bri (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - a BEFORE does show some sources on him. However I'm basing my vote on that he meets the criteria of WP:AUTHOR due to his authorship of "The Middle-Class Millionaire" (+around 50 books in total) and writing / quotations as an expert in family offices. Note -following examining the article I did remove one source - which seemed to be about a different Russ Prince (possibly his father - possible someone else - someone who was born at least 20+ before 1958, and who was in the salvation army (and not the military as quoted in the article).Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- too promotional to be worth keeping; the notability is marginal, if any. I'm not able to locate significant RS coverage that discusses the topic directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would want to inspect at least one of his books (or know that the nominator had) before deleting this page. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Kaabar[edit]

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

As a former adjunct faculty member at a community college and a self-published textbook author, the subject does not pass WP:PROF. It's possible that the two published reviews of his self-published textbooks could be used to argue for a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR instead, but the reviews are so negative that I think it would be better for the subject not to have an article at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability for WP:Prof or WP:Author. Is this an attack page? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Not originally, but it sort of turned into one because the only reliable sources are these attack reviews. Look at the older versions (e.g. this one) to see what its creator (also named Kaabar) started it as. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that the subject probably doesn't meet GNG. Are the reviews printed, or are they only online. It looks like the MAA offers online self-submitted reviews of a very large number of books, thus I don't think those reviews would satisfy AUTHOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The MAA Reviews are edited (by Fernando Q. Gouvêa) and published by a major mathematics society, on a regular schedule [36], so I think they count as reliable rather than as self-published. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see, looking closer it seems you are right. Thanks for the clarification. I don't think I need to change my !vote, I think the article still fails NPOV as only RS is two negative reviews by the same reviewer on the same section of the same website. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Beigang Story[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. this museum only opened in 2012 and looks relatively small. I examined the 4 gnews hits from Chinese.

this one is mainly about a toilet paper factory.
this one is about a tourist pass to visit several sites in the county
this one is about a bunch of students from the county heading off to south america.

I also wonder if this is actually a shop masquerading as a museum, the google reviews of this place make it sound like a shop. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Not enough coverage. Does not meet WP:NONPROFIT MB 22:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Switch Off[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD as it was de-PROD'd in 2008. Ironically, I was apparently the original PRODder, although given that it was nearly 10 years ago I honestly did not remember (and my bad for not checking before PROD'ing again). De-PROD rationale at the time was "removed prod press coverage seems to indicate reasonable notability so this should be discussed at AFD before deletion".

Per my most recent PROD, it is very difficult to find sources owing to the generic name, but even with "Melbourne" added, there were no results showing that this single event passes WP:GNG. No WP:LASTING effect or outcome either - no indication that it was ever held again, or that any policies, customs, or laws were ever created or changed as a result that would indicate a lasting impact. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Using google search with "The Big Switch Off" -wikipedia november 2006 -"The Big Switch Off is an independent environmental campaign launched in Melbourne" looks as though it might be throwing up some relevant references, but I have not checked them. Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the event was purely promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of District Officers of Lubok Antu[edit]

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

Non-notable. No reliable or significant coverage. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 2010 population of the district was 555. Officials at this level don't merit a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Lubok Antu - Even the district does not have significance importance per Clarityfiend. QianCheng_虔诚 06:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Murugan Temple[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG relies solely on primary sources. No independent verifiable references which establishes its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete the sources merely confirm it exists. no evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. No notability. Searching does not turn up much beyond the primary sources in the article. MB 19:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This page refers to a single congregation, not a more general religious group. I don't foresee any architectural claims of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Wilson (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bavin[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His club team appearances do not meet WP:NHOCKEY criteria, nor does playing in the lower level IIHF championships. There's also a lack of significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash^talk stalk 04:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gomhoriat Shebin SC[edit]

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

fails wp:ORG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the creator of this article i don't think that it should be deleted. This article is about a small football club in Egypt which is currently playing in the Egyptian Second Division, the second tier in the Egyptian football league system, and due to the lack of sources I couldn't add more info to this article. Once i find any sources about the club history, current squad and other info i'll immediately add it to the article. Ben5218 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
lack oif sources is a pretty good indication that a subject is not notable. per WP:GNG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What lack of sources - a quick Google News shows thousands. Looks like a WP:BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::i'm not seeign any results under the article title... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

i didn't think to try and translate to arabic. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - participated in the 2016 Egypt Cup thus meeting the club notability criteria of WP:FOOTYN. I don't know where user:aunva6 comment of lack of sources comes from - a quick look in Google News shows thousands of articles. Also, from a simple common sense perspective - does it really seem likely that a league that is only one level below fully-professional would actually be so low-quality that the teams themselves wouldn't be notable? Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i was not aware of footyn... i only knew of WP:NSPORT and WP:ORG. besides, i just looked at google news, and I fail to see these results you're talking about... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click on the link I provided above? I literally see thousands of hits (though I didn't page past the first two pages). Nfitz (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above, appears notable. However please notee that WP:FOOTYN is an old WikiProject-specific guide, it hasn't been updated in years really. Giant Snowman 09:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been updated in a while - but it reflects the long-standing consensus here - that teams that have played in a national-level cup are notable. I don't see anything that needs updating - and anyone can update if they feel it is out of date. But do we really expect the 2nd-highest level of football, and first non-fully professional level of football in a football-mad country like Egypt not to be notable? Nfitz (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has played in national competition. Current consensus in AfD still aligns to statements made in WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 College of Health Care Professions. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 04:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

College of Health Care Professions: Northwest Houston, TX Campus[edit]

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

does not warrant own article, redirect to College_of_Health_Care_Professions -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- There are two campuses for The College of Health Care Professions that are located in Houston Texas with different program and certification offerings. In order help distinguish the differences between these two campuses, it would be beneficial to keep the Wikipedia page College of Health Care Professions: Northwest Houston, TX Campus. They are two separate entities with two separate presidents and two separate sets of students. Ms271946 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
why can this not be elucidated at the main article? I suggest you take a read at WP:ORG. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No significant coverage found of the specific campus. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'redirect to College of Health Care Professions. this is horrible, spamlink-ridden proxy webhost for the school. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as users above state, all the other campuses can probably be nominated too Aloneinthewild (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm a bit taken aback that the only keep votes seem to be from SPAs, but the lack of participation makes it hard to judge, so I can't really see a consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CANpie[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable software; I could only find a single significant hit (in German), which appears to be some kind of blog and thus isn't exactly a reliable source. I couldn't find anything else other than the usual tech question sites and sites that host the code (like GitHub and SourceForge). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Narutolovehinata5 and I did not find evidence that it is a piece of notable software. Searched article and internet. Knox490 (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CANpie is a predecessor to SocketCAN, as the maintainer and lead-developer of SocketCAN said himself in his dissertation (German[37]). While SocketCAN is not real-time capable as such, because it depends on the non-real-time Linux kernel scheduler, CANpie is an real-time capable alternative and still actively maintained. CANpie is also used in non-Linux environments like on QNX, Windows, macOS, and bare metal. CANpie presumably will become the defacto standard API for CAN based applications by CAN in Automation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterTS (talk • contribs) 13:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For classical CAN bus applications and the new CAN FD standard the article references a standard API (like e.g. can4linux or SocketCAN) which is widely used in industrial embedded systems and research facilities. Please refer to the iCC 2017 conference papers. For the same reason (".. anything else other than the usual tech question sites ..") you could mark e.g can4linux for deletion, what definitely makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolores88 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 15 minutes from creation to AfD. Way to go, guys 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Grace period for deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of References Here is a list of references found in the internet:

Gateway product [38]
A controller board from the beginning of the Maker scene [39]
One of the first references in a newsgroup back in 2001 [40]
Linux Home Automation, CANpie added in 2007 [41]
Implementation on NXP microcontroller [42]
Software Architecture for Modular Self-Reconfigurable Robots, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center [43]
Patent for SocketCAN (in German [44])
Diploma theses (Gajdos, English [45]) (Blumenthal, German [46])

Keep Additional references have been added to the article which disprove the reason for AFD (Does not appear to be notable software), links to commercial products have not been added. Open for more comments in order to improve the page. Dolores88 (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed on the quality of sources to satisfy WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Only keep voices look like SPA users.~~ References here and in the article are too weak to show notability. Sole source close to RS is CVUT diploma thesis (master/Ing. degree I think), but this has only single mention of CANpie. I will look for better sources, but for now, I´m leaning to delete. Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I browsed all other linked research papers (ICC, other thesis) and again only passing mention (or even no mention at all!). Still no luck in usual online/published technology sources. Pavlor (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CANpie is a notable piece of software in the area of embedded control devices. And don't compare the visibility of it in the media with standard software products for desktop computers. It is the only open source software API I'm aware of for different CAN Bus based protocols. I is different to SocketCAN and can4linux because the API can be used not only on Linux but especially in deeply embedded devices with or without operating systems. In this sense it is a more generic approach than the others mentioned. Plupp (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To prove notability, you need coverage of the article subject in reliable source (eg. reviews in published/online magazines etc.). No exceptions... Pavlor (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, a list of reliable sources ( published/online magazines)

http://www.elektrotechnik.vogel.de/embedded-systeme-zukunftssicher-vernetzen-a-430723/
http://www.konstruktionspraxis.vogel.de/can-basismodul-zur-flexiblen-und-kostensparenden-automatisierung-a-431237/
https://www.google.de/#q=canpie+site:can-newsletter.org
Embedded Design, Nr. 2 / 2014, p. 63 -65
Technik+Einkauf, Nr. 1 / 2014, p. 70 -73 Dolores88 (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both vogel.de portals look like RS (first one is short news only, the second is broader). Can´t judge CAN newsletter - I have bad feeling they publish what companies send them. I don´t have access to last two offline sources. Pavlor (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: Shall I provide a copy of the print media? Any recommended practice? Dolores88 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting copyrighted material is not ideal. Do you know web pages of these magazines, so I can verify their publishing policy? I trust you these articles do exist, I only don´t know, if these magazines are RS by Wikipedia rules. Pavlor (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If these two magazines are http://www.embedded-design.net/ and http://www.technik-einkauf.de/, then most important factor is origin of magazine articles, as both accept texts as paid advertising - only articles written by magazine staff are (probably) RS, which may be hard to find in such magazine. Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If have found these links from the impress (http://www.tedo-verlag.de/magazin-embeddeddesign/ and http://www.mi-verlag.de/produkte/fachzeitschriften/technik-einkauf.html), which is pretty much the same what you have. Dolores88 (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MJJ Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Filled with unsourced claims since July 2015. Some unsourced statements include:

"Tatyana Ali had a top ten hit in 1999 with the single 'Daydream'."
"The label's music base had been expanded to include kid hip hop duos"
"The label released the soundtrack to the film The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland."
"Jackson caused the label to fold in 2001."
"The label was ultimately ended after Jackson died on June 25, 2009." (The death part is true, but there is no evidence the label was truely shut down.) DBZFan30 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed all the unsourced claims and puffery. The topic has no references and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 04:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Cutler (bodybuilder)[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Lack of gng sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and trout the nominator. Cutler is a four-time Mr. Olympia winner and one of the most successful bodybuilding competitors of all times. Yes, sourcing is poor, but this is common for all bodybuilding bios on this wiki (except for those who excelled in other fields like acting/politics/business). Materialscientist (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a 4x Mr. Olympia winner he's notable. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Documented as a four-time Mr. Olympia , he's notable. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I don't care for this "sport" with its rampant steroid use, but it remains a popular one and he is the winner of its biggest accolades. Powermugu (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep subject clearly passes GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Pletka[edit]

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

WP:BLP, with some overtones of résumé, of a political consultant. This is not based on reliable source coverage about her, but rather cites one news article that glancingly namechecks her existence, one newspaper op-ed where she's the bylined author and not the subject, and one glancing namecheck of her existence in a blog entry. This is not the type of coverage of her that it takes to clear WP:GNG, and nothing claimed here is an automatic pass of any inclusion criterion in the absence of enough coverage of her to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks more like a resume than an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, the way an article "looks" is not a criteria for deletion. Please weigh in on whether or not she is notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is not notable. The references to her are passing, not substantial citations. For example, one sentence that mentions her in a much longer article on Jesse Helms. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "resume". Article about this Washington foreign policy wonk has been on WP since 2005, with dozens of editors adding and deleting material as controversies/policy disputes with which she is involved come and go. note' how hits on her WP page gyrate, usually just a few a day - then several thousand on a particular day, quickly settling back to small numbers. It's been that way for years, driven by public interest in her whenever an issue she is involved in hits the news. Having a basic article on the talking heads in D.C. is something our users expect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some sources to the article. Doing a Google News search or a HighBeam search shows that she is featured as a talking head on a lot of news shows, including NPR, FOX, CNN and other stations. However, because she's written a large number of articles (esp for Washington Post), trying to tease through her authored works and her appearances is going to take time. My quick take on her is that she is likely notable. I'd like to have more solid sources in the article before I !vote, though. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What we need is not articles by her, but articles about her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Danielle Pletka has made several recent panel appearances on America's leading public affairs program, Meet the Press, with "notables" like David Brooks, Helene Cooper, Rich Lowry, Nicolle Wallace and Chuck Todd. Somebody at NBC, seasoned news professionals--one assumes--thinks Pletka is "notable". That, in fact, is why I consulted Wikipedia for background information on her. In addition to whatever other supporting evidence corroborates her "notability", this is what Wikipedia is for, right? Surely there isn't a movement afoot to purge individuals from these pages because of their political affiliations (Pletka has "ties" to the American Enterprise Institute). The tone of these comments raises concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl Clay (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the problem isn't that there are not ghits, it is that there are too many. We probably haven't figured out the right keywords yet, but there is sufficient solid into in WP:RS to stitch together a proper bio, for example, here is the Jerusalem Post describing her as "a former senior staffer for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and current vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute" before quoting her rather extensively in a recent article on Trump [47]. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup just tag it for tone, sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to User:Megalibrarygirl for the WP:HEYMANN that reliably sources the her career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a promotional CV on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. A "former senior staffer" is an insufficient claim to notability, and so is having provided testimony in Congress. Sourcing is not SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is SIGCOV of her career and policy positions, both in the article and in articles such as this: [48]. Here (COHEN, ELIOT A. "Republican Reincarnation." Foreign Policy, no. 199 (2013): 13-14. [49].), for example is Eliot A. Cohen devoting an entire essay in Foreign Policy to attacking one of her policy positions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this, I see that I was right to comment in my iVote above that a plethora of hits makes running searches to check notability tedious. I have expanded and sourced the article somewhat, note that she is described by the Washington Post as "caustic" and "conservative" and that the edit history on the page confirms that people hate her for her political views, and possibly for her "caustic" style. Article can still use improvement, but I do not see any justification for deletion of the article as it now stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article gives pretty clear claims of notability for the subject (her influence on U.S. foreign polity), and at least some of the references are good reliable sources. Actually, it looks like the article was cleaned up significantly during this AfD, with many improved WP:RS added. So, this is a definitive keep. OtterAM (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of New Brunswick. Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance College (faculty of the University of New Brunswick)[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (posted at the article's talk page) is copied verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion as such - but if the article is kept, I'm betting there's a cleaner title to which it could be moved. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Parts_of_schools_and_school-related_organizations, faculties within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. Renaissance College does not seem to have significant notability. 118.143.145.237 (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in part to University of New Brunswick, where I've just added it as a wikilink. This had been an orphaned article. The college is apparently located a full kilometre from the main campus and I can understand why the article creator might have felt it should be addressed separately. This Maclean's profile on UNB certainly gives it attention, but I still agree it falls short . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Shawn in Montreal, we don't usually have articles for individual faculties Aloneinthewild (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Kaswar Gardezi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't find references in reliable sources which can demonstrate the notability of the subject. Cites references, except one, are from questionable and unreliable sources. Saqib (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 04:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social and economic stratification in Appalachia[edit]

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

Article is a POV fork, focusing on (only) the bad stuff in the area. The most useful article for the issues is at Appalachia#Economy. – S. Rich (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this term is widely in use, article content can be expanded to include countervailing scholarship, but topic is notable one two three four etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; hardly encyclopaedic and written like an essay. One large opinion piece about how terrible life is for people living there. Laurdecl ^talk 08:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable and so our editing policy applies. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash^talk stalk 04:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Litvak[edit]

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

No claim to notability. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this article was maybe borderline for notability but I created it anyway, because there is significant media coverage of the case and it led to a much wider investigation into fraud in bond-trading, which I also planned to write about. I don't really have a strong opinion about it necessarily, but obviously lean towards keeping it. Cypresscross (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a new sub-section connecting the case to broader implications for the government efforts to prosecute fraud in the bond market. I've also expanded the section on the details of the charges. Probably the key to the notability here is the fact that the Litvak case was the first and also most important case in a much broader regulatory effort. Cypresscross (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The coverage seems to indicate that his case/conviction is a big deal in the financial world, and The Wall Street journal called the trial/re-trial "a case that sparked changes to Wall Street sales tactics".[50] I see three hits in GBooks with very minor coverage. The material probably belongs some place in Wikipedia (e.g. Jefferies Group, maybe an article about the court case), but this one is too soon for me to call. Sorry if that isn't very helpful. - Location (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came across the same sources, including the book references. Increasingly I am of the opinion that the subject is notable because he has become the touch point for a much broader effort by regulators, and as the comment above indicates, both the person and the case appear to be leading to major changes on Wall Street. Cypresscross (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails the not news test. The charges and prosecution do not rise above the level of regular news coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

move to userspace Sourcing does not support a stand-alone article on Jesse Litvak, but the crime itself got some significant coverage in article not yet on the page "Bond Traders Beware: Jesse Litvak Reversal Is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card" [51]. And securities fraud is (or at least ought to be) a big deal topic, a topic beside which most of out CRIME articles pale into trivia in terms of impact. Perhaps User:Cypresscross ~~would like to have it moved back to userspace and include some of this material in an~~ (new material: can link to this article when he gets around to writing that) article on fraud in bond-trading, it would give him time to do that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Litvak has some serious coverage - including some minor coverage before his legal woes, but major coverage after. This was a groundbreaking case in terms of degree of accountability a securities trader has vs. his clients - and has had a major impact on the industry. It was accepted practice to "fib" in order to close a deal - this was part of the game, and this case has changed that.Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons outlined in my comments above. Cypresscross (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading the comments of User:Cypresscross and User:Icewhiz, I searched again, looking to check Icewhiz's assertion of this case having an impact. This:[52] Peter Henning article in Andrew Ross Sorkin's must-read Dealbook section in the New York Times persuaded me. The NYTimes is paywalled, but the aritcle is about this case and the title says it all: "A Warning to Wall St. About Misleading Clients".E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the current sourcing in the article indicates notability; the subject has had an impact in the financial services sector. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash^talk stalk 04:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Escalation[edit]

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

It's an essay. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like unsourced WP:OR. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will be adding sources. Still learning Wiki format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianstallion1 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It is well written well refrenced about the NATO doctrine. The topic is an important fact of history, containing valuable information. It need some work to bring it to Wikipedia standart. So improvement would be the better solution than delet. This was written from a new editor, II think to help him and improve it will bring Wikipedia in the long therm more benefit that delet the work of a new member of Wikipedia who just need some support how to work on wikipediaFFA P-16 (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It would make a good linked page for the main page on NATO, where these issues are scarcely addressed. voxcanis (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written and has RS. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to contain important historical information about NATO doctrine during the cold war with sufficient referencing. Could use some polishing to bring it to wiki standards but that is not a reason for deletion. --Imminent77 (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-written and properly sourced article about a notable concept. Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information

If the main source of the article (References 2,3,6-13) is as wrong as its numbers, it must be absolute crap. Only 208 Buccanneers have ever been built, all the other numbers are obviously wrong as well. Is this serious?--2A02:1206:45AE:7E0:4519:903E:F3BF:2463 (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash^talk stalk 04:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gilljam[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. There appears to be next to no coverage. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what would make Gilljam non-notable. He scored the winning goal in the final of the 2017 Bandy World Championship. He was team captain for Hammarby IF Bandy, one of the best clubs in Sweden, where bandy is one of the major team sports. /Julle (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think he is notable. He is a noted player in one of Swedens best teams. Also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Gilljam is a professional and world-class athlete in one of the world's most popular winter sports. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle. Lepricavark (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poland in the Turkvision Song Contest[edit]

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

does not warrant an article on its own, should redirect to Turkvision_Song_Contest -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect nothing to say yet. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Poland are taking part in the 2017 Contest in August this year (source to confirm participation). Naturally details are scarce at this early stage, but WP:EVENT, is met. Wes Wolf ^Talk 04:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time"? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Siuenti: I have provided a source which verifies that Poland are taking part in the Turkvision Song Contest 2017, in August this year. Deleting a country's profile for participation in a contest is not helpful. They have also selected their entrant and song for the contest. The only issue with the article is that it needs updating - something which I am single-handedly in the process of doing across all of the Turkvision country profiles, as they have been left neglected by members of WikiProject Eurovision. I've already brought all of the Countries in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest articles up to standard. But one needs to remember that there is no rush on Wikipedia, and when I am doing all the hard work alone and without any help from others, then naturally it is going to take longer than anticipated. Wes Wolf ^Talk 08:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it looks like WP:EVENT is not met and this should be handled as part of other articles. Also WP:Crystal applies here. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination surprises me, and I suspect that the nominator, given their brief and hasty description, has formed their entire decision based upon the 0 appearances appearing in the infobox. Clearly the history section alone warrants the need for an article, as it contains lots of information that cannot be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Besides this, Wesley Wolf is correct to point out that their upcoming participation necessitates an article. With respect to the first criteria WP:CRYSTALBALL, Turkvision is notable and Poland's participation is almost certain to take place, so there simply doesn't seem to be an issue. A deletion will only be a hassle when the event inevitably takes place and users become frustrated with the lack of information. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 09:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to the nominator — I had not realised that the article was only improved to its current standard after the nomination. In which case, perhaps you'd like to update your nomination to reflect the fact that details have changed. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 23:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw good imporvment. somehow found sources, etc. probably could use more, but it meets the threshold -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G1. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perro panameños[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete With the benefit of Google Translate (I don't speak Spanish) it still appears to be complete nonsense. I've placed a CSD tag on it accordingly. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by Acroterion per WP:A11 and WP:G3. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Culumnia[edit]

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

Subject lacks any kind of coverage to establish notability or even existence. Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah S. Al-Salloum[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. The sources cited are articles written by him but there does not appear to be any independent coverage where he is the subject. SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of indepdent 3rd party sources about him to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. The subject clearly meets the criteria for notability. WP:BASIC: "The subject is presumed notable if he has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". This can be seen here, here, here and here. "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". This primary source proves what this secondary source says. WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The subject has contributed in his field of Economics with the accounting tool discussed on his page that has had citations of a Kuwaiti newspaper and two Saudi Arabian newspapers. WP:NACADEMICS: The subject is considered as researcher in the field of economics, whose scholars, under “Recent Publications” are published as columns by authorized official publishing institutions. Translating them gives economic analysis that is based on the subject’s own thoughts and ideas that bring up conclusions, suggestions and advices. The subject is also listed in the Arabic Wikipedia here, meeting its notability criteria, with the same content and given primary and secondary sources.Juffran (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)— Juffran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Juffran (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to provide time for analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over, perhaps. Every citations is non-English...many appear to be website ephemera, but it's impossible to tell. Yes, I know about WP:NOENG, but there's no logical justification for having an article for which the typical reader cannot read/check/follow-up on the sourcing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete machine translation suffices to inspect these sources for non-Arabic readers. Reference #1 is a web forum and #3 is some documents someone uploaded to a file share service, and can be disregarded. It's plain that everything else is either merely links to things the author has written (refs 4,5,6); a quip in an interview (ref 7); articles about Ponzi schemes that don't mention this author (refs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12); or information about a particular financial calculator website (13, 14, 15). None of which meets notability requirements. Notwithstanding the efficacy of the translation, the article is missing basic biographic information that would help validate the creator's research, such as subject's education or employment. Incidentally this and this suggest that one of the article's contributors is playing games with his/her identity. - Bri (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merely trivialising those sources because you do not fully know their reliability is clearly an unfair thing to do. Ignoring the fact that the subject has made researches that have had citations of a Kuwaiti newspaper and two Saudi Arabian newspapers also shows that the research you have done is not in-depth. The subject has had several of his scholars, under “Recent Publications”, published as columns by authorized official publishing institutions.Juffran (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that those who have voted for the article to be deleted are clearly doing so because they do not understand the language the sources are written in. Like the commenter above me has clearly stated, what he did was a machine translation. How can one know the reliability of a source from a machine translation?Juffran (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the reliability of the sources, it is whether or not the sources discuss the subject in depth. Everyone apart from you is clear that they do not and this is easily verified from machine translations of the sources. SmartSE (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you dropped a notice on my talk page that you had nominated the article for deletion because the subject is not notable, I had to go back to read the guidelines from the beginning to see if I had read a different thing before creating the article. I thought I was totally wrong until I discovered that this was done because the sources given are not in English. As to why I am the only one in support of the article staying, it could be because I am the only one not depending on some machine translations. Instead of nominating the artcile for deletion, you probably could have suggested that the article be further improved upon with more sources added. The subject is notable because he passes a number of given criteria.Juffran (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it, I wonder, because you were paid to create the article? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Juffran/Archive. SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about paying me to create the article, I have clearly read the guidelines to follow in disclosing paid editing. So, if I was paid, you would have seen it clearly on the talk page. The sockpuppet investigation you quoted here was closed, so why have you referred us to it. Even if I have cautioned myself not to ask this for a long while, I just have to ask. Do you have any issue with me, as I discovered you have also reverted a few of my other edits? The only reason I am defending this article is that it was nominated in error, and I need to correct the impression that the individual is not notable when he clearly passes the notability criteria. Juffran (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGF that you weren't acting in cahoots with other entities to get these published, it's very impressive that you are able to create articles like this one using 100% Arabic sources, and Gongniu Group Corporation using 100% Mandarin Chinese sources. - Bri (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that impresses you too much as to come speak about it publicly, then I wonder what will happen when you read about Bella Devyatkina. She is my next project as I noticed she doesn't have a Wikipedia page yet, so you might want to sit back and watch out. Besides, I do not see how your comment relates to the issue of the subject not being notable, other than a well-crafted and calculated attack on my personality when you clearly do not know me or my abilities. Juffran (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not I don't have an opinion about you personally. But cowboy editors who come in with six guns shooting to defend Chinese electrical cord manufacturers or whatever tend to have short lifetimes here. "Everyone apart from you is clear" coming from a seasoned admin is what you should be paying attention to. Good luck. Bri (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, the non_English issue isn't a problem with Google Translate. While he is certainly quoted in several news articles it's not enough to pass GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already established the fact that the subject pass WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMICS. Juffran (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me you haven't. And not based on the very refs you've provided and those on the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what about a Google search on the individual? It didn't give you results still? Well, all the reults you would find are not in English and I should have been spending the time spent here to improve on the article with more sources. I guess I should concentrate on doing that over the coming days Juffran (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Larry R. Richards[edit]

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

Will require a major rewrite in order to be encyclopediatic. References are essentially just external links. Appears to be written by someone with close connections to the subject. Osarius - Want a chat? 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Afd ≠ cleanup. Dloh cierekim 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little if any content is salvageable. —swpb^T 19:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references denote any widespread media coverage to qualify for notability. A Google news search presented much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:*Search terms are tricky, I searched Larry + Richards + Erie and readily found sources on a Proquest archibve search. I'm sure that searching other combinations would turn up more hits, didn't even try "Fr. Larry R. Richards" because it seemed an unlikely way for media to refer to him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree with User:Dlohcierekim. Subject seems notable. However, author must avoid bias and personal tone if they do know the subject, (which they shouldn't in accordance with Wikipedia's Policy), should keep their article as professional and unbiased as possible. A re-write is highly recommended. —User4495 (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reference here, or, better yet, on the article, independent widespread coverage talking about the subject? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article needs to be edited to let some of the hot air out, achieve an encyclopedic tone. I have, however, sourced it. He is a popular speaker on the Catholic Evangelical circuit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just gave the article a massive haircut, ~~in the process I ran a gNews seerch on his "Reason for Our Hope Foundation", and hits [53] persuade me that a short article supporting notability can be written.~~ On second look, hits on the Foundation are in a publication put out by a diocese where he was running a conference, by the same publisher who published the book, or are otherwise unpersuasive for notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Went to article creator's talk page and began to explain how WP works, but stopped myself before I wrote something downright unChristian. I used to be dismissive of editors who wanted to delete every piece of WP:PROMO written by a hired gun or a new editor with an apparent COI. But I am coming around to their POV. Even with someone like this, an arguable notable priest. I am just out of patience with singers,and writers and activists using Wikipedia as free advertising space. End of rant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing notability for local priest. Being a public speaker does not provide notability on its own, and his foundation does not appear to have distinguished activities or coverage in RS beyond that of other religious organizations. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, something like a diocesan newspaper writing up a diocesan conference where he is speaking, is in the category of a local paper; it does not support notability, but can be used as a WP:RS on facts. But discussion of him in major publications that happen to be Catholic or Christian, such as the National Catholic Reporter, First Things or Patheos do support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk)

Delete Changing my ivote after adding half a dozen solid sources in an attempt to source that article persuasively, and failing. He seems to be an inspiring motivational speaker, popular enough to be flying around the country talking to enthusiastic audiences, have ~1,500 twitter followers, write books that sell and get mentioned in interviews by people who found them inspirational,, but I can't find enough reliable, secondary sources to support notability. If anybody can source it persuasively, feel free to ping me to reconsider. He has an awfully common name, so I may be simply not be using the right keyword.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy Motorcycles[edit]

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

The term "Fancy Motorcycles" is not sourced, defined or commonly understood. It seems to be made up. Also, there are no sources to justify why particular models are included in the article. They appear to be added on the whim of the author. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nomination. Ajf773 (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Luxury vehicle would appear to cover this, although it's only about cars at present. There is a luxury segment of the motorcycle market documented in the media[54][55][56][57][58], but "fancy motorcycles" is the wrong title and this article has problems, as already mentioned. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and per WP:NOTDIR. A hastily cobbled together (cut and paste, without attribution) ill-defined list of motorcycle manufacturers. "Fancy Motorcycles" is not a common term either, in the same way a native English speaker wouldn't normally refer to Luxury vehicles as "Fancy Cars". As a side note, the author has been blocked for copyright violations. Fuebaey (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Minkoff[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He lacks the hockey accomplishments to meet WP:NHOCKEY and the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Pro Invitational[edit]

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

Non-notable bodybuilding competition. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ConTextos[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce significant coverage in demonstrably independent and reliable sources. Sources associated with the organization itself or with Harvard are not independent, and the source relating to the ED doesn't offer significant coverage of the organization. —swpb^T 12:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, searching under the old name (in quotes and being careful to note the organization separate from the phrase)brings up more, and Harvard sources such as these ([59], [60], [61] are assorted journals that though affiliated with Harvard do provide adequate indicia of notability, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had a hard time finding source on my own (my skills are not over 9000) but the sources provided above from Harvard convince me of notability. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Mitchell (ice hockey, born 1986)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failing GNG is easy, failing NHOCKEY much less so, but even the first one is sufficient to get this bio deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~--Pediaorg (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Contactpage Dloh cierekim 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Career minor leaguer who doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Only coverage is routine sports reporting, which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Broad consensus here that the sources, even when in otherwise reliable publications, do not cover the subject in sufficient depth. Statistics such as number of views do not carry any weight in these discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigDawsTv[edit]

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

An unremarkable YouTube channel; significant RS coverage not found. Sources include tabloid-like coverage and are not suitable for notability. Associated with other nn acts, some of which have been recently deleted at AfD:

Gurley has collaborated with other notable YouTubers such as Andrew Hales,^[1] Cody Strong,^[2] Juan Gonzalez,^[3] Justin Stuart and Andrew Scites from JStuStudios,^[4] DJ Sennett,^[5] Melissa Flentzeris^[6] and The Royal Stampede.

References

^ "Awkward Tinder"
^ "Secret Santa For Strangers"
^ "Extreme Creeping!"
^ "Secret Santa For Strangers"
^ "Secret Santa For Strangers"
^ "PROPOSAL PRANK GONE WRONG!!"

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There is some coverage by RS (all be it they tend to be local Arizona sources, but not all). Subscriptions and views significant - 2+ million subscribers (and 300-400 million views) would be more than many TV channels. The article is fairly written - it isn't a obvious advert - perhaps some things should be toned down.Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subscriptions and views do not make notability, coverage in reliable secondary sources does. The coverage is not indepth enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - There are a couple references out there, but the article needs work, and he doesn't seem like that big of a YouTuber for his own article. Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While there are many sources in the article that don't indicate passing WP:Notability like the primary ones, those don't negate the sources that do. Like this one from KNXV-TV, this from People (magazine) and this from WJW (TV). --Oakshade (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- these sources are either local or tabloid-like and do not help with encylopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People (magazine), while has some "tabloid"-like features, is still considered a reliable source per WP:RS. The topic's locale is Phoenix. WJW (TV) is in Cleveland. Cleveland is not local to Phoenix. --Oakshade (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The People headline is "Watch: Man Pretends to Be Homeless in Order to Reward Those Who Give" -- this is essentially a repost of the prank & does not provide suitable bio content for the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People is still a reliable source and that article is significant coverage. Sorry you don't like the title. But since you're bringing up the People coverage, additionally to the non-local WJW (TV) coverage, People is a national publication. --Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not conform to standards of notability and has a slanted, promotional tone to it.TH1980 (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial and not notable for stand alone article. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Barry, Jason (2015-11-17). "Valley man's viral videos attract millions on YouTube". KTVK. Archived from the original on 2017-05-07. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  A Tempe man is making a name for himself by creating outrageous videos, with many of them going viral.
  Dawson Gurley, 22, is a professional prankster and video maker, whose mission in life is to make people laugh - and that's exactly what he's doing, by creating silly, outrageous videos that he posts on the Internet.
  "We just try to bring out the best in people, make them laugh and make them smile," Gurley said. "We want to create situations that you don't see in our day-to-day lives."
  So far, Gurley and his friends have created 110 YouTube videos.
  There's the "Drive-thru Person Swap Prank," "The Nerdy Guy Picking Up Girls With A Puppy Prank," and the "Junk Food At The Gym Stunt."
2. Kuperinsky, Amy (2014-04-18). "Viral Video: Eating junk food at the gym". NJ.com. Archived from the original on 2017-05-07. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Anyway, the good people at BigDawsTv, a YouTube channel dedicated to pranks, have arrived to address our simultaneous obsession with and need to work out and eat healthy. By working out while eating very unhealthy.
  Brownies and milk on the treadmill. Twinkies while working the arms. Doughnuts with dumbbells. Sit-ups with fries. Iced cake with free weights. A chili dog on the bicycle. Chocolate syrup-doused aerobics.
  The romp in saturated fats and weightlifting has netted 755,052 views since it was posted on April 9.
3. Mackie, Drew (2014-09-23). "Watch: Man Pretends to Be Homeless in Order to Reward Those Who Give". People. Archived from the original on 2017-05-07. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  YouTube prankster Dawson Gurley, better known by his YouTube moniker Big Daws, usually makes videos that show how innocent bystanders react to inappropriate behavior for example, eating junk food while working out in the gym or a very public and very unsuccessful marriage proposal.
  A recent video, however, highlighted the most generous people in his Tempe, Arizona, community: those willing to offer money to someone in need. In the video, Gurley pretends to be a homeless panhandler. When anyone offers him money, he immediately reveals the ruse, returns the donation and then offers the kind soul $20.
4. Bouwer, Bree (2014-09-09). "YouTube Prankster Pretends Hes Homeless, Gives Back To Givers". Tubefilter. Archived from the original on 2017-05-07. Retrieved 2017-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  Sometimes, even pranksters get tired of “real” pranks and look for a twist on the old tradition. That’s what BigDawsTv did when he dressed up like a homeless man and gave money back to people who donated to him.
  In a video from August 19, Daws took to the streets of the Phoenix metro area dressed in grimy clothes and carrying a sign that said “ANYTHING Helps, God Bless.” At first, the expected happens: people ignore him, tell him to get a job, or say they need to make a living, too. Then people started giving him change, at which point he handed them a $20 bill and explained he was there to give back to those who gave.
  ...
  BigDawsTV’s video was featured on CNN this morning, but he is only one of many YouTubers and creators aiming to make an impact on the world through good deeds (aka “positive pranks”).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow BigDawsTv to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above sources are not suitable for establishing notability. One of the sources provided (Tubefiller) cannot even spell the headline correctly: "YouTube Prankster Pretends Hes (sic) Homeless, Gives Back To Givers". Wikipedia does not source its article to tabloid-like coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The contents of the article is inappropriate. We're not a repository of practical jokes. So that rules out refs 16+. Refs 11 to 15 are just name dropping of non-notable youtubers that the article claims are notable. 6 through 9 are from his own channel. So the potential sources are just the first 5 refs., all of them local. The additional ones given above are also just reports of practical jokes. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there is no "repository of practical jokes" existing in this article, nor any article on WP. Simply because reliable sources include the "practical jokes" element in their biographical coverage of this topic, doesn't mean those sources don't count as reliable sources with significant coverage. Several of the sources listed above are not local and are not just "name dropping" or repeating practical jokes. --Oakshade (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Practical jokers can be notable. We have many of bygone eras - e.g. Allen Funt, Naked and Funny, or Echt fett. Just because this frivolous "art" has moved to Youtube (as an industry as a whole) - doesn't mean this can't be notable due to being part of the "Practical Joke Industry". The question should be whether a particular prankster or prank group is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's a prominent YouTube personality, because he appears in other channels including his own. I say keep it, because of vast YouTube broadcasting of his face in other channels. thanks. The Stray Dog Talk Page 14:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete They have made a lot AfD for articles about YouTubers, all other my written articles are gone see examples 1, 2, 3, so why keep this one? also I have no idea where this people came from saying keep, keep only on this one. Mjbmr (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because a topic is a "YouTuber" is not a valid reason to delete or even AfD an article. The reason to keep is based on notability guidelines such as this topic being the subject of significant coverage by multiple independent sources. There are multiple "YouTubers" that are kept and not even a consideration for AfD like Casey Neistat. Even the AfD you created for Paul Robinett was speedy kept for concerns of bad-faith AfD nominations. --Oakshade (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade well I'm agreed to nom and other people that this article is not notable based on coverage and should be deleted. Mjbmr (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also notice you're the article creator. This is just another in a string of blind rationale AfDs of articles you created, as noted by BigHaz in this AfD, perhaps in some kind of "retaliation" for someone AfDing one of your previously created and then deleted articles. --Oakshade (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigHaz Oakshade keep your "perhaps", clearly the articles I have created and other articles that I don't have written, me or other people nominated for deletion don't have enough coverage, maybe it's WP:TOOSOON for them to have an article, and having Wikipedia holding these poor written articles encourages other unnotable people try to create their own article with tabloid-like coverage, so this not some sort of "retaliation" what you say and stop trolling and accusing me, I made a huge mistake creating these articles, they gained more subscribers by these and they earned more money while they were unnotable, and some of references on the articles were found on the internet after creating these articles, it's like Wikipedia making these people notable. Mjbmr (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to lash out at me or anyone else. Nobody's "trolling" you at all. What we're doing, at most, is saying that "these articles have been deleted" doesn't really count in a discussion about this particular article. Additionally, just remember that you don't own the articles you write, so saying that "all of your other articles are gone" suggests that you're trying to accomplish something other than creating an encyclopedia. I've had articles I worked on deleted and edited beyond all recognition (usually for the better), and I'm sure Oakshade has too. That's what happens when people collaborate. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to strictly pass the criteria at WP:GNG. Lots of mentions in subpar and local sources is not the same as significant coverage in reliable sources Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with nominator, this fails WP:GNG. Perhaps eventually, when more reliable sources have discussed the subject. Waggie (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Johnpacklambert Hawkeye75 TH1980 Kierzek DGG Dennis Brown Waggie please give your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Roady too, that one related. Mjbmr (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as Stub the Youtube view counts and articles such as [62] suggest he meets notability, but most of the existing article needs to be deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Power~enwiki (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Comment I was canvassed, but was already planning to review every "Youtube celebrity" in an AfD this month. I would support a consensus deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, per other users. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this does not meet WP:GNG. I agree with Dennis Brown and the nominator in particular. Reyk _YO! 07:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's absolutely no "significant coverage". Little blurbs, passing mentions... fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage does not involve brief mentions. Perhaps one day when the amount of subscribers to a YouTube channel is a criteria for notability, but not now. Ifnord (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely does not meet minimum notability guidelines. If the best a 'keep' voter can find is a couple of local articles and a misspelled headline from something that looks like a blog, I don't see how this channel rises to any level of notability worthy of inclusion. CrispyGlover (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Echosmith. It appears this is what the nomination was after in the first place, and there is consensus that this is the correct course of action notwithstanding that some of the comments supporting this have bolded the word "delete". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echosmith discography[edit]

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

The discography page is just over 10 kB, and the article is just under 20 kB, which are not prohibitive lengths per WP:SIZE nor MOS:DISCOGRAPHY. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not feel that this is a valid reason for deletion. The article in question is definitely not too long, and anyway, we do not delete an article based on size. In that circumstance, the article can be forked, or the non-appropriate content removed. With this in mind, would Jax 0677 consider withdrawal or changing the rationale? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - My point is, that the discography should not have been split from the Echosmith article in the first place. I tried to {{PROD}} the page, but the tag was removed, so I am taking the discussion here, and am open to suggestions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason why I created this page is because the disography section on the band's article is for studio albums only. This article is for their entire disography and for that reason it should not be deleted. --Bowling is life (talk) 3:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply - @Bowling is life:, per MOS:DISCOGRAPHY, "If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of that person's works (such as Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges or Robert A. Heinlein bibliography) is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable" and "Musicians that have released a significant amount of work should be given their own discography articles". IMHO, both the artist and the discography can be merged into a single article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the discography merged back in and the separate page redirected, you should have just done it. And merging/redirecting is definitely not deletion, so AFD is not the place for that. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Postdlf:, I tried to {{PROD}} the article, but that got reverted, so I sent the issue to a "forum that has teeth". When I attempt to split a discography, I place a {{split-section}} tag on the discography section and wait at least one month before creating such a page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PROD is also for outright deletion, not for merging/redirecting. My suggestion is next time merge back the content yourself and redirect the separate page, and then if that is reverted discuss why with the other editor. postdlf (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Postdlf:, I do appreciate your suggestion, and will take that under consideration in the future. However, if my PROD was reverted, I have a feeling that my merge would have been as well. I took the article to AFD, as there is no "Articles for discussion" forum. One of the potential verdicts of AFD is merging. I also cannot merge the article until this AFD is closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think one thing I'm trying to push back against is the idea that everything has to be resolved through "forums" or compulsory, quasi-legal processes. I've discovered in many instances that simply talking with another editor one-on-one, whether on their talk page or on an article's talk page, resolves a disagreement far more easily than initiating some kind of deletion process, which can just polarize, and requires more editor time to process. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Postdlf:, I am not disagreeing. However, now that this AFD has been started, I would like to see verdicts of "Merge" written down. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had this started as a separate article then a merge would be obvious, but as this has unnecessarily been split out from the band article, delete this and revert the band article back to the revision that includes the full discography. --Michig (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Postdlf:, @Michig:, would any of you please be so kind and comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beware of Darkness discography? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete After understanding the unusual rationale, I agree that this should not have been split off from Echosmith. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

陈冰[edit]

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

Only A refrance DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice) 01:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She was a non-winning contestant in The Voice of China (season 3), and there is a little passing coverage of her in Chinese showbiz news sources but the article is problematic (and has no references); not sure if policy would be to redirect. Doesn't appear to meet notability requiremetns but maybe there is more in Chinese-language sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Bing closed as delete 3 years ago. Timmyshin (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timmyshin's findings as an alias. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Baidu, the main search engine in China comes up with very, very little that discusses her in any detail. Keep looking if you wish, but finding enough to satisfy GNG is highly unlikely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does she have a Chinese Wikpedia article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot check that because Chinese Wikipedia is blocked in China. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, found it, zh:陈冰 (歌手), although it looks like nothing's really been developed since the previous AFD besides a handful of more variety show appearances and television shows that are mostly unsourced. [63] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article contains no sources, thus there is no reliably-sourced information which can be merged. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GARNOME[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into GNOME §Release cycle or §Development platform since primarily a build-tool. Superseded by JHBuild.[64] -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charanjeet Singh Sondhi[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Winged Blades^Godric 07:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 07:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 07:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable singer. http://www.absoluteindianews.com/post-id-20240.html https://www.unp.me/f46/etc-channel-punjabi-music-awards-06nominations-4548/ see male debut category under name charanjeet singh http://www.saavn.com/s/artist/charanjeet-singh-sondhi-albums/xSswioUWkO0_ http://gaana.com/artist/charanjeet-singh-sondhi https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/charanjeet-singh-sondhi/id592467404 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLxla3fuKofRLc_qJdtxNs29Db4bxtwav — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.247.14.85 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Apparently Charanjeet Singh is a very popular name, but I cannot find a single source mentioning him: news, books, newspapers, or scholar. The above links by IP are not RS and don't establish notability. iTunes? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Mach Tina[edit]

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

Nothing other than WP:ROUTINE coverage, nothing to show this particular episode passes WP:GNG. Well written, but not every episode of every tv show is notable. As per WP:EPISODE, articles for a show's individual should only, "Create pages for outstanding episodes". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the List of Bob's Burgers episodes most of the TV show's episodes have an article here. Why did you pick one article of it and nominate it for deletion? There some articles which aren't well written. --Morten Haan 🏂 talk • skin draft 15:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - because it's not notable. The fact that there are articles about other non-notable episodes is an WP:OSE argument. Which in this case, in my opinion, isn't valid. I came across this particular article as part of new page patrolling. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that episodes of Bob's Burgers have enough independent secondary sources so that they are notable even if article uses just one. --Morten Haan 🏂 talk • skin draft 15:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing must not only be independent, but must be in-depth. Which this doesn't meet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pretty decent article to me, no reason to delete it. I also undid your blanking of The Last Gingerbread House on the Left. Multichill (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your policy basis for that decision? Being a "pretty decent article" is not a valid reason to keep it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not into the enWikilawyering, I just stick to the Five pillars. Multichill (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first three entries on the 'news' section of the above find sources template appear to each be valid independent RS'es that discuss the episode with more than a mere mention. Thus, GNG is met. I further note that the nominator's quote of WP:EPISODE is taken out of context and not itself a statement of policy, and WP:ROUTINE has absolutely nothing to do with television shows. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: In the interest of transparency, after coming across this interpretation of WP:EPISODE, I have changed the wording to better reflect policy and guidelines by changing outstanding to notable. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jclemens! --Morten Haan 🥐 talk • skin draft 15:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ℯ xplicit 01:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wellness Network[edit]

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

Was deleted by PROD and then restored. My original PROD reason was "Non-notable non-broadcast TV network. Seems to be an advertising channel but not a notable one. Article is at risk of being a spam magnet too." I think that still applies. Certainly the Google links don't show up much more than PR fluff and few brief mentions of the company being sold in business news. It doesn't have any serious coverage as a TV Network.DanielRigal (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But if it is the organization I am thinking of, they are improving quality of care in hospitals in a significant manner. But they need reliable sources reporting on them in order to receive a Wikipedia article.Knox490 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am an employee of The Wellness Network and would like to request that the page remain intact while we update and reference the text. All new material will conform to Wikipedia's editorial guidelines and COI guidelines and will be submitted through the "peer review" process on The Wellness Network's talk page. The company was recently purchased by the WAFRA group and is in a growth phase in its industry, making it a notable and relevant company. The new page will have credible referencing and take a neutral point of view. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. JonVanZile (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being upfront about this. Unfortunately, I think you are using the word "notable" without realising that we have a specific meaning of it here on Wikipedia. Our focus is on whether something has already been proved notable by already being widely noted while your use seems to be a wider sense of something that deserves to be noted. Maybe I'm not explaining it very well but if you read WP:N you will get a much better, and official, explanation of what we mean by "notable". We set the bar quite high and not being notable doesn't mean something is bad or undeserving, just that the reliable sources we go by have not picked up on it to any great extent (yet). In fact we have a lot of articles on things which are notable just for being bad, so having or not having an article is no endorsement of worth. We have an article on Enron after all. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and again, thanks for my ongoing introduction and education in all things Wikipedia. I read the standards on notability and understand the broad intent: third-party, independent, verifiable, legitimate, and public. These are the same standards we rely on in medical writing (actually, that's more stringent) or journalism. I'm pulling together a source list now and will post references here ASAP so you can take a look and let me know if we clear the bar. If not, we'll submit to the greater Wiki wisdom. JonVanZile (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Took a couple minutes to google The Wellness Network and there are some reliable independent sources. Just added a section on it being purchased by Wafra Partners LLC. Seems the article just needs some work. Cllgbksr (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find anything else apart from the purchase? That was all I found when I looked. I didn't see any RS coverage of the thing itself, only minor business coverage of it being sold. It helps to verify but I'm not convinced it is enough to demonstrate notability. DanielRigal (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After taking another look the articles I mentioned are sourced by PR News wires. Saw a Yahoo article when searching today but sourced by Marketwire. [65] May have to walk my prior statement back. This article may not have enough RS coverage to pass muster. Cllgbksr (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article attempts to educate or inform, however, it lacks quality content. There is nothing that is really notable in this article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Just badly written corporate spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience while we are working on this! I'm the content director at The Wellness Network. Here are several independent reliable sources with significant discussion of the company:

American Association of Diabetes Educators (March 28, 2017). “The Wellness Network (TWN) and American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) Release New Patient-Friendly Videos on Managing your Diabetes.” DiabetesEducator.org. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
American College of Physicians. “The Wellness Network Patient Education & Video Library.” American College of Physicians. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
American Heart Association (November 6, 2014). “HeartCare Channel to launch in hospitals across the U.S. American Heart Association.” Retrieved May 1, 2017.
BerkeryNoyes (January 22, 2016). “Wafra Partners LLC Acquires Interactivation Health Networks, LLC, d/b/a The Wellness Network.” Berkery Noyes Investment Bankers. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
Budniak, Annmarie (March 30, 2017). “Health Media Network and the Wellness Network Announce Strategic Alliance – Partnership Creates Largest Physician Office and hospital Media Footprint in the US.” HiTech Answers. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
Gibbons, Kent (April 13. 2010). “Interactivation Buys Networks in Hospital Rooms.” Multichannel News. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
Healthcare IT News (April 14, 2010). “Interactivation Health Networks Acquires iVillage's Patient Channel and Newborn Channel.” HealthCare IT News. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
HMN News (March 8, 2017). “Health Media Network (HMN) And The Wellness Network (TWN) Announce Strategic Alliance- Partnership Creates Largest Physician Office And Hospital Media Footprint In The U.S.” Health Media Network. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
Kirchen, Rich (December 11, 2014). “The Wellness Network launches The HeartCare Channel under new partnership.” Milwaukee Business Journal. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
Kirchen, Rich (January 15, 2016). “The Wellness Network sold to New York private-equity investors.” Milwaukee Business Journal. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
Mastroni, Nicole (May 8, 2017). “Health Media Network (HMN) And The Wellness Network (TWN) Announce Strategic Alliance- Partnership Creates Largest Physician Office And Hospital Media Footprint In The U.S.” PetCare TV. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
Tanner Health System. “Patient Channel Information.” Tanner Health System. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
The Wellness Network (March 28, 2017). “The Wellness Network (TWN) and American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) Release New Patient-friendly Videos on Managing Your Diabetes.” NBC2. Retrieved May 1, 2017.
Yahoo News (February 23, 2011). “Interactivation Health Networks Changes Name to The Wellness Network.”

If the article is kept, I'll work on the talk page with volunteers to generate NPOV content from these sources. JonVanZile (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article needs a rewrite to conform to Wikipedia standards and more independent sources to prove notability.TH1980 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It looks like the editing process will continue and it will hash itself out one way or another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ace (military)[edit]

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

This is supposed to be an article on the general concept of "aces" in the military. Unfortunately, it does not cite a single source for such a general concept. The definition has had a CN tag since a day after it was created. Do not be fooled by the second sentence, cited to Goll: it is talking about flying aces only. The full sentence is, "A lone airman entered combat, fought with skill and luck, and if victorious won the accolades of the patriotic public." This article was created in the midst of a deletion debate over the article submarine ace. While the term "ace" has obviously spread beyond flying aces to include tank aces (we have an article on "Panzer ace" in popular culture) and submarine aces. Nevertheless, there is no evidence presented (and none I've found in English) that the general concept has been studied in reliable sources. The page is therefore an unnecessary content fork of the Panzer ace and flying ace articles (and the submarine ace article was redirected/merged due to lack of sources). Srnec (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia has already has an article entitled Flying ace. The term ace may have expanded, but it is not widespread. The term ace being more broadly used is not found in reliable sources. The concept of the article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability standards. desmay (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flying Ace. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the article was created (full disclosure, by myself) as part of the deletion discussion for "Submarine ace": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace. The topic is larger than just flying aces. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was suggested by User:Assayer and created by you. That's it. You proposed to delete submarine ace. Assayer proposed to delete "German tank aces" (now "Panzer ace in popular culture") and you originally voted delete. Assayer suggested the present article at both discussions. S/he has not provided any references to reliable sources for discussing the ace as a general concept. Nor have you. Don't get me wrong: it is a generalized concept. We know that. But that's original research. Where are the reliable (academic) sources? I did some checking and found none that discuss aces as a something general. Perhaps they exist in another language. I'm happy to withdraw the request if they are provided. Srnec (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that you strongly advocated for the "Keep" on the Submarine ace article, even though there were't any sources that discussed that topic directly and in detail. I'm sensing a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (prior deletion outcome) in this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see my conversation with the deletion closer here. —Srnec (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I can see that the closer disagreed with you and considered Ace (military) to be the best redirect target: The title and thus the Redirect went best to the article identified; when it was created and by whom have no bearing on whether it's the most suitable architect. This current AfD looks like an attempt to re-argue the close of the Submarine ace AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a CN tag in January that was never challenged or removed. I brought up the issue three times on the talk page without a response. I raised it at WikiProject Military History. No response. Deleting this article will result in the actual deletion of submarine ace and its history per WP:G8, as surely you realize. Srnec (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tag has been removed by another contributor, who also added some content so this no longer applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Desmay. Kierzek (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an established concept. More cultural / propaganda than pure military - but it is. Sourcing can be improved - it is quite obvious it is out there.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An established concept, even if not a formally defined one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not quite sure of the thrust behind this nomination. I have participated in AfDs on German tank aces (that one I initiated myself) and Submarine ace and I am all too willing to concede that there is no general concept of "aces" in the military. But I faced strong opposition. The nominator, User Srnec, in particular insisted that there was something like a "concept" of submarine aces. So I am confused that the very same editor now claims that there is "no evidence" of a concept.

I may quote from the entry ace, air combat in The Oxford Companion to Military History (2001, 2004): "The concept of the air ace was born in WW I, a product of propaganda and the long-held human desire to highlight individual excellence." If you compare that with the defining sentence of Flying ace, the differences are obvious. While the Wikipedia article is about the aviators that were attributed to be "aces", military historiography deals with the social and historical significance of the term. See also Peter Fritzsche: A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and the Popular Imagination. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.) 1992, ISBN 0-674-60122-X, pp 59-101: "The Image of the War Ace" and Linda R. Robertson: The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis 2003, ISBN 0-8166-4270-2. Thus the "ace" is an encyclopedic subject according to WP:WORDISSUBJECT. It is not "an unneccessary content fork". Surely the article can be improved, but WP:NEXIST. I would strongly support a complete rewrite of the Flying ace so that it would become an article on the the myth instead of one on the aviators themselves. But I am enough of a realist to know that that would garner strong opposition.--Assayer (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "military historiography deals with the social and historical significance of the term" as it applies to air aces, not as it applies to aces in general. That's why this article is a content fork. If our article on air aces is lacking something, it needs to be added there, not a separate article created

How can you say that there is no general concept of "aces" in the military and support an article on that very thing? This is incoherent. My position is perfectly clear: there is such a concept, it is just that it has not been studied or noted by reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Air aces" are part of the military, aren't they? I support an article on the term. But I oppose any articles that apply this term. I do not think that the article Flying ace is lacking anything. I argue that it is completely ill conceived. Thus I would support a redirect from the Flying ace to the Ace (military), but not vice versa. --Assayer (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an admission that the current article was conceived as a POV fork. This is not an acceptable way to go about doing what you want done. Srnec (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Currently the article Flying ace deals with aviators credited to be "aces". The article Ace (military) deals with the term and the concept as a product of propaganda(, not with the aviators). These are not the same subjects. Thus the article Ace (military) is not a fork. Besides, search terms like the submarine ace or the panzer ace, which clearly can be traced back to the "ace" in air war, can be appropriately redirected to that article. Since I provided reliable sources which characterize the "ace" as a myth instead of a reality, why do you insist on deleting Ace (military) instead of redirecting Flying Ace? --Assayer (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: I argue that [Flying ace] is completely ill conceived. Thus I would support a redirect from the Flying ace to the Ace (military). In other words, you think they are about the same thing. You just think the presentation is completely wrong. You won't edit the Flying ace article because you don't want the pushback (I am enough of a realist to know that that would garner strong opposition), but you think it ought to be rewritten to be about what the Ace (military) article is about (I would strongly support a complete rewrite of the Flying ace so that it would become an article on the the myth). To quote WP:POVFORK:

POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

I insist on deleting Ace (military) because it is a POV fork and one that happens to not back up its main assertion with reliable sources (i.e., there is no discussion in reliable sources of "ace" as a general term or concept—in-depth discussion appears to be limited to the concept of the air ace). Srnec (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing an important point: the flying ace as such and the use of the term in the military are not the same thing. And, as you certainly will remember, the disagreement concerning the submarine ace was resolved by redirecting it to the Ace (military). To press for a deletion of the latter means indeed a re-arguing of that consensus and resembles WP:POINT. Moreover, if you feel that the content would better be integrated into the Flying ace, you should argue for a merging instead of wholesale deletion.--Assayer (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same thing, but they belong in the same article. Even you think so, you just don't think there is very much worth saying at all about the "flying ace" as such. I deny that a few late votes in a deletion discussion constitute a consensus for the existence of this article. Srnec (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that both should exist. "Flying Ace" is a well established concept with fairly clear criteria (5 aircraft kills). The term has however been used for other military professions (and also for ground-attack in aviation) - tanks, snipers, ground-attack, submarine - in all of these contexts, the criteria is fluid and not-clearly defined - I don't think they should have stand-alone articles, but the use of the term outside of air-to-air combat should have an article (and should not be incorporated in "Flying Ace").Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is necessary to document other usages of the term "ace" besides tank aces and flying aces. In the absence of a separate internationally focused article, this article has the potential to cover non-German tank aces. Kges1901 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Precisely which persons were aces is a POV issue, according to precisely how the term is defined, but the concept is a clear enough one for us to be able to keep an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom. It is pretty clear that different users have very different ideas about what this article should be. One keep voter says he is "all too willing to concede that there is no general concept of aces in the military". Another says "the concept is a clear enough one for us to be able to keep an article". One says "the criteria is fluid and not-clearly defined", another: "an established concept, even if not a formally defined one". This could be settled by reliable sources, but nobody's got any. Srnec (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like flying ace has been officially defined, for example this Air & Space Magazine article which quotes USAF sources. And here's an statement from respected military historian Steven Zaloga about the lack of official recognition for US Army tank aces in WWII which implies that the threshold is destroying 5 tanks. Kges1901 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as other commenters have pointed out, everything here is already covered in Flying ace, German tank ace, and Submarine ace articles. Furthermore, there are no reliable sources that cover "ace" as a general term in the military. It's a made-up concept by the writer of the article. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is contradictory in itself. If it is a made-up concept, why should we feature articles on the Flying ace or the "German tank aces" (kept as "notable as such"[66]) in the first place?--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is clearly a content fork of Flying ace. No reliable sources discuss "ace" as a general cross-service branch concept. Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Since the concept of "ace" is widely covered in books published by various respected University presses, including encycopedias of military history, contributors who maintain the notion of a "content fork" should either consider opting for merge instead of delete or argue why they deem that content not worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia.--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a paragraph to the intro of Flying ace. The flying ace section at Ace (military) is about three short paragraphs in length. Given how short that is—and the fact that Flying ace needs work—I do not see that "merging" is necessary. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think that the Submarine ace, which is now a redirect to the article that you question, should become again an article of its own, or perhaps something like "U-boat-ace" in popular culture? And how would you suggest to proceed with an article like "Panzer ace" in popular culture? According to the AfD German tank aces (linked above) the use of the term "ace" in military contexts is not confined to the Flying ace and notable, even though it is mainly used in somewhat popular military writings. Steven Zaloga, quoted above, has been the main witness for notability and is held in high esteem as a reliable source by many contributors. I am not sure whether the people arguing for deletion here are fully aware that these articles are connected.--Assayer (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the normal course of things, if this article is deleted then Submarine ace would be deleted as well per WP:G8. In case you missed it, you can see my conversation with the closer of that deletion here. There is no prejudice against the creation of a new article (of any format or title) on submarine aces based on the previous deletion—so long as it is properly and reliably sourced, which, as I agreed with the closer, the previous one was not. Since it is well outside of my area, I have no plans to create such an article. As for "Panzer ace" in popular culture, the current title is hideous. That is about the extent of my opinion. I suspect that more could be said about non-German "tank aces" and the article re-titled accordingly.
I do not think that these articles are "connected". There is the original, the air ace, which is both official propaganda and a topic of scholarly discussion... and then there is everything else, which is all derivative (based on analogy to the flying ace), mostly popular history without any official basis and only barely discussed in the scholarly literature. I do not think there is any basis for combining these things in a central article. I think the inadequacies of Flying ace ought to be addressed there. By analogy, see Squadron and note that we have separate articles on different types of squadron but no article on the general military concept of a squadron. Why and how do you think they are connected? This article only appeared in January.
I once nominated "Epic (genre)" for deletion on similar grounds to those here. Although I would say that I did not argue my case particularly well, I have toyed with the idea of renominating it on the same grounds. Srnec (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that either Wikipedians recognize the notability of how the term "ace" is used in military contexts other than air war, which they currently do, or they have to do away with articles on the use of that term in those other contexts. I keep arguing that in variuos AfDs. The content of that Panzer ace article could also be merged to Ace (military), because such an article is able to address the origins and analogies within proper context. Squadron, however, is not an image coined by propaganda and it is not embued with certain cultural meanings, or is it? That's not an appropriate analogy.--Assayer (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you are arguing for OR and/or SYNTH. The fact that we can see how the word "ace" has spread from beyond its original air combat meaning does not mean that we can write an article on a general concept, or even just on the multiple related uses of the word unless there are reliable sources that do so. Srnec (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I proposed the German tank ace for deletion, because I do not see enough reliable sources to write an article about that. However, consensus had it, that it was notable by its use in popular culture and that the sources (namely Zaloga, see above) were reliable enough to support that notion, and we have to deal with that. But the career of the image of "ace", beginning in WW I, would still warrant an article Ace (military). It's a military image, and not just an image popular only within the air force. Historians have been careful to link the image of "ace" to war in general.--Assayer (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Historians have been careful to link the image of "ace" to war in general. Can you cite some sources where they are not talking only about air aces? It is not enough that you (we) can apply what we read about air aces to the use of the term in other contexts. The lead of the article in question originally said that "The ace achieved success with ‘skill and luck, and if victorious won the accolades of the patriotic public’." This quotation is only talking about air aces, as I've shown. It was an editor, not the source, that applied it to aces in general. That is what I mean by OR. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the "ace" as a concept, e.g., about the question if it takes five or ten "kills" during air combat to become an ace. Such an approach leads to absurdities like Wikipedia saying about Roland Georges Garros that he is erroneously called the world's first fighter ace. In fact, he shot down only four aircraft; the definition of "ace" is five or more victories. It does not matter whether Garros shot down four or five (or three or six) enemies. Literature has it, that he is the first pilot French propaganda referred to as an "ace". You cannot fully understand how the image works, if you take it out of its context. As historians have been careful to point out, the whole idea of the "ace" was to detract from the realities of modern ground warfare. As Linda Robertson has written: "[F]irst, the images-in-the-mind of the public about warfare are derived from the mediating images of previous wars, from the artistic rendering of them in prose, poetry, painting, or engravings. Second, the very scale of World War I ... made it impossible to imagine, not simply because of the numbers of soldiers involved, but also because it did not live up to the romantic image of warfare conducted along Napoleonic example ... . It it is in this context that the significance can be most fully realized of the opportunity provided to propagandists by the emergence of air combat during the stalemated and highly mechanized trench warfare on the Western Front. The combat pilots offered a way to compensate for the problem the ground war presented to the construction of heroes ... Glamorizing the pilots offered a substitute for understanding the war's complexities or comprehending its horrors. Such symbols domesticated the scale of war, making it more manageable in the psychological sense: they distracted attention from the reality of war, enforced the impression that it could be understood... ." (pp. 100-1.) Peter Fritzsche wrote: "The ace in combat is an immediately recognizable image. In control of his fate, handling his airplane with great courage and skill but also with an envied recklessness, the aviator appeared to be a genuine war hero, comparable to cavalrymen in Napoleon's era or chivalrous knights in the Middle Ages. ... To this day, myths opposing the individual, distinctive combat of the aces to the industrial mass war on the ground remain deeply embedded in Western folklore." (p. 64) Surely you will say : That's only about "flying aces", not about other aces. But that's not the point. Rather the image of the "ace" as the epitome of the notion of "civilized warfare" permeates the military and conceptions of modern warfare in general. Thus from a historiographical point of view it makes no sense to discuss concepts of "acedom" in various military branches by various stand alone articles.

There are authors, however, who take the existence of such "aces" for granted. You have referred to authors commenting on the "submarine ace". Other authors, like Steven Zaloga or Robert Kershaw (on "tank aces"), have been furiously defended by other Wikipedians as RS. So currently there seems to be consensus that Wikipedia has to deal with this issue. --Assayer (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Phi Zeta (sorority)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eta Phi Zeta (sorority). A recent CSD-Repost was declined, but this is nevertheless a resurrection, if not a direct copy, of the original article and it still fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any information indicating that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Maybe a Spanish speaker could, but I cannot. Knox490 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- yes, please. This is a fan page & such content belongs on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've gone through and added some secondary references, most specifically to "Brothers and Sisters: Diversity in College Fraternities and Sororities", for which the section that mentions them is on google books. I've also deleted the links to the greek letters and the golden chapter. I'll add when I can information on the indicident that happened at UPR-Utuado http://corp.primerahora.com/archivo.asp?guid=38F3213875EC4BDD9750CDBB0FD1D0B2&year=2004&keyword= and http://corp.primerahora.com/archivo.asp?guid=BA1FA9171198495A943E2DA30B638CFC&year=2005&keyword= )Naraht (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised we have no N criteria for frats. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sort of have one. As one component, if the total number of years active for the chapters > 50 it is notable (so for a random group: Alpha's been active for 27 years, Beta for 20 and Gamma for 4 meets it) I think Eta Phi Zeta meets that as well. It was easier for groups that existed prior to 1991. If they were in Baird's, they passed. Naraht (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was not notable before, and still fails to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Esther Were[edit]

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

Non-notable person per WP:GNG and contains only one source which doesn't direct to any information. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Miss Universe Kenya. I've managed to find one in depth article but it looks to be from the entertainment pages of The Standard so I'm not sure how much value it really has. Can't find much more. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found easily lots of potential news sources about the subject. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes the GNG. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Universe Kenya - Bearian's links above appear to be WP:ROUTINE coverage of the pageant, not in-depth sources describing this person. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (✉) 04:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Marie Rivera[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable primarily as a case manager at a local non-profit agency. While Wikipedia doesn't inherently preclude people of primarily "local to a single area" notability from getting articles if they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, that's not what the sourcing here is doing -- of the six references here, four are primary sources (the self-published webpages of organizations she was directly involved with, and/or YouTube videos) and the other two are blogs. (And of the two blog sources, The Huffington Post is widely read enough that it would be an acceptable source if the rest of the referencing around it were more solid -- but it's not a source that can carry GNG all by itself if it's the best thing you can find.) She may have done interesting work and she was probably an awesome person, but unfortunately there's just nowhere near enough legitimate sourcing here to hang an encyclopedia article on. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TopCipher (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. TopCipher (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TopCipher (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bearcat - trust that the primary concern for this AFD is sourcing and not notability and I agree with your assessment; although it has potential, just not in it's current state, I suppose it would be trumped by the fact that notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article or article content does not determine notability and quite importantly, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article; also, here are some of the other references that I was able to source (not listed in any order of significance)-
1. Widely cited by subject's peers in various books
2. Played casting role in a documentary film
3. Similar article as HuffingtonPost on WorldNews
4. Member of the Transgender Community Panel at United States Conference on AIDS Trans Institute
I realize that most of these references do not speak "about" the subject per se, they do credibly indicate the claim of significance.
Query: Please confirm which of the citations are self-published webpages as most of the ones that I've referred are about or after her death - not that I hold any prejudice against them. I was further unable to clearly see them (webpages) as "primary sources" as I'm given to understand that they have been published by organizations / institutions that existed long before the subject was involved.
Comment: Would you happen to know anything about a 'Alexis Rivera Trailblazer Award'? Saw a mention here. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the wn.com citation doesn't help bolster a notability claim either — it's not an originator of content, but a news aggregator that merely collects headlines from other news services — the reason it's "similar" to the Huffington Post article is because it is the Huffington Post article. Nor does it matter whether an organization existed before she was involved with it or not — if she was involved with it at all, then it is a primary source, because her direct involvement in the organization makes it not fully independent of her. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, in regard to other organizations that reference Alexis Rivera: GLAAD Article Published after shortly after her death [67]. Friends Research Institute in Los Angeles runs a program named after Alexis Rivera [68]. Techgirlwonder (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously I'm the primary author so my vote is biased. Responding to TopCipher, I can tell you that Trans Pride is Los Angeles local transgender pride celebration [69], and gives an award every year recognizing a local transgender advocate. Since Alexis death in 2012, the award has been titled the Alexis Rivera Trailblazer Award in honor of Alexis work. Further references can be found here: [70], [71], [72].
Query: Part of what makes Alexis Rivera important is she was an advocate 15 years ago, at a time when the transgender community was largely invisible to mainstream society. As a result, there is very little documented media from that time period (and what there is did not make it to the internet). Is there a recommended method for sourcing articles about communities are rarely written about in major media sources? I am committed to improving this article as the primary author based on the feedback here. Techgirlwonder (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Wikipedia does not have a requirement that our sources be accessible on the internet — if you can find print-only media coverage in an archive or a news retrieval database, you can use that for referencing. But regardless of whether it's web-accessible or to paper-only content, the referencing does still have to be to reliable sources. We do not have any "alternate path to sourceability" rules that exempt members of underrepresented groups from having to be reliably sourced, or that allow them to rest on social networking posts, or blogs, or primary sources, or YouTube videos, or other types of sourcing that would not ordinarily be good enough, instead — as unfortunate as it may be that transgender people historically didn't get as much coverage in the media as they might have deserved, it's not Wikipedia's role to rectify that visibility gap if the required quality of sourcing doesn't exist and we have to rely on substandard sourcing instead. The fact that there was less reliable source coverage than there maybe should have been in principle does not exempt a person from the reliable sourcing requirement — if the depth of reliable source coverage just wasn't there to meet GNG on the same quality of sources that anybody else would have to show, then there simply isn't an alternate path to sourcing a keepable article. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional secondary sources -- Bay Area Reporter [73][74], Bilerico project [75][76], OnTop magazine [77]Techgirlwonder (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Techgirlwonder you should add these additional references to the article. I hope they're considered strong enough, but I'm not an expert by any stretch of imagination. Most importantly, two things. First, this is not personal, Wikipedia kind of has a mind of its own in attempt to be reliable and verifiable. And second, know that in the worst case if the article is still deleted, you can still improve it and try again. Wikipedia has a Draft namespace which is meant for that kind of work. Milimetric (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the articles from the Bay Area Reporter, which is by Wikipedia's own definition "one of the largest circulation LGBT newspapers by circulation in the United States and the country's oldest continuously published newspaper of its kind"[78] -- the Transgender Law Center source which was the main previous source has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techgirlwonder (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

found a couple more sources. MassiveEartha (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Select Your Gender: From the Invention of Hysteria to the Democratizing of Transgenderism by Patricia Gherovici. Routledge 2011 [79]

GLAAD Mourns Transgender Advocate and HIV/AIDS Activist Alexis Rivera 2012 [80]

Note from original Author: I have now removed 3 of the 4 primary sources in the original article and replaced them with secondary sources. The remaining primary source is the Quest pagaent, and it simply to verify that Alexis was the original winner of the Quest pagaent. It seems to me that a contest reporting on who won in a given year falls under the category of "a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". I also added a sentence about the Trailblazer award, using the San Diego piece as well as an announcement form the Transgender Law Center. While Alexis is worked for the transgender law center while she was alive, this article simply reporting the fact that another person has received this award, so I think it's hard to say the source is primary. I do also know this fact was reporting in Girl Talk magazine at the time, but it is an out of print publication and as far as I can tell it is not archived anywhere. I understanding sourcing is not perfect but I sincerely hope this article will be not be deleted and instead can continue to be improved over time.Techgirlwonder (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source clean-up -- mention of commemorative mural is now from SF Bay Guardian, which although now online only, published a print edition as of 2012 Techgirlwonder (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Techgirlwonder's query, and the sources added to the article since its creation, there's a strong argument to be made to keep, as it contributes to an emerging body of information about transgender activism and the history of public policy in relation to the trans community, particularly in California. The subject's seminal role in developing best practices to serve transgender youth makes them notable. The article could be improved with the addition of an infobox and further references. Glowimperial (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep just passes GNG. Sourcing is not great but just good enough in my view. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is too local to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Too local" is not a GNG guideline if sourcing exists, which at this point it does. Also, sourcing is from three different cities and a national blog, so I don't see how it is local at all.Techgirlwonder (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't overplay the strength of sources here. They are scant and local. The nomination would be much stronger if there was discussion of her in a couple of very high quality sources (say NYT, Time, or the like), any major source outside the US (right now there are none cited), etc. Right now the article barely squeaks by, and some may validly judge it doesn't. Not a slam dunk.

There are "Alexis Marie Rivera" none (sic, search link works) and none at the NYT; none and none at Time. none and none of none of these at the LA Times are about her. nothing at even the san francisco chonicle, either. I ~voted keep, but just barely. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overplaying the sources was not my intent in that comment, only to point out that "too local" is not a GNG guideline, and that the sources, while some are local, are local to different cities, along with at least a few pieces which are not local. As it is, there are now additional sources since that commentary. While they are not in the publications listed, I would point out all of those publications covered transgender issues only sporadically in the time Alexis was alive.Techgirlwonder (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG, and I also added a source that discusses when she transitioned. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since the nomination, sufficient sources have been added to the article to indicate that the subject meets GNG. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources to establish notability. I just found and added a few more. Funcrunch (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The delete arguments are in part based on the false premise that "Spokespersons are not considered notable simply for being spokespersons", when that isn't the standard, coverage from reliable sources is. It doesn't matter so much what he has done, as someone else points out, but instead about how many WP:RSs talk about him. This doesn't mean what he has done is noteworthy, only that he is noteworthy for having done it, demonstrated by the briefness of the article. There have been enough sources provided just within this AFD to strengthen the arguments that this individual passes the bar of WP:GNG, giving strong credibility to the keep arguments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Bhatia[edit]

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

Mere member of a party Uncletomwood (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - There are ample news articles on him. He is not a "mere" member. He was a spokesperson of Samajwadi Party. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see him meeting WP:NPOL or WP:GNG at this point. Spokespersons are not considered notable simply for being spokespersons. Vanamonde (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat alarmed to find myself on opposite sides with Vanamonde93, who is an admin from India, but I'd say the Gnews results show he does meet WP:GNG. He is or was a notable media spokesperson for the Samajwadi Party, based on the search results. Someone who would be a regular fixture on Indian TV, as this article puts it, when a major political "fire" needed to be addressed -- and someone notable. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also disagree with "Spokespersons are not considered notable simply for being spokespersons" - they certainly can be, per Category:Press secretaries, Category:Spokespersons, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets not confuse "notable person who also happen to be spokesperson" and "a person whose alleged notability is being a spokesperson". I randomly checked a few in Cat:Spokespersons, and they fall in the former. Vanamonde lists some reasons. Another is the WP:SPIP guideline. Others should write about this person for who he or she is or has done, not what he or she communicates on behalf of the organization who pays him to say so on their behalf. If being a representative of another organization and spokesperson alone qualifies for notability, millions of lawyers, talk show attendants, tradeshow hosts and press reps from around the world will qualify in Cat:Spokespersons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NDTV article I link to above states that "Bhatia... has been the SP's face on national television for many years." Uttar Pradesh is "the most populous state in the Republic of India as well as the most populous country subdivision in the world. The state, located in the northern region of the Indian subcontinent, has over 200 million inhabitants." So if NDTV is correct -- and I know no reason for it not to be -- then we're looking at notability on a massive scale. His change of parties spawned multiple news stories. And, we're not going to have articles on "millions of lawyers" and others who merely are "merely representatives" -- unless they're notable. I won't bludgeon here, I've no particular interest in keeping this, over and above the fact that he's apparently a notable Indian media and political figure, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable ^[1] ^[2] Kvs90bc (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/gaurav-bhatia-is-honorary-secretary-to-sc-bar-again/articleshow/56016313.cms
^ http://www.scbaindia.org/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as a spokesperson, he is going to get a lot of mentions of his name. It doesn't mean he has actually done anything notable, other than recite what he has been told to recite etc by the party leadership. I can't see any notability which really extends beyond the level of a passing mention. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I will add that changing party allegiance is almost a rite of passage in Indian politics. It means nothing much and there are quite a few instances of people changing allegiance five or more times, and sometimes ending up back where they started. That's just the way it is. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He is a prominent panelist in regular political news shows. He is also Secretary for Supreme Court Bar Association. Too many google results of different events to imply GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he was also Additional Advocate General for Uttar Pradesh until recently, which is a public office ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChunnuBhai (talk • contribs) 06:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Vanamonde93 and Ms Sarah Welch, who have detailed the rationale quite well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(A)lex(Z)ander[edit]

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

Non-notable hiphop artist. Got some coverage from the Detroit Metro Times about a single, but the rest of the sources would not amount to coverage under WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NMUSIC. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and total dearth of actual coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable rapper. Fails WP:MUSIC. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article qualifies a claim of notability and nothing found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claiming that sources used are credible is not the same and using credible sources! Clawsyclaw (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://barandbench.com/gaurav-bhatia-resigns-as-uttar-pradesh-additional-advocate-general/

[1] "redbull.com Website Traffic and Information | TrafficEstimate.com". www.trafficestimate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[2] Dyet, Alex. "Meet Clash Royale's top streamers". Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[3] "pocketgamer.biz Website Traffic and Information | TrafficEstimate.com". www.trafficestimate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[4] "Why Supercell built a company of startups, and how it works". pocketgamer.biz. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[5] "autoworldnews.com Website Traffic and Information | TrafficEstimate.com". www.trafficestimate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[6] News, Auto World (2017-03-07). "Clash Royale March 2017: March 2 Update Moved? Team Battle Feature Yet To Come". Auto World News. Retrieved 2017-05-06. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[7] "androidheadlines.com Website Traffic and Information | TrafficEstimate.com". www.trafficestimate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[8] "YouTube Gaming To Host Clash Royale King's Cup Tournament | Androidheadlines.com". AndroidHeadlines.com |. 2016-11-03. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[9] "moesport.com Website Traffic and Information | TrafficEstimate.com". www.trafficestimate.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[10] "Recap of the Hammers eSports Clash Royale Live Tournament in Vegas -". 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[11] "teachboombeach YouTube Stats, Channel Statistics - Socialblade.com". socialblade.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[12] "Calculate Naibuzz.com Traffic Worth and Revenue". SiteWorthTraffic.com. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[13] "How Much Money Nickatnyte Makes On YouTube - Net Worth". Naibuzz. 2016-09-13. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[14] "Awkward Tinder"

[15] "Secret Santa For Strangers"

[16] "Extreme Creeping!"

[17] "Secret Santa For Strangers"

[18] "Secret Santa For Strangers"

[19] "PROPOSAL PRANK GONE WRONG!!"

[20] ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/gaurav-bhatia-is-honorary-secretary-to-sc-bar-again/articleshow/56016313.cms

[21] ttp://www.scbaindia.org/

[22] ttps://barandbench.com/gaurav-bhatia-resigns-as-uttar-pradesh-additional-advocate-general/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[1]