Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 November	11 November >

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 Procedural Close. Page has already been speedily deleted under CSD:G5. (non-admin closure) Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 16:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publiseer[edit]

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

The appears to be a simple advertisement for a start-up publishing company. The plethora of references all appear to be advertisements or parroting of press release. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references include strong third party reliable sources. The Nation Newspaper and Vanguard Newspaper are both leading national newspapers in Nigeria. --Adamk36 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Refer to List of newspapers in Nigeria.--Adamk36 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)— Adamk36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Taking a look at https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=publiseer&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJjbDIoLXXAhVLSRoKHcR9AxsQ_AUIDSgE&biw=1600&bih=794 We will understand that Techpoint.ng, Vanguard, Business Post Nigeria, The Nation Newspaper, Bulawayo24 News, and Disrupt Africa are all reliable and independent references.--Dominicstudent (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a least two independent published interviews included as references.--Dominicstudent (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)— Dominicstudent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Reference bombing detected. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference bombing? Here are at least 8 reliable references linked to this article:

Techpoint.ng: https://techpoint.ng/2017/10/26/publiseer-profile/ (Techpoint is a leading technology news blog incorporated into Google News.)

Pulse.ng: http://www.pulse.ng/news/tech/publiseer-to-distribute-your-music-and-books-online-id7504700.html (Pulse.ng is so popular in Nigeria, it needs no introduction)

IT News Africa: http://www.itnewsafrica.com/2017/10/publiseer-to-help-nigerian-authors-and-artists-publish-their-work-for-free/ (IT News Africa is a leading technology news blog in South Africa)

The Nation Newspaper: http://thenationonlineng.net/twin-brothers-launch-platform-authors-artistes/ (The Nation is the second-widest read daily newspaper in Nigeria.)

Vanguard: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/11/twins-float-platform-authors-artists/ (Vanguard is the foremost daily newspapers in Nigeria).

Bulawayo News: http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-technology-sc-internet-byo-119669.html (Bulawayo is a leading news platform in South Africa. It is also incorporated into Google News)

Tech Moran: https://techmoran.com/twin-brothers-making-online-content-distribution-easy-startup/ (Tech Moran is the leading technology news blog in Kenya.)

Disrupt Africa: http://disrupt-africa.com/2017/09/nigerian-startup-publiseer-launches-digital-publishing-platform/ (Disrupt Africa is a leading technology blog in South Africa. It is also incorporated into Google News)

All these news references are independent and reliable. Check the content of each one of them. The articles are on Publiseer and not a mere mention.--Dominicstudent (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete misusing Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Small, newly created "company" which didn't meet WP:GNG in all ramifications talk less of WP:CORPDEPTH which its entire life is not long enough to reach that. All the references (Save The Nation, Vanguard and perhaps Pulse News) are unreliable blogs and ordinary websites. The reliable ones I singled out above, are "not" reporting about a company, they're only advertising the "arrival of new publishers for writers", we don't advertise on Wikipedia as they do. The tone and referencing bombing of the lead show another clear is the usual pattern of advertisers on Wikipedia. Legitimate article are created without even citation in lead, or at most 1 - 3suffices — Ammarpad (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The " history ", " reception " and "services" are another reasons to delete this article. In history, the author completely end up advertising recruitments, though they used wrong date. Service and Reception section need no more explanation. They are totally what Wikipedia is not. Overall this new company didn't live enough to meet WP:GNG, didn't have WP:SIGCOV except adverts, uses unreliable sources and is promotional — Ammarpad (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Farge[edit]

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

Sources do not support notability per GNG or WP:FILMBIO. Nothing but brief mentions found when doing a search via google and google news. WP:TOOSOON — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appropedia[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non-notable wiki, sourced to logs and other non-RS. Previously deleted in 2008, re-created soon afterwards by a suspect account, which became dormant not long after.Guy (Help!) 23:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of much notice. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Privitera[edit]

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

BLP referenced only by primary sources and the subject's own writings Rathfelder (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; this isn't sourced well enough for a WP:FRINGE bio; one source [1] says he passed away in 2013 so it may not be a BLP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks the level of quality reliable sources we need to show someone promoting non-standard medical theories is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence M. York[edit]

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

My rationale for nominating: His only notability seems to be that he was a law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court. As was noted in a previous deletion discussion, "it's not clear under present Wikipedia notability policy that SCOTUS clerks are notable."

Under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians, it lists the types of political figures who are notable. Law clerks to the Supreme Court do not appear to fit in the criteria. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with Frederick J. Haig, Clarence York was one of the longest serving law clerks in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, and so is notable.Bjhillis (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So this is based on a precedent (we don't work by precedent) from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU (2nd nomination), a page on law clerks from a single school, which stated "this page is really redundant, and unnecessary. There is one page which lists all of the law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States." So is that a claim that law clerks aren't notable? Or a recognition that law clerks are notable (but a single-school list of them isn't). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD was malformed and untranscluded when created, I have just fixed and transcluded it. Hut 8.5 22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomination here is flawed: the fact that no inherent notability is attached to being a supreme law clerk doesn't mean anything if the subject passes the general notability guideline. Just looking at the sources cited in the article there is a 14 page article in a law journal primarily about the subject, several newspaper articles covering the subject's death and the Courtiers of the Marble Palace book which devotes at least a page to him. Even without any attempt to find any additional sources that's easily enough to pass the GNG. Hut 8.5 23:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate @Hut 8.5:, I find your argument convincing. I read the article in The Green Bag, which you cite, which is about Mr. York. You also cite two other articles. This, I think is "significant coverage."

But, here is why the WP article should be incubated: The article only describes Mr. York's clerkship, and does not describe anything else. The article does not say why Mr. York is notable enough for a WP article, except for his Supreme Court clerkship. As I have explained elsewhere, I do not believe that a Supreme Court clerkship, alone, is enough to make a person notable. So, for this article to meet WP standards, it has to state the facts (some of which are found in The Green Bag article) as to what makes Mr. York worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't work that way. It is certainly true that having a supreme court clerkship, in itself, does not make someone notable. However it doesn't follow from this that someone who hasn't done anything more important than having a supreme court clerkship can't be notable. This is because you can always show that someone is notable by demonstrating that they meet the GNG, and meeting the GNG has nothing to do with what positions the subject has or has not held. The article could certainly be improved but it is perfectly fine as it is, it explains the subject's main claim to fame, it's well cited, and I don't see any reason to incubate it. Hut 8.5 11:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hut 8.5. The state of the article is unimportant for the purposes of an AFD discussion; as long as the subject itself is notable and sufficient reliable sources are found to exist, the article should be kept. Hut 8.5 demonstrated both of these with the research above. As such it does not need to be incubated, per WP:AFD is not cleanup. Sufficient source material to improve the article has been found; it is now up to a volunteer to actually improve it. But that can be done as part of regular article maintenance, and doesn't require any special treatment of the article. CThomas³ (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hut 8.5's sources. Someone with the longest tenure in a given role is more than likely going to be notable, and the sources seal the deal. The IP's claim that the article doesn't say why the subject is notable makes no sense, given the content of the article, and also ignores the fact that the existence of sources is taken as a demonstration of notability in most cases, rather than their presence in the article. The fact that the article is about York's tenure as a law clerk rather than anything else simply means that other sources (if there are any) should be consulted regarding his non-law-clerking life, and again misunderstands the way that Wikipedia article are created. While the IP's heart is clearly in the right place, this does seem like the kind of discussion which could have been avoided by a new-ish user consulting policies first. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Credible claim of notability, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Rzeszowski[edit]

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

She lost the election (short by 2000 votes approximately). So her notability as a NJ lawmaker is not going to be there. No indication of future races or notability that way. So her positions, her campaign etc not worthy of note. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, zero notability outside politics. AusLondonder (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just run as a candidate, to clear WP:NPOL — but this makes no claim of preexisting notability for other reasons, and isn't referenced to anything like the depth or breadth of reliable source coverage it would take to deem her candidacy a special case like Christine O'Donnell's or Jon Ossoff's. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak claim of notability as a losing political candidate. The sources in the article doen't meet the notability standard and nothing further found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kahiyang Ayu[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from having a famous father. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches show that the subject is only notable as Joko Widodo's daughter. But no independent notability. As per WP:NRV, "no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. Strip association with president and the article contains else notable. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Zhe[edit]

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

Article about a person who's only claim to fame is serving as commanding officer of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning. All three of the Chinese language sources in the article (checked through Google Translate) seem to be nothing more than official press releases about him being appointed CO of that carrier, ~~and his rank, Navy Captain (which is equal to a colonel), is below the level that is listed as minimum for presumed notability at~~ WikiProject Military history. He also fails all other criteria on that page. AFAIK serving as commanding officer of an aircraft carrier or other capital ship in the navies of other countries doesn't automatically make someone notable, so I can't see why being CO of the Chinese carrier should be more notable than being CO of any other carrier. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: he's apparently a rear admiral, but being a rear admiral doing a job that is normally done by a Navy Captain doesn't IMHO make him any more notable than Captains doing the same job... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Liaoning carries a special significance in the Chinese psyche because it is the first (and currently one of two operational) aircraft carrier of the Chinese navy - thus its commanding officers get a lot of press coverage on Chinese-language media, which, imo, does in fact make that person notable enough for inclusion. I'd put his standing roughly at the level of Nie Haisheng, one of the first Chinese men in space who was also "just" a colonel prior to his space flight, then promoted to Major General. Colipon+(Talk) 22:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A job that's normally done by a Navy Captain"

So who commands the carrier groups of all the other Chinese carriers? How long has this precedent been established? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Andy Dingley: I of course meant internationally, since the Lianoning is the only operational carrier that China has. See this page for an international example: as you can see there the USS Nimitz, a much larger carrier than the Liaoning, is commanded by a Navy Captain. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you've totally failed to appreciate both points. Please note the difference between "carrier" and "carrier group". Although the commander of a carrier would be of captain rank (albeit such a senior captain to command a Nimitz that they'd probably be WP:N), the commander of the tactical group centred on that carrier is a separate role, of admiral rank, a rear admiral at the very least (and implicitly WP:N). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:. I know, but that's not what the article says his job is ("... serving as the captain of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning"). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rear admiral is a flag rank, and thus by very long-established consensus through editing, repeated AfDs, and as codified at WP:SOLDIER #1, he is established to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOLDIER is an essay, as clearly stated at the top of that page, i.e. "the personal opinion of one or more editors", not a policy or even a guideline. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONLYESSAY. It reflects almost ten years of editing WP:CONSENSUS. I could instead spell out "it is the consensus through editing and repeated (as in, almost every) AfD of an officier of general or flag rank that general and flag officers are notable" - oh, one moment; I did. Now, according to that part of ATA, "by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy" - so, in what way is Admiral Liu Zhe different from every other admiral that makes him not notable when they are? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant text into the article, Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning; otherwise, not seeing notability to keep for a stand alone article; regardless of his rank. His name can be a re-direct. Kierzek (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- His rank establishes his notability. Full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Are you seriously suggesting that every single one of the many thousands of one to four star generals/admirals in the world (there's currently one general/admiral per ~1,400 uniformed personnel in the US Armed Forces, or ~900 generals/admirals out of ~1.25M, and many other countries have a much higher percentage than that...), regardless of what job they're doing, is automatically notable enough to have a stand-alone article? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The argument that general-ranked officers are automatically notable has, from memory, not been sustained in some previous deletion discussions. In addition to Tom's comment, I'd note that the Australian Defence Force's most recent annual report states that the ADF currently has 188 one star or higher-ranked officers. Very few of these officers would meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that's exactly what we're suggesting! Just like the umpteen thousand members of national and state legislatures are notable per WP:POLITICIAN! And yes, this argument has been sustained in almost every AfD in which it has been used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Including flag officers per WP:SOLDIER works and has for some time. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER, and because he's well known in China for being the commander of the country's only aircraft carrier in service (the second carrier has been launched but not yet commissioned). -Zanhe (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Users:Zanhe & Colipon and WP:GNG. The usual discussion over general/flag ranked officers focuses on combat or other significant commands; personally I do not think an unremarkable BG/Rear Admiral Lower Half in service jobs or admin is notable. But this officer is commanding China's first carrier - which makes him notable, and should meet GNG if we include Mandarin press mentions. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that in English he is referred to as Senior colonel - however this is flag rank (equivalent more or less to Brigadier). Some sources - [2] [3].Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's interesting to see that everyone who has !voted "keep" here seems to feel that an essay on WikiProject:Military History (claiming that it says that all one to four star generals/admirals, past and present, around the world, no matter what their job is, are notable enough to have a stand-alone article) carries more weight than a Wikipedia guideline (WP:N; since the subject fails WP:GNG, unless someone proficient in Chinese can come up with something better than the pressreleases in the article...). Especially since the essay in question is on a project about military history, refers to people in the past tense (was awarded, held a rank, served as, etc), and makes no mention whatsoever about it also applying to modern day military "civil servants", i.e. one star generals/admirals who have held no higher offices and have no meritorius service in wars to list in their CVs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONLYESSAY, WP:CONSENSUS, and with regard to "military history" and "past tense", WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a flag officer per WP:SOLDIER, which although only an essay is a generally accepted notability standard for the writers of military biographical articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chalo (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable future film. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At present I'm finding all sorts of random films with the same name and searching "Chalo 2017 film" brings up random and unrelated crap, TOOSOON as well as fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Henry[edit]

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

no actual evidence of notability. The legal case might be notable, though he was not the named defendant. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential delete -- Essentially, he is press officer for the US Military Catholic Chaplaincy service. I doubt that such a person is notable per se without more. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the subject lacks notability under WP:ANYBIO and the article looks like a tribute page. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick J. Haig[edit]

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

I want to nominate Frederick J. Haig for deletion.

My rationale: His only notability seems to be that he was a law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court. As was noted in a previous deletion discussion, "it's not clear under present Wikipedia notability policy that SCOTUS clerks are notable."

Under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians, it lists the types of political figures who are notable. Law clerks to the Supreme Court do not appear to fit in the criteria. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Haig is notable as the longest serving law clerk in U.S. Supreme Court history.Bjhillis (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a sufficient ground for notability; a lot of people have served in the same job longer than anyone else, and that alone doesn't make them notable. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination of behalf of IP editor. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 19:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I read the article and asked myself: Did he make a difference, one that should be remembered? Based on the article as written, no. Rhadow (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a law clerk is not a sign of default notability and no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyrobe[edit]

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

non notable, by promotional editor. The refs are essentially PR, as the company has no significant accomplishments Two previous versions were deleted as G11--this isn;t bad enough for that. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not have sufficient coverage in RS to meet GNG, NCORP. Also, delete per WP:SOAP. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion number 4. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom; sources do not seem to have required depth of coverage. Eagleash (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As promotional without enough sources supporting notability claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough here to warrant an entry. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beng Teck Liang[edit]

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

Companionarticle to the one on the group. Same problems--borderline notability at best, promotionalism, dubious references. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a clearly promotional intent here; non notable under WP:ANYBIO anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Medical Group[edit]

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

noi notable and promotional, with most of the refs mere notices, and some of them from rather dubious website. Spa, created in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lacks significant coverage to meet GNG or CORP. Very promotional. we need a WP:NOT prospectus to cover this sort of thing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You'd think a 'medical group' would talk more about medical things than their stock performance in their article, but not here. Definitely an WP:ADVERT. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Gilley[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP 203.214.47.112, who wrote not enough room in wikipedia for EVERY academic - needs to be only the ones that have a large theory or impact to be addition to encyclopedia of human knowledge. ansh 666 17:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do in fact have room for every academic, although it probably wouldn't be a good idea to use it. However, I think this subject quite clearly passes our notability guideline for academics. He is highly cited, and his work on political legitimacy in particular appears to have made a significant impact, per WP:PROF#C1. His absurd paper about colonialism has also generated quite a lot of coverage (cited in the article), although an article based on that alone would probably be a WP:BLP1E. – Joe (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh right. I remember now. Yes, I was wondering why an SPA IP would pop up to try and delete just this article: that may be why. I don't work a lot with academic AFDs so I'll withhold !voting but at first glance he seems easily notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I think it's very likely a reaction to the Third World Quarterly paper. I was disgusted at it too, but it seems Gilley was notable beforehand, and unfortunately it has only made him more so. – Joe (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has numerous pieces with significant citation counts, easily meeting WP:NSCHOLAR. There also appears to be enough significant coverage, outside the coverage of the Colonialism dustup, that he probably meets WP:GNG as well (see The Guardian, Foreign Affairs, and Forbes - and those are just a few). Several other articles, while not in-depth, quote him as a "noted Sinologist". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above. I think he has made a lot of enemies but that is not our concern. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs more third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. WP:Not paper. You doh't have to like him or his paper for him to be included. His oeuvre is far broader than the one paper, and he is noted widely in WP:RSs.7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes Passes WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. The amount of source material is astonishing. His work on quantification of political legitimacy alone—a topic not even mentioned in the page at the time of nomination—would merit an article. I've created a section for it and added several references, but they barely scratch the surface of what's available through Google Scholar on this and other topics. I share the revulsion several editors have expressed above for his views on colonialism, but I also agree with their sentiment that you don't have to like the man or his total ideology in order to judge that he merits an article. This isn't really a page for a rescue specialist like me. It's a page for the Fellowship of the Golden Star—for Wikipedians who like to work at the high end of the quality scale, in the rarefied atmosphere of Featured Articles. For those familiar with work at such high altitude, it shouldn't be difficult at all to pin that golden star on this one.

—Syrenka V (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by RHaworth as CSD R2 cross-namespace redirect after the page was moved to Draft:DJ Murci. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Murci[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no third-party sources. Likely intended as promotional content as creator's only edit history is on this article, while citations consist mostly of iTunes links. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. If anything, WP:TOOSOON. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Yeah should've figured there'd be sources. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Science Teachers Association[edit]

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

Unable to find any reporting on it. Only mentions, and even those are not easy to find. The entirety of the article is sourced to their own website. Galobtter (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Should've put "willing to withdraw if sources can be found." Meets WP:NNONPROFIT as it's a national organization. Galobtter (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a major professional society, with publications, national meetings, and many books published on science education. Independent references have been added since the nomination. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waterlogic[edit]

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

promotional article by undeclared paid editor. Notability is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious spam excluded by Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP .Clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTSPAM and WP:NCORP. There is a paucity of sources other than press releases and passing mentions to be found by running the usual gSearches. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Removed some obvious advertising and PR, and now what's left is routine business transactions. This doesn't merit a Wikipedia article, per nominator, regardless of remaining sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Van Arsdale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even remotely close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Present article doesn't assert this (to be changed) - He lead the Delta Force squadron at Battle of Mogadishu (1993) [4] [5], which lead to his IMDB entry [6] due to his advisory role on the movies. He also captured Manuel Noriega [7]. Quite a bit of coverage of him as a Private military company exec/soldier/leader.Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Note that beyond his military career which is notable in a number of respects (awards, actual operations, and coverage thereof) leading Triple Canopy, a 6,000 man force, during (2005-9) the Iraq War would meet SOLDIER(2) and SOLDIER(5).Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He also possibly was Delta Force commander - at least per some sources (he certainly was a squadron leader and later a counter-terrorism chief in the pentagon - not sure about this one - sources might be misstating commander in as commander) - [8] [9] [10].Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He still fails SOLDIER #2 and SOLDIER #5, as 6,000 men isn't division size, and apparentlyt that was the security company's entire workbase, the force actually deployed and commanded was certainly smaller. (Also note Triple Canopy makes no mention of Van Arsdale.) I'm pretty sure "command of Delta Force" doesn't pass SOLDIER #2 either, as it's explicitly mentioned in Delta Force as being a colonel's billet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6,000 is larger than a brigade/regimnet. It is smallish for a Division - it is in between. Note that personnel numbers in military forces include support staff too (not just combay soldiers) - there's no reason to believe that mercenary outfits have more support workers than regular army (they probably have less). Not all birds are created equal. This bird has a silver star, played an in important role in the battle of Battle of Mogadishu (1993), was portrayed in the subsequent popular movie Black Hawk Down (film), commanded a significant outfit for a bird (sure, Delta force is a bird's billet - but it's much more significant than the 22nd supply depot), and went on to do significant things after retirement - being CEO of Pavilion for 4 years (a 6,000 man mercenary unit), founding a think tank, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable stub. Basically a trivial PR blurb. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY - I significantly improved the article and sourcing therein.Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Third-party citations therein mention him once or twice in passing. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotionalism for a nn businessperson. His military career does not rise to the leve of WP:SOLDIER, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Please split and resubmit. There's too many disparate articles here for people to examine together. No consensus, and no prejudice against immediate re-nomination.

@BarrelProof: please resubmit this as a number of smaller groupings. It sounds like maybe three new AfDs would make sense: 1) all the Warped Tour, 2) all the Punk-o-Rama , and 3) everything else, but I'll leave the details up to you. In lieu of that, if you want to perform some of the merges suggested here instead of renominating, that's fine too. And please ping the other participants in this discussion.

If you want to have some further discussion before going ahead with a renomination, please do so on WT:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion because of similar issues – basically due to failing the WP:GNG criteria for notability:

My recent WP:PRODs for the first four of these articles (2002, 2011, 2012, and 2013) were deprodded by the same anonymous IP without providing any edit summary to explain the action (and the IP has no other edit history).

The article Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation cites only a dead link on Allmusic (a site that does not limit its descriptions to notable topics and has generally been agreed to be insufficient for establishing notability for Wikpedia purposes). That is clearly inadequate to show evidence of notability. The article consists only of track listing information, with no commentary by critics and no charting information or any other indication of notability.
The article Warped Tour 2011 Tour Compilation cites only a self-published promotional dead link and shows no clear evidence of notability. The article basically only contains the sort of information one would find printed on the album cover (i.e., a track listing and a description of the cover art).
The article Warped Tour 2012 Tour Compilation shows no evidence of notability and is poorly sourced. It cites only a four-sentence review on Allmusic, a track listing, and a self-published dead link. The article contains only basic information, includes no commentary by music critics, shows no evidence that the album charted, etc.
The article Warped Tour 2013 Tour Compilation is essentially unsourced and contains no evidence of notability. It cites only a track listing and contains only basic information such as a track listing. There is no commentary by music critics, no charting information, no other indication that the topic is really notable.
The article Warped Tour 2005 Tour Compilation cites only a one-paragraph (seven-sentence) review on Allmusic, which is clearly inadequate to show evidence of notability. The article consists only of track listing information, with no commentary by critics and no charting information.
This is the second nomination for deletion for Warped Tour 2010 Tour Compilation. Its prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2010 Tour Compilation. That article cites only a three-sentence comment on Allmusic, which is clearly insufficient to establish notability. The article contains only basic track listing information and a description of the cover art – no comments by music critics and no evidence of notability. The situation for that article has not improved at all since its first deletion nomination in 2010. I believe the passage of time with no further evidence of long-term notability should be sufficient to clarify the fact that this article should be deleted. The previous "keep" consensus was based in part on someone's comment that "I imagine there are more [sources] out there" (emphasis added), The famous X-Files tagline that "The Truth Is Out There" comes to mind – the article was kept based a WP:Fringe theory speculation.
Punk-O-Rama Vol. 2, a.k.a. the 1997 Warped Tour Compilation (per the {{Warped Tour}} template content), cites only a self-published dead link from the record company and a four-sentence comment on Allmusic. It contains only basic track listing information an unsourced comment about the price of the album and unsourced comments about the previous release of certain tracks.
Punk-O-Rama (album), Punk-O-Rama III, Punk-O-Rama 4, Punk-O-Rama 2001, Vol. 6, Punk-O-Rama 7, Punk-O-Rama 8, Punk-O-Rama Vol. 9, and Punk-O-Rama 10 have basically identical characteristics as for Punk-O-Rama Vol. 2.
Punk-O-Rama 5 cites only two self-published sentences from the record company and a one-paragraph Allmusic blurb.
Punk-O-Rama cites only a self-published statement from the record company that says the series is defunct.
Unsound (compilation album) cites the same self-published statement from the record company that says the previous series is defunct. It contains no evidence that the newer series, which was discontinued after just one release, achieved any greater degree of notability.
The Melancholy Collection and Smile... You're Dying!, linked to this grouping of articles via their categorization as other compilations in the Epitaph records category, are completely unsourced and contain only basic track listing information and comments about previous releases.
Kung-Fu (album), Schizo (album), Fifi (album), Choice for a Lost Generation?!, Fast Forward (Heideroosjes album), It's a Life (12,5 Years Live!), and Royal to the Bone, linked chronologically in a series to Smile... You're Dying! – completely unsourced, etc.
Sinema (album) – also linked chronologically in the series, cites only a track listing on Allmusic (no critical commentary at all), and is similarly bereft of meaningful content.

Addendum 1: If this multi-article nomination for deletion is successful, the template {{Warped Tour}} should probably also be deleted, since it is basically a navigation guide to some of the articles that are nominated for deletion. Addendum 2: This would also make the category Category:Heideroosjes albums empty.

—BarrelProof (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all They do not meet the notability requirements (WP:NALBUMS). Additionally, there is not enough material for "reasonably detailed articles" – these will be nothing more than track listings (WP:PERMASTUB) and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also support deleting them all. None of them meet either basic GNG nor specific NALBUMS. They're deprodded without any rationale and not improved even by an inch since then. My little source search yielded nothing reliable, this means they will remain parmanent stub with no encyclopedic value. They were deprodded just for sake of deprodding by IP with no single other meaningful edit. — Ammarpad (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - This is an improper nomination, which combines a number of compilation albums of Type 1 with a number of compilation albums of Type 2 with sundry absolutely unrelated nominations dealing with albums of a Dutch band. Merge Punk-o-Rama articles into a single piece. These are amply reviewed. Probably also what needs to happen with the Warped Tour Comps. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Modified: Carrite (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep with some merges at editorial discretion. I agree with Carrite that this has too many unrelated topics. The Warped Tour Compilations should be merged to a compliation-albums page, or renamed to be the basis of pages such as Warped Tour 2017. The Punk-O-Rama should probably be merged as well. Everything else should be kept as there's too much going on to discuss them properly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most: all of the Warped Tour compilations, Punk-o-Rama albums, and Unsound (compilation album) are basically promotional sampler albums showcasing previously released material one or more record labels. The sources merely indicate that items exist. I believe the articles on albums by individual bands (everything below Unsound on the list above) however should be considered in a separate discussion, e.g . the albums by Heideroosjes might better redirect to the band article if found to be non-notable, but it's dicey to have too many results from a single discussion. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EBA Clearing[edit]

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

Non notable per WP:NCORP, self-cited info no good, tagged more than three years & no substantial improvement. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the article is not great, but the organisation is clearly a major infrastructure provider for Euro payments and used by major banks and is getting more important. I feel it meets notability, the article just needs to be improved. Sargdub (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying it is "clearly major" won't sway the closing administrator. You need to provide reliable third party sources saying so ☆ Bri (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just click on the word "books" or "news" or "scholar" in the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process and you will find loads of reliable third party sources saying so. Can we please use a bit of common sense when deciding what subjects should be covered in this encyclopedia? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:GOOGLEHITS is what we call a classic "argument to avoid" in AfDs. There is an onus on folks who think this is notable to show why, specifically, backed by specific reliable sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - And my argument wasn't based on the number of hits, but on their content. Just spend a few seconds looking at the search results that I pointed to (not the useless web search) and you will see very many independent reliable searches with significant coverage of the subject. That is something that you should have done before even considering nominating this for deletion, so don't tell other people to do your work for you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the operating company covering several notable payment systems and presumably had to be formed as a legal entity distinct from Euro Banking Association but is there a need for articles on each layer? Would it be better returning to the pre-mid-2014 situation when it was simply covered in the article on the parent organisation? AllyD (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. EBA Clearing is one of these obscure but vital pieces of the financial plumbing of Europe. It's separate and distinct from the EBA, which is largely a discussion and banking-regulatory group. I added a number of citations to Euromoney, IT Finanzmagazin, and others to improve the sourcing. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MotorEasy[edit]

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

Pure promotional spam/advertisement. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs copy editing, and some proof of notoriety, but seems like the article isn't purely advertisement... Should be edited for Non POV. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotional 'cruft and does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. The article on the founder Duncan McClure Fisher appears to be part of the same promotional walled garden as it has been created at the same time. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional, with poor sourcing (tabloids, a Wikipedia cite, and an ad by The Telegraph). Article creator has a long history of automotive-related promotional edits and spamming, with one article (The Motor Ombudsman) currently tagged for speedy deletion. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @K.e.coffman and Beemer69: Thank you for your comments and suggestions on this article, as a result I've edited it to improve WP:NPOV in line with WP:CCPOL, can you take another look and share your thoughts as to whether you believe this is satisfied please - with any specific concerns highlighted? With regards to WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH I've also added more independent secondary sources - now includes a broad range of broadsheet and tabloid sources, industry specific articles and reliable online sources. These are almost all national publications with large readerships to meet the WP:NCORP guidelines "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". There are now 30+ independent and national references to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Thank you Shamonioli (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional, reference fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. In response to Shamonioli, the criteria for establishing notability does not rest solely on whether references are published in reliable, independent, secondary sources, but that those articles must also be "intellectually independent" - there provided references fail this more important test. The references rely on information produced or provided or sponsored by the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timelive[edit]

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

UPE article created in violation of the TOU by a CU confirmed sock. Should have been G5 eligible, but contested by a good faith editor. Notability is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious spam and UPE, and thus a TOU violation. Technically the account is only blocked for two weeks now on vote staking, but SPIs are ongoing and it meets all the behavioral signs of a UPE sock. Notability is irrelevant, but it doesn't meet that either: the sourcing is either trivial or PR churn. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above by TonyBalloni and DGG. Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I put this on the talk page too because I wasn't sure which was best. I know this software; I have read about it and know several people who use it. I don't have a conflict of interest as I don't work for the company but I am happy to work on an edit to meet CORPDEPTH if you'll allow me the time52.173.74.241 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)— 52.173.74.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and as WP:GNG fail. A nn software package with trivial reviews / WP:SPIP sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rewrite as Symple.. Consensus is that the person is not notable, but that her app may well be. Still no clear consensus about that, so the app article may be renominated for deletion. Sandstein 07:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Gajewski[edit]

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

Promotional article for non notable writer of a single app. The awards are trivial. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on Gajewski's own experience, the app she has developed appears to be significant and has triggered considerable press coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: disagree that this is a promotional article, it's a biography. The app appears significant to a niche market and has been reported on in relevant media. MurielMary (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: ~~the prose could use a little work, but her work is significant, judging based on the press coverage.~~Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: After reading the other votes, I agree that the page should be for the app, not her.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query Does the writer of an app inherit notability from the app? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Article is mostly about the app, which passes notability. However, the creator does not. Maybe re-title article to name of drug, and copyedit. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing shows that Gajewski herself is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe the app is notable, but probably not, and the person definitely is not. Notability is not inherited. (No prejudice to this being turned into an article about an app.) Dysklyver 15:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- neither the app, nor the subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry just yet. WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: source searches suggest the app itself is notable however notability isn't inherited and Gajewski doesn't have enough in-depth attention to be considered notable. I agree with the nominator in that the article is magniloquent and flowery, reading more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. Janet-O (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out sockpuppet !vote. User:Janet-O has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:DrStrauss. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

SportsEngine[edit]

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

Non-notable subsidiary of NBC Sports Group. It has been redirected multiple times and contested, so bringing it here for discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-Redirect - there's room in the parent company to add a paragraph about their work but all the fluff needs to be eliminated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, as has been continually reverted. Probably ought to protect the redirect too. Get rid, either way. — fortunavelut luna 12:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela M. Peeke[edit]

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

BLP with only references to her own works. Rathfelder (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in the slightest and purely promotional, made clear by dubious sourcing (YouTube, Amazon). sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George C. Payne[edit]

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

No references or indication of notability Rathfelder (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article totally lacks references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Castle Crags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Rock Water Company[edit]

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

no reliable sources for notability: a self-published book, a mention in one sentence of a brochure on the state park which now incorporates it, and a notice in a local paper DGG ( talk ) 15:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Castle Crags. The article will fill in (as a new section) a gap in the history of the park, which starts with the gold rush and then jumps to recent times. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Peterkingiron. There are a few more sources for the water company. This one (Chico News & Review) profiles the company and also gives a bit of history, including bottling the water starting in 1889. This one (Mt. Shasta News) also focuses on the company in terms of a national bottled water competition and also refers to the 19th Century bottling practices. (And, BTW, I think these sources meet WP:SIGCOV in that they are two regional news organizations. And so the article meets notability guidelines sufficiently for a merger into the Castle Crags article.) This article would be a nice fit after the end of the History section of the Castle Crags article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Manson Family Project[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF --wooden superman 14:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a classic example of how WP:NFF applies. This encyclopedia should not present incomplete plans for a film as an actual film. If this starts filming, then it becomes highly likely that an actual product will result. Not to mention that QT has proposed many films that are yet unmade; this talks about some of them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until it gets a release date it doesn't get an article here. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Erik. Nothing concrete to show it is going to be filmed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BALL and NFF. Should be in Quentin Tarantino until this is more concrete.Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More and more information about the film is still being released. Most of the information in the article is incorrect. The movie is not about the Manson murders anymore, and it is not confirmed that Margot Robbie will star. This article is misleading and outdated, and cannot be filled with accurate information yet. Yasinator360 (talk) 13 November 2017 UTC

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dewitt Lowrey[edit]

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

Dewitt Lowrey was a junior NCO with E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), serving through part of the Normandy campaign during World War II. He was wounded in the head and was evacuated to the U.S. for treatment. His relatively low rank and lack of awards fails to qualify him for inclusion under WP:SOLDIER. After the War, he suffered from epilepsy and did not enjoy a life that gained him any significant coverage; events on record about him are anecdotal. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Like most of the rest, not notable for stand alone article. WP:Memorial applies. Re-direct name to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Kierzek (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the first E Company AfD, and this one hasn't even got a photo. I see three perfectly good books that mention him, however I agree with much of what the nom says, and bearing in mind arguments from previous E Company AfD's, this is a clear candidate for deletion. Dysklyver 10:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a non-notable soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A WP:BLP with zero reliable sources after three weeks of AfD gets an automatic delete. Can be recreated with proper sourcing, if there is any. Sandstein 07:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Bayne[edit]

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

Deletion: as unsourced, purely OR-based promotional page. Quis separabit? 05:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the references are poor and the article worse, I believe he is notable for his contributions to Platinum Grit, Oglaf, Double the Fist and The Chaser. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep Certainly the article needs a rewrite with proper referencing. I easily and quickly saw a reasonable but light number of independent sources of a range of reliability from official government sites to almost the other end of the spectrum. There are reviews and mentions of him and his work not just in English but other languages so the subject is known internationally too. I think there is sufficient WP:NEXIST to demonstrate notability. The remaining question is whether the article stays and gets worked on or whether it gets WP:TNTed and redone from scratch. Aoziwe (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has a total lack of reliable sources. This is not an acceptable thing for a biography of a living person. IMDb seeks to be a comprehensive listing of everyone ever appearing in film, we do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP. the keep !votes have used a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I do not believe I have. I did actually look. I did find a non trivial number of sources, and like I said above they were of varying quality. But yes certainly not a solid keep. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 13:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly-written promotional piece, immediately evidenced by "known for his exploits" in the header. An animated work he created has gained minor third-party press (HuffPost, The Australian), but it's not enough to establish notability as he's otherwise just mentioned in passing everywhere else. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Hall (Homewood Campus)[edit]

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

While I can locate numerous sources establishing that Clark Hall does, indeed, exist, I cannot find the type of in-depth consideration of Clark Hall that would make it pass WP:GNG. I don't believe a merge to Johns Hopkins Biomedical Engineering is warranted as there is no content to merge that isn't already contained there. I don't believe a redirect is warranted as we already have articles called "Clark Hall" and it is unlikely anyone would search for the specific parameter "Clark Hall (Homewood Campus)". Chetsford (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Clark Hall (Johns Hopkins) and redirect to Johns Hopkins Biomedical Engineering - that would establish a plausible search term that is worthy of redirection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 13:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. without a redirect--I do not see how this is a likely search term, considering the many such buildings at different places.Anyone looking would look forthe department or the college. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. per DGG. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is something notable about the building, it's not stated, or even apparent. The building is legitimate - it's there - If this page is allowed, then there could be a page on WP about every building on any college campus. Even a stub should note a word or two about its notability.Ira Leviton (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others. Nothing notable about it. Galobtter (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Downing[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 04:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO DELETE REDIRECT PAGE Christina Carlisi Quis separabit? 04:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect pages get zapped automatically when a deletion occurs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor, with article only sourced to IMDb. Wikipedia does not aim to cover everyone with a credited role in any film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actor's page does not show any progress since previous AFD in 2016, beyond listing a copy/paste of IMDb, so can't tell if the actor will meet WP:ENT especially when all his roles are guest episodics. No secondary news articles to indicate importance. If he's potentially notable, move to draft, otherwise WP:TOOSOON AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changed to Comment - I can't find coverage to meet WP:GNG, though he probably meets WP:NACTOR with his roles on Viper, Ghoulies II, and Robot Wars. gongshow talk 18:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 13:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Minus all the socks, consensus is that the subject is not notable. Sandstein 06:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Seip[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable musician, can find no coverage in RS and after removal of iTunes "sources", I can find no evidence this person has charted in anything that would qualify under WP:NMUSIC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sockpuppetry

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

Keep Based on the information given on WP:NMUSIC, "Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria ... 2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.", the musician qualifies as a notable musician. The source (publisher) and given reference links to chart placements seem qualified based on the information found on WP:CHART, "A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics: 1) It is published by a recognized reliable source. ... 2) It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources.". The Source is even listed on Wikipedia Deutsche Black Charts. Through a google search it was very easy to find multiple interviews and reviews of the musicians music and persona on several online publications and radio stations, including even radio chart placements in different countries. Salkin25 (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC) — Salkin25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck as a sock. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused as to why the chart references given are not qualifiable. They are national music charts published in digital and print format, displayed on TV stations MTV and VIVA Germany, major radio stations like KissFM and JamFM and many more, on the german MusikWoche as well as the famous german music magazine Backspin Hip Hop Magazin, just to name a few. Other than that, the musician is also on multiple radio station websites visible in charts, has movie credits on IMDb, interviews which can be found through a simple google search and has also been referenced in the WP article. Can you please explain the delete action more detailed as to why this seems to be the case for you?FrankKoch (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC) — FrankKoch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response or conversation initiated from Chrissymad to resolve this, i am going to put the result as keep. {{Old AfD multi|page=DJ Seip|date=27 October 2017|result='''keep'''}} Sebastiannrk (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC) — Sebastiannrk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

driveby admin comment that's not how this works. Deletion discussions run for a minimum of seven days (technically 168 hours) unless there is an overwhelming or clear reason to close early. Sometimes they can be relisted if more input is needed. The fact that the nominator has not responded to your comments or questions does not mean they have changed their mind or that their original post is invalidated. I've also commented out your template use. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sockpuppetry

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

Keep Im new so i don't know if my input counts, but i think based on the information i found in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, the sources of information (references to the text in the article) seem to quality as RS. Haven't read about notability yet as I'm new, but the chart placements and fact that the he is on multiple tv formats sounds like he is a notable person.John Thornton1985 (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)— John Thornton1985 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as a sock. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Wikipedia:Notability it says "Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability.." and "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.". Looking at that the musician is notable as he has multiple sources talking about him in current time as in past time. There are high class sources such as his TV formats and print magazine interview, and lower level sources such as the digital interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmehomies (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC) — Itsmehomies (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as a sock. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At CHRISSYMAD, multiple RS found. The referenced print interview is RS^[1], please check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for further information on what qualifies as RS. Further more, the chart placements are considered as qualifiable. Its a national chart in Germany, which is criteria for a chart placement to be referenced within wikipedia based on WP:NMUSIC. Example of Chart placements meant: ^[2]. The artist description is based on RS solely. ^[3] qualifies as RS based on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The publisher Actmondo is a notable company in germany managing high profile peronas such as Mehrzad Marashi, and actor Mustafa Alin^[4]. KeepFrankKoch (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC) — FrankKoch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failing GNG and SNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "wordhcmc.com/images/printmag/The_Word_Ho_Chi_Minh_City_December_2010.pdf" (PDF). Word HCMC. Retrieved 9 November 2017.
^ "Detusche TrendchartsDUC Charts 34 - Deutsche Trendcharts". trendcharts. Retrieved 9 November 2017.
^ "DJ Seip - Actmondo". Actmondo. Retrieved 9 November 2017.
^ "Mustafa Alin - Wikipedia". wikipedia. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use more input from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability. Also, a note, the presence of sockpuppet accounts further convinces me that the page was written as an autobiography. TBH, I would've probably tagged the page under CSD for promotion. Dark-World25 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A different sockpuppet

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

Delete: little indication of notability with regards to WP:MUSICBIO. The ballot-stuffing above is also somewhat concerning. Janet-O (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out sockpuppet !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sockpuppetry

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

The artist is listed within several major Television Networks. ^[1] ^[2]

Based on WP:MUSICBIO, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." the artist is notable. The major televion credits are there as the artist is on the website. There is no offical links to the footage, but since it is TV and not online that is not possible to provide a link. Further more the artist has been featured as most played song on the nationally wide broadcasted radio station Sputnik (radio station). There is also no offical link to that, since that is updated daily and has no archive as far as i can find. A screenshot of the occurance has been posted by the artist on his verified facebook profile though which is linked here as reference. That should qualify the artist as notable, is that correct? I will search for more on the internet of official website references to broadcast radio. FrankKoch (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck as a sock. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I also found a previous post, which was dated 5 days earlier on the 15.september 2015.^[3]FrankKoch (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

The music of the artist has also been played on the national wide radio station Alex Berlin. Information about qualifing the station can be found here^[4]. The audio reference where his song DJ Seip Ft. MNSSH - Like the Fugees was aired cant be added to wikipedia because its on mixcloud only. Search Google for "URBN Beats 16.12.2016 MNSSH ALEX Berlin". It might not qualify as a reliable source since its not the official website, but again something like is not hosted on a radios website for years in an archive as far as i can see. The german Radios dont archive anything for long periods of times. Can anyone give me advice on how to find these official references to this? is there like a government page or something where these things are stored which can be referenced?FrankKoch (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Artists - MTV". mtv.
^ "DJ seip Ft. Mnssh - Künstler - VIVA". viva.
^ "DJ Seip - Photos". facebook.
^ "Alex Offener Kanal Berlin". wikipedia.

Comment Per a SPI many of the above Keeps are confirmed socks that need to be struck pending their actual indef-blocking. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ban all the socks; strike their comments. But the musician is notable. The article notes several entries into the Deutsche Black Charts, the German equivalent of the US's Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs, and his most recent single did, indeed, reach #12 on that chart. [11] Meets WP:MUSIC with a charting single. Prior "delete" !votes seem to have overweighted the sockpuppetry and not taken into account actual evidence of notability - closing admin, please take note. Chubbles (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears that the subject charted in Germany (and therefore may be notable per WP:MUSICBIO). However coverage in reliable sources is woeful, and therefore doesn't appear to clear the threshold of WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject meets WP:MUSIC (and the claim is substantiated with WP:V, as it is here), the article shouldn't need to meet WP:GNG as well; otherwise, there would be no need to have WP:MUSIC at all. WP:MUSIC point 1 is the GNG, and then eleven more criteria are listed. Chubbles (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 key problems with the "keep" arguments here is that they were overlong or were challenged by others, whereas the "delete" comments stood their ground. An alternative outcome was Sandstein's suggestion to merge, as that would be a compromise, but nobody else picked up on it. The article itself was not improved much during the scope of the AfD, which while not a required action, may have been more a worthwhile exercise than arguing over the article's scope and potential for improvement. In a nutshell, though, too many people think this article is unsalvageable and its quality of sourcing is just not good enough. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finland does not exist[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)38.26.26.150 (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This lacks encyclopaedic notability. And even the map given uses Comic Sans. Not serious, not notable, not even very funny. -- Evertype·✆ 17:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- – Evertype, I understand why you consider Comic Sans to be proof of non-seriousness, but I don't think it's a good argument. --Thnidu (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Evertype, you don't want to be part of the cabal covering up this fraud, do you? Rhadow (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a legitimate Keep rationale. Don't you be nose-counting, closer... Carrite (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coverage does exist, even if Finland doesn't. The cited December 2016 Vice article [12] is a solid, in depth source for this fake-news meme. A very recent article in The Guardian includes this one in an article about "controversial claims that the web especially seems to love". Searches turn up other articles about this in sources like Indy100. If another solid source or two can be turned up I'd probably !vote to keep. (And then I would have to figure out where I was, exactly, on that day a few years back when I thought I was in Helsinki staring at the head of Sibelius.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just trivia, and absolutely lacks notability - Alison ^❤ 03:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suppose my least favourite Wikipedia guideline WP:FRINGE applies here. Articles about conspiracy theories need a significant depth of sources, this was just a flash in the pan internet meme. And an article which gives this much weight to the views of the "conspiracy theory" certainly wouldn't be allowed for certain other "fringe" topics... – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even speedy delete. Obvious example of (mis)using Wikipedia for PR. Entirely non-notable (Reddit as a main source, really?) and only created to promote a non-notable artist. Jeppiz (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:FRINGE. Article gives way too much weight to a joke/hoax and takes it seriously. Article is written as if the theory is quite possibly true. There has been nowhere near enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has coverage, it is about an event that happened, that is even socially interesting (artificially started conspiracy theory to check how those things spread) and I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in a scientific paper or two. Izitpajn (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you "wouldn't be surprised" if this joke led to a "scientific paper or two" is not really convincing. You need to show that it has actually resulted in a scientific paper or two. AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Izitpajn, kindly read WP:CRYSTAL. Speculating that something might become noticeable sometime in the future is not an argument to keep it. And it does not have coverage in any notable source except Guardian, and even there only mentioned in passing. It clearly is not notable now, and that is what counts. Needless to say, we do not have articles on every newborn baby in the world even though some of them no doubt will become notable, and their birth may have been included in a local paper... Jeppiz (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't even really rise to the level of a real conspiracy theory. It's a recent concoction, and is pretty much limited to a bunch of bored redditors playing fan-fiction with it. The aren't a significant number of legitimate nutters out there a la flat-earthers or Area 51-ers or such. It's essentially a wikipedia page about a reddit page that a couple people in the media were duped into thinking had serious participants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UniNoUta (talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(not !voting, but...) Before reading this page, I clarified the list of claims to make clear that none of them are presented as factual. I don't think that'll change anyone's vote, but it might be worth considering. — Also, if the article is kept, I suggest changing the title from "Finland does not exist" to something that states explicitly that it's a hoax / conspiracy theory. --Thnidu (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whether it's a bona fide conspiracy theory (people really believe the Japanese invented Finland out of nothing to preserve fishing rights halfway across the planet) or a satire of conspiracy theories (some bored redditor decided to see if they could convince others that Finland is fiction, with hilarious results) the story has been reported in-depth by multiple news agencies generally considered reliable, and has been analyzed by well-known conspiracy debunking organizations. Some refs: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], all from Google's first page. KnowYourMeme explains that this originated on Reddit in December 2014; the earliest of these refs I've posted is from December 2016 (two years later) and there has been consistent detailed coverage of the meme throughout 2017. This doesn't need to be Paul is dead to be a notable conspiracy theory, it meets our general criteria for notability, and notability is not temporary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an attempt at citogenesis, and the sources are largely "look at this stupid thing on Reddit". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've heard the same online thing about Belgium ([19]) but there isn't an article on that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonable coverage in secondary sources. -- Longhair\^talk 20:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am somewhat surprised that editors with at least some experience seem to think that being mentioned in the news is enough. It's not, please see WP:COVERAGE which clearly states "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable". We are nowhere near that here. While The Guardian is a good source, the fact that this joke has been mentioned in passing (in a list of a long row of other joke conspiracy theorists) doesn't come even near noticeable coverage. As for the other sources, they are either not really noticeable or they focus on the artist whose exhibition this is and would maybe be an argument for an article on the artist, but not on this. Once again, being mentioned in the news is not automatically an argument for being notable by Wikipedia standards. Especially not when the coverage is this limited. Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: Well I mean I'm surprised that you're surprised, since the General Notability Guidline is the rule usually consulted for this. The lede for this this rule says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Presumed, not guaranteed; but still -- presumed. The rest of the rule expands on this lede and gives details and examples, but does not contradict the lede.

The rule does not further elucidate on the word "sources". Since it's plural, it surely means more than one. Since it's not defined further, the assumption is that it means "two or more" rather than "three or more" or whatever; I have always taken it this way and I think most people do, and certainly many good articles exist that have only two main sources.

The rule defines "reliable" and "independent of the subject", and I don't think that these are at issue here. The Guardian is mostly reliable; Vice I'm not sure of, though. But FWIW no claim has yet been raised that the material is not accurate.

So the key question is the definition of "significant coverage". The WP:GNG says: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

For an example of "trivial mention" it gives the sentence "In high school, [Bill Clinton] was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice". This sentence alone would not be sufficient sourcing to create a separate article Three Blind Mice (band), unless there were other sources. I think most people would agree with that.

However, how much more that a trivial mention like that is sufficient to constitute "significant coverage" is not clear. But I mean this article is about 30 sentences long. That is a decent size for an article, far more than a stub and longer than many other articles. And it's all sourced, and none of it is really original research. So I think it is true that the article sources "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content".

I gather that you don't agree since you are basically saying that an entire 1,500-word magazine article along with six other shorter sources does not constitute "significant coverage". Maybe your opinion is that a 3,000-word article is required, or two 1,500-word articles or something. But I would submit that this is a pretty strict and idiosyncratic definition for "addresses the topic directly and in detail", a definition which I think can't be extrapolated from the rule as written, is probably not shared by most people, does not appear to be applied in practice, and if it was applied then probably, I dunno,k 20% of articles would be subject to deletion, which is a million articles... so hmmm. Herostratus (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ivanvector, whose sources show that there is in-depth coverage from RS for this topic. The article content could be pruned to what is available in those RS, but that's not a matter for AFD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fast. I found out about this from a Facebook meme. Apparently this was created by trolls for a cheap Facebook meme.Dave (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax notable for being a hoax. Carrite (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes. That's normally what hoaxes are notable for. That said, would it be worth a footnote at Bielefeld Conspiracy, which is basically the same thing with a different location involved? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- 1. If it were true, it would be notable. 2. I just found this and want to tease a couple Finnish friends, is there an option to Keep for a couple of days? 3. Google Finland and exist. The headline is "Finland Does Not Exist -Wikipedia"; that ain't good for crediblity. 4. Seriously debating the notoriety of fleeting internet memes is only slightly less sad than discussing whether a young, female 'entertainer' has achieved a substantial enough oeuvre to qualify as notorious.11:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)38.26.26.150 (talk)

Given that some of those saying 'keep' claims that there is notable coverage, citing Guardian (very brief coverage, to be precise), then I guess we would need to create articles for all the other 'funny hoaxes' that are listed in that same article by The Guardian.

We don't have articles on any of these topics, nor do I think we should have - yet they are all cited in that same article as Finland does not exist and receive the same coverage (very little and very superficial coverage). If there's a reason for treating this particular example in that long list differently, that reason has not yet been put forward in the discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Comment -- Actually, we have "The Middle Ages did not exist". Perey (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a matter of Epithymonexphrasos. Rhadow (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per IDONTLIKEIT, IAR, and WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTFOR GIVING LEGITAMCYTOJOKESNORISITKYM which is actually a legit policy that DOES exist, and I speak the Japanese to prove it!L3X1 (distænt write) 04:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have enjoyed some of the comedy !votes in this discussion but do the ultimate closing admin a favour and play it straight for the next week, would you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. A hoax, and not covered as a notable hoax. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Rename Finland does not exist (meme), or delete, following the author's explanation. Refer my post of 08:18, 16 November 2017. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Back to delete. Not a notable hoax, not a notable meme. There are no serious sources discussing the hoax or meme. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate this joke, and while it is generally amusing the amount of people that references it in their responses, can we at least keep the deletion discussion joke free? Anyway, onto my vote:
Delete. The sources referenced are all from tabloid news sites, and while there is a somewhat sizable community on Reddit, there just isn't enough attention and/or notability in justifying keeping it. If someone can find a major source for this, I would have probably voted for keep, but sources like the Vice and the Guardian just isn't enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Dark-World25 (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said a none notable Hoax, there maybe an argument for one line in another article.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are plenty of other places on the interwebs to play games. The article creator can take advantage of them. MarnetteD|Talk 17:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn internet meme, not even a "hoax". Wikipedia is not Know-your-meme. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joke-free comment It is a serious matter indeed when editors claim that the Manchester Guardian is a tabloid news site. Perhaps WP should ignore all but Murdoch-controlled outlets, like Fox. Rhadow (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Manchester Guardian"—what is this, 1920? The present-day (and London-based) Guardian has very little to do with its predecessor, and while it does still carry serious news reporting its online edition contains an awful lot of unashamed fluff and user-generated content (sorry, "open journalism")—while Guardian coverage, particularly in the print edition, can certainly be a reliable source in Wikipedia's terms, in terms of establishing notability it's roughly on a par with Buzzfeed. ‑ Iridescent 23:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"roughly on a par with Buzzfeed" -- what is this, 2014? BuzzFeed News, part of media giant BuzzFeed, has greatly expanded the size and quality of its news operation in recent years and is now on a par for reliability with many more famous operations. The Guardian is very notable and articles like this are as reliable as any other paper's. "Fluff" = "articles that I think are about silly things", not "articles that are inaccurate". See the diff? For this article, the question is "is it accurate"? It is. If you think the article is wrong then show some evidence of that, or at any rate evidence that the Guardian's fact-checking operation is sub-par and therefore the article might be inaccurate, rather than raising objections about fluff, which indicates littles. Herostratus (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. gidonb (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under this title, delete. If it were titled "Finland does not exist (meme)" I'd be inclined to keep. Cabayi (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Full disclosure: I wrote it.) Here's the nickle summary: 1) the article meets WP:GNG. 2) we have hundreds and hundreds of articles in Category:Internet memes, therefore 3) arguments for deletion must address why this particular GNG-meeting article should be singled out for deletion from Category:Internet memes, and 4) no such argument has been persuasively advanced and probably can't be. QED: keep. (The argument could instead be made that Category:Internet memes should be cleared out generally; since this would involve mass-deletion of hundreds of articles this would be some heavy lifting and would require a differently-structured discussion, and anyway that argument has also not been made here).

The detailed argument and some other points follow. You can skip them if you want to.

So let me bring forward a couple of points... The nom was "This lacks encyclopaedic notability. And even the map given uses Comic Sans. Not serious, not notable, not even very funny". My translation of this is something like "This is not the sort of article that I, myself, enjoy reading". But I mean so what? Not sure what "lacks encyclopaedic notability" means; the usual formulation is "lacks notability" by which the rule of thumb if WP:GNG (which we'll look at presently). "Lacks encyclopaedic notability" though sounds a bit too close to "Britannica would not have this article" which is true but not important. It is true that it is not very funny, but it is a little funny (the phenomenon, not the article). It's not as funny as Bielefeld Conspiracy though. Comic Sans I dunno what to say. I like Comic Sans on the merits -- it's welcoming without being too informal or weird and is reasonably well designed IMO (I know that, like Maroon 5 and Budweiser, we're not supposed to like it, but enh, I have enough trouble figuring what I do like without worrying about what I'm supposed to like.) You can change the graphic if you like instead of deleting the article. Or remove the graphic if there's something wrong with it.

OK so the nom comes down to "This is not the sort of article that I, myself, care to read" which is kind of a a poor nom, but OK, maybe the nom is not so great but it could still be a bad article. So let's see. Before getting to WP:GNG and so on, I want to back off and think about first principles. Why are we here? We're here to serve the reading public. Is the reading public interested in this subject? Yes, they are.

It says here that since the article was created it is viewed, on average, a little north of 300 times a day. There was big spike recently topping out at 44,000 views on October 29, but with an elevated viewership all around that time (11,500 daily views average October 26 - November 8 (when the deletion nom was made which may skew the numbers), but they've been falling and yesterday only 1,200 people read the article). But whatever; let's say 300 page views daily is the stable average. Whatever caused the big spike to 44,000 is, I suspect, what brought the article to... well, I don't suspect; I'm confident that the big spike and the deletion nomination are probably not coincidental. Which, on one level, fine: bad article, gets some eyes, one of those eyes sees that it's a bad article and bye-byes it. Legit.

Another way to look at it though, is:

Got ourselves an article, here. Not a question of "should we spend time and resources to create this article?". Somebody already did.
And the article's OK. It's written well enough, there's a picture, it's plenty long enough (not just a stub), NPOV, sections formatted correctly and all, has six refs, and maybe meets the WP:GNG (we'll vet the refs and address GNG presently). It's not going to win the Pulitzer Prize. It's OK.
And it got popular! At least temporarily. For whatever reason -- mention in an article, on TV, whatever -- suddenly a whole lot of people want to come the Wikipedia to find out about this thing!
Well I mean can't have that. Here's just the time to delete the article! I mean good Lord next thing we'll be providing information to people for chrissakes. RA-THA!

OK, we don't thinks this is the actual reasoning, but if it was we'd end up exactly where are are now: here. Hmmmn.

So I mean, OK, what I'd like to suggest is that if you want to delete the article, let's at least replace it with a template. Something like this:

Hi, I see you're looking for information on the subject Finland does not exist. We could have an article on this subject. In fact we did have an article on this subject, a nice one! But we deleted it, haha! Because, while we are here to provide information, we don't think you should have too much information. Sucks to be you, we guess!

But we wish you (and the other 300+ souls who search on this topic every fucking day day in and day out) good luck in your search for information on this topic! We hope and assume that each of you individually have the time, interest, and skill to re-create the equivalent collection of sourced data on your own. Have a nice day!

OK, so a couple things... I mean, the delete arguments are pretty poor and mostly come down to "Not the sort of article I care to read". Here's a good one: "Delete and fast. I found out about this from a Facebook meme." I mean the person has a point. We want people to come here to look up stuff they saw in Boethius's sixth-century work The Consolation of Philosophy, not fucking Facebook (whatever that is -- some new amusement the peasantry has concocted, we guess). However, the comment "only created to promote a non-notable artist" is spot on. Stephen Sheehan offered me half his ham sandwich if I would write this article. =/

OK, but so there are are a couple of cogent points that can be made. Let's make them and address them.

First, not withstanding my rant, there are subjects that are are too outré for us to handle. Is this article one of them? No, it isn't. Let's go to the tape. Category:Internet memes introduced in 2015 has eleven members (this article is one). 2016 has 13, 2017 has 13, 2012 has 12, other years have fewer. But most aren't categorized by year, and Category:Internet memes has... well, hundreds and hundreds. So we do cover internet memes here quite a bit, as a point of fact. (I ask the reader to distinguish between "I wish the Wikipedia did not cover internet memes much" and "The Wikipedia does not cover internet memes much").

So but OK, just because we cover a lot of memes doesn't prove we should cover this one. Maybe it's less notable than those other memes. Our usual go-to rule of thumb for this is the WP:GNG. Does this article meet the GNG? Well, the GNG asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources" (note the plural -- at least two). It gives little further guidance on what is "significant coverage" -- a full-length book is, passing mention in part of a single sentence is not. Pretty big space between those two, but I think that the rule of thumb is "an entire paragraph is sufficiently more than a passing mention in a sentence to constitute 'significant coverage' in that source". Others may disagree, but I think this is kind of the de facto interpretation. I think.

Well, The Guardian has a paragraph, and the Guardian is highly notable (and reliable). Vice has a whole complete article of many paragraphs. Vice is not he Guardian, but it does have a Wikipedia article; it's not printed from spirit masters. How reliable it is I don't know. Those are the two legs on which a WP:GNG argument stands. I think they're sufficient: the article meets the GNG. Not with a lot of room to spare, but meets it. And there're five other refs which don't help near as much but at least don't reduce the article's argument to meet the GNG. And there are other refs available which aren't in the article. I think.

Since the days of Nupedia the general rule is that if 1) there's sufficient well-sourced material to write a decent article, and 2) people would be interested in the article, the the article should exist, if anybody cares to write it. Let's keep doing that. Herostratus (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, off the cuff, interesting, but at the very least it is an unacceptably misleading title. Possibly Rename: Internet meme: "Finland does not exist", otherwise delete , and maybe try again via userfication without a shocking title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, maybe a move is in order. Usually that's done as a separate WP:Requested move discussion, but the closer her broad discretion I guess. But a retitle would be some heavy lifting, although you have a valid point. At any rate I've never seen an article deleted because the title is wrong, since that is easily remedied. Herostratus (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename~~ Finland does not exist (meme), and do it from here, close the lesser RM process. The title is an extremely important part of the content and it matters critically in this case. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Looking for serious sources discussing the internet meme, initially looking for data for titling, serious sources don;t exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sufficiently well sourced as a notable meme (personally, I think an actually famous one) It might be possible to improve the title. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've initiated a Requested Move discussion on the article's talk page. Herostratus (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete total trivia, no notable coverage, non-encyclopaedic content. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sincerely hope that if this article is kept, it will be rewritten, massively, to give off the impression that it is just a joke / internet meme, and not a conspiracy theory which might quite possibly be true. I understand that to an average dumb US American who has never left their country and has absolutely zero knowledge of the outside world, this "theory" might seem remotely plausible, but to anyone with more than a few brain cells to rub together, it is completely absurd, and it is even more completely absurd that WP:FRINGE disallows us from having proper overviews of topics like reiki as any sources that do anything other than criticise the "fringe theory" are not considered reliable, yet this 110% patently incoherent "theory" - which I can only assume is a joke, written by someone who wants to troll dumb Americans - is being given a soapbox tax-free and looks like it will be allowed to remain... unbelievable. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the bin with it. Finland exists, I know, I have been there. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to List of Internet phenomena#Politics. Has some sourcing so merits some coverage, but the topic is so banal that there's little more to say than "this was a stupid thing people came up with". Sandstein 06:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let's take a look at where we are. The TL:DR is that my analysis of the discussion to this point is that we have strength of argument against a 2-1 headcount in favor of deletion, so it's a tough close which will probably result in a split decision (no consensus) I guess. Details of the process I would go through if I was the closer follow.

Let's start with headcount. It's not a vote or a popularity contest (and User:Carrite says above "Don't you be nose-counting, closer"), but headcount counts for something; it's a data point. It would be rare for a 27-5 "vote" for Keep to be closed as a "Delete" on strength of argument -- it's possible, but it would probably be contested. "Vote" totals that are pretty close are generally closed as "no consensus to delete" although they don't have to be.

To this point I count 18 to 8 in favor of Delete. That's 70% for Delete, which is a supermajority. Buttt... some of the "votes" are very, very poor -- so poor that I would pretty much discount them were I closing. Here's the Delete comments that I would discount:

"Delete. In the bin with it. Finland exists, I know, I have been there". Non sequitur that has nothing to do with the discussion
"I found out about this from a Facebook meme. Apparently this was created by trolls for a cheap Facebook meme". I can't really understand the point, although it's possible I'm missing something. Not clear how appearing in Facebook is reason to delete an article though, and not sure what Facebook trolls are or where they fit in here. I can't make any sense of this so I can't really count it.
"per IDONTLIKEIT, IAR, and WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTFOR GIVING LEGITAMCYTOJOKESNORISITKYM which is actually a legit policy that DOES exist, and I speak the Japanese to prove it!" Pretty much gibberish. But I mean "Delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is pretty much the opposite of what IDONTLIKEIT says, WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTFOR GIVING LEGITAMCYTOJOKESNORISITKYM is not actually a policy, and it's not clear what speaking Japanese has to do with anything. As to IAR, we want to be conservative about overusing IAR to justify every opinion that pops into one's head, and I can't really take its use here as serious, given the context of the rest of comment.
"The sources referenced are all from tabloid news sites." It is so ridiculous to call the Guardian a tabloid that... I mean the assertion is not true, so the comment has no value, really.
"Hoax notable for being a hoax." Uhhh... actually "notable hoax" is a reason to keep the article, so not sure what's going on here... could legitimately flip this to Keep, but since it's unclear what the person thinks, just discounted.
There are plenty of other places on the interwebs to play games. The article creator can take advantage of them." There's a couple of reasons to discount this. It consists entirely of an insult, so this is a behavioral issue. The matter is, do we want to reward this kind of behavior by weighing the person's contribution the same as a regular polite person? Doing so tends to degrade the project overall IMO, and I have discounted contributions on behavioral grounds in the past. The question is, is the person just being snarky, is or she being an egregious jerk? I'm going with egregious jerk since this actually hurt my feelings, so discounted. Another entirely sufficient ground for discounting is that there's no argument there; its just an insult. The person did not enjoy the article I guess, but so?

That's six, so that brings the headcount to 12 to 8 for delete. There were other Delete arguments which were very poor but which I did not discount, although to be honest I think the closer should. "Delete per WP:NOT" is extremely vague and not very helpful, "Speedy delete total trivia, no notable coverage, non-encyclopaedic content" is OK but the person does not understand what Speedy Delete is, "Under this title, delete. If it were titled Finland does not exist (meme) I'd be inclined to keep" which is just a title issue, but the title probably won't be changed. "Obvious example of (mis)using Wikipedia for PR. Entirely non-notable (Reddit as a main source, really?) and only created to promote a non-notable artist" has a problem since it's not a PR piece and I know nothing and care less about Stephen Sheehan, so that part is false (and kind of insulting), and also Reddit is not the main source so that's not true, but "Entirely non-notable" is OK, so I didn't discount the comment. " Article is written as if the theory is quite possibly true" isn't true anymore although it was when the comment was written, an example to be careful about wanting to delete articles based on their current content.

My personal opinion is that almost the delete comments, even the ones not listed above, are pretty poor... "just trivia, and absolutely lacks notability" means "I don't like it" and "lacks notability"... I mean there are a lot of "unnotable" assertions, but the article meets WP:GNG and I'd like to see addressed why that doesn't matter rather than just hand-waving... "This lacks encyclopaedic notability. And even the map given uses Comic Sans. Not serious, not notable, not even very funny" is kind of polluted by the references to Comic Sans and "not serious" (so?)... I mean all these arguments are just poor.

On the other hand, for bad Keep "votes" we have:

"you don't want to be part of the cabal covering up this fraud, do you?" The person is just joking, so discounted.
"If it were true, it would be notable..." and some more discourse which amounts to nothing useful. IP editor and this is his only contribution so far. Discounted.

That's it, which leaves the headcount at 12-6, which is 67%, about where we started. That the "vote" is 2-1 matters in my opinion. On the other hand the Delete arguments are almost all poor. here is MSN as a source. Here is Culture Trip, dunno how notable/reliable they are; Skeptoid whatever that is. Oh, here is Indiatimes which is part of the company that publishes The Times of India which is the paper of record for India (1.3 billion people). So... I mean just bare assertions of "absolutely lacks notability" with not even an attempt to explain away these many notable reliable sources... how useful is that as a contribution to the discussion?

Not all of the Delete arguments are poor; "Articles about conspiracy theories need a significant depth of sources" is a reasonable assertion I think, although not grounded in any rule. There are a few comments which rise to this level, although not many. The only rule I recall being invoked for Delete is WP:FRINGE which doesn't actually apply; it would apply if there was any part of the article that asserted that Finland did, in fact, not exist. But there isn't.

Kind of a tough close because you've got great strength of argument versus a 2-1 majority. If it was me I'd split the difference and punt to "argument not proven" (no consensus) I guess. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the break-down. I see no no problem with an editor, no matter their level of involvment, "appiont themselves prophet" and post a break down. Stuff like the above is actually helpful. L3X1 (distænt write) 14: 55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment I already outlined my reasons for delete two weeks ago and did not intend to comment further, but as the creator of the article argues rather aggressively and pings me, I wish to add that I find it rather strange, even inaccurate, that the creator sums it up to a majority versus great strength of argument. In other words, if you agree with the creator, then your argument is automatically good. I do not think this kind of battleground arguments are helpful in this discussion, nor in any other one. Herostratus, you have made your case like anyone else; you created the article and want to keep it. No need to go off on long tirades like you've been doing here, and definitely not a good idea to appoint yourself the interpreter of opinions in an AfD about an article you wrote. Not helpful. Jeppiz (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure why I'm being pinged to this wall of text. I'm not sure why this pretty obvious Delete close was held over for additional verbiage. I'm not sure why some people think the meme of the day somehow becomes encyclopedic even though it is not covered in reliable sources, beyond cursory coverage of "what a stupid hoax — look how stupid people are" fare. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to List of Internet phenomena#Politics per Sandstein. Mentions in reliable sources but still pretty less for having separate article. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per good third party sources. That the subject conspiracy based is irrelevant. Overall very weak reasons for deletion from those saying !Delete.BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why has nobody presented these good third party sources then? Have anyone saying 'keep' actually bothered to check out the sources. The Guardian briefly mentions it in a long list of other silly hoaxes, none of which we have articles on. There is nothing even closely resembling the "in-depth coverage" that WP policy explicitly states should be necessary. (Also somewhat annoyed at some of the !keep-voters, like the user above, who says that those of us saying delete have weak arguments. If you make such a general statement, you should at least be able to develop why you feel those with a different opinion have weak arguments. For the record, many of us saying !delete have shown in some detail what the weakness with the !keep-voters is: they seem to think that just a brief mention in a good source is enough. Those of saying !delete have shown that that is not the case (per current policy), we have highlighted the importance of "in-depth coverage" (also per current policy) and actually gone to the third party sources and seen how negligible the coverage actually is. Now, you may not agree with us, that's fine - but do try to be a bit more constructive than just saying "weak reasons" without any hint of analysis. Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did present these good third-party sources. I'm repeating myself, but I'll try again. In order to be a good source the source has to be reliable which basically means the source has a good fact-checking system. The source probably also ought to be at least a bit notable, although is not stated at WP:GNG. So at the risk of repeating myself let me present this in more depth. Once again, here're the sources, from three continents:

The Guardian. Reliability: They're an old and famous publication; the assumption would be that they fact-check their articles. They're large enough to probably be afford to do so, and it would harm their business if they didn't. No evidence has been presented that they don't have some kind of fact-checking system. Notability: One of the most-read news publications on the planet. . Length of material: A paragraph, 117 words.
Vice (magazine). Reliability: Read the article. 20 years old, "print magazine and website focused on arts, culture, and news topics"..."the magazine later expanded into Vice Media, which consists of divisions including the magazine and website, a film production company, a record label, and a publishing imprint"..."Vice magazine includes the work of journalists, columnists, fiction writers, graphic artists and cartoonists, and photographers. Both Vice's online and magazine content has shifted from dealing mostly with independent arts and pop cultural matters to covering more serious news topics"..."Entire issues of the magazine have also been dedicated to the concerns of Iraqi people, Native Americans, Russian people, people with mental disorders, and people with mental disabilities". OTOH they are an Immersion journalism entity and have some other non-standard. They're a large operation it looks like. I don't know what their fact-checking system is. They've probably got something but can't be sure. Notability: Circulation 900,000, website is Alexa rank 115, so yeah. Length of the material: Complete long article.
Indiatimes. Reliability: "Indiatimes is the flagship brand of Times Internet...an Internet subsidiary of The Times of India Group, under which some of the largest websites in India, The Times of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times and Maharashtra Times, operate", so they're large enough to afford a fact-checking system. The assumption must be that they do have a reasonable fact-checking operation absent evidence to the contrary. Notability: Based on the above quote, widely read in India. Length of the material: Short article, about five paragraphs.
MSN: Reliablity: Large and famous operation bearing the Microsoft brand, so presumably reasonably reliable. Notability: Alexa rank 43, so yeah. Length of the material: short article -- couple paragraphs, 238 words.
Culture Trip: Reliablity: Don't know. It's a real operation, not just somebody's website. The executive team is nine people. Never heard of them and there's no proof that they fact check but no indication they don't. Notability: they say they have 11 million site visitors per month. Whether that's true or whether that is high or low amount I don't know. Length of the material: Complete long article.
Skeptoid: Reliability: Dunno. They're a lot more than a random website, they have a board of directors and all that. They're a charitable operation, their mission statement is "Skeptoid Media produces free educational materials and STEM-focused informational and entertainment content, made available to educators and individuals worldwide, concentrating on critical thinking and scientific skepticism." What that says about their fact-checking I don't know. Notability: No idea. Length of the material: Complete long article.
Bodahub. Reliability: No idea. They look like to be a real operation and not just a random website although this could be false front. Staff size unknown, so I'm skeptical that they're very reliable. Notablity: Dunno. Length of the material: Complete long article.
Studentabladid: Reliability: Probably not very. I think they're more than just someone's website, but can't prove even this. Notability: My guess is "not very". Icelandic operation, which FWIW there's another country writing about this (four so far). Length of the material: Couple paragraphs.
A Particular Act. Reliability: They're describing Sheehan's show which they hosted, so very reliable for this particular set of facts. Notability: None. Length of the material: Couple paragraphs. It's about Sheehan's act rather than the meme itself.
Art In Liverpool: Reliability: Seems a reasonably sized operation, and probably reasonably reliable for this material. Notability: Some, probably, but just in Liverpool. Length of the material: Couple paragraphs. It's about Sheehan's show.
Helsingin Sanomat: Reliability: It's the largest newspaper in Finland, so yeah. Finnish operation, so that's a fifth country chiming in. Notability: Largest paper in Finland. Length of the material: Can't tell, since you need subscription to read it.

There're some more, probably not amounting to much though.

So I mean, OK. Some of these sources are not in the article, so it's excusable to not know about them. I didn't know about Finnish paper till now, nor the Indian site until someone else pointed it out, and fine. We're a team here working together to figure this out, and now we've found that there definitely are enough reliable notable in-depth sources on which to base an article of reasonable size and quality. So now we know that and we can't say anymore that we don't, so good, we can move ahead, discarding that argument.

Now what a person can say is "Sure, there are plenty of reliable notable in-depth sources on which to base a reasonable article, and the article meets the WP:GNG, but the article should nevertheless be destroyed because __________". But I haven't seen anything much good to go in the blank, so that's why the Delete argument is weak. There are things that can go in the blank for some articles: "is inherently a WP:BLP violation". "Is an WP:POV nightmare and we'd be better off starting from scratch". "Violates such-and-such policy". And others.

But I haven't seen anything like that for this article. What I've seen is off-the-the cuff waving away of the entire article, display of personal prejudices which basically devolve to snobbery, and unsupportable assertions that there are not sufficient reliable notable in-depth sources on which to base an article of reasonable length and quality, when there are. That is why I say the Delete arguments are weak. Because they are. Herostratus (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Teulings[edit]

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

This is one of far too many actor articles based on listings only in sources that are either non-reliable, or literally directories. My search for more sources turned up the Dutch Wikipedia article, which only has IMDb as a source. Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror, articles need to be based on reliable sources, which IMDb is explicitly stated to not be. There is clearly not enough sourcing on Teulings to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant career with major roles. Finding sources online will be a challenge but that has no bearing on notability. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles because they alledgedly could have reliable sources. People have to identify the reliable sources to justify keeping the article. The sources do not have to be on line, but they have to be identified. You can not just hand wave and claim sources exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And we don't just delete articles because people can't find sources on Google. --Michig (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the key pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. Unless the facts in an article can be verified by reliable sources, we do in fact delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sources are available on the first page of google. Of course, in order to notice those sources you have to try first.Trackinfo (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick gBooks search shows the sources JPL rolled to disbelieve about. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two sources to the article, there is significantly more to be added and additional content can we developed just from one of those sources. Trackinfo (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Decatur, Alabama#Parks and recreation. Sandstein 06:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decatur Parks and Recreation[edit]

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

Don't see how this is notable. Is a department of a small town. Suggest redirect to Decatur, Alabama. JUDAS MAIDEN (talk) 15:50, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty sure branches of small city governments are not notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merging any relevant content in prose form, to Decatur, Alabama#Parks and recreation. The nominator is reminded that this can be boldly done without going through AfD (and technically, the nomination as phrased is a WP:SK1 case). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Decatur, Alabama - this only a very brief article until it gets more like a list than an encyclopeadia article. Vorbee (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If one goes to the article on Decatur, Alabama and goes to the sub-heading "Parks and recreation", it seems that this section of the longer article is empty save for a note saying that one should go to the article on Decatur's parks and recreation. As this article is not all that long, it should not prove too difficult to merge the shorter article with the longer one. Vorbee (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New Line Home Entertainment. Sandstein 06:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Line Platinum Series[edit]

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

Non notable home video range. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTPROMO --wooden superman 15:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is back again? (Yup, we've voted on this before, I remember we deleted an article of this ilk a few years back). It's a fancy surrounding label for catalog content DVDs that hasn't been used since 2008. People buy these for the movies, not for bizarre completionism of New Line's DVD series. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Line Home Entertainment, the originating company. May be worth a line there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Line Home Entertainment, per Bushranger. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miramax. Sandstein 06:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miramax Collector's Series[edit]

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

Non notable home video range. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTPROMO --wooden superman 15:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miramax. Worth mentioning there, not notable enough for an independent article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ibanez RG. Sandstein 06:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibanez RG Prestige[edit]

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

Content is out of date and largely incorrect and incomplete. There are numerous errors in the content of the page and it is likely to never be complete to the level of detail to which some (apparently randomly chosen) years and aspects of the topic are covered.

Scope of the article is questionable. There already exists an article on the Ibanez RG series and this is just a sub-categorization of that. Since multiple series/styles of Ibanez guitar, it would be more appropriate to have an article called Ibanez Prestige which would cover all such Prestige models, including those in the RG series.

There appears to be no active effort to maintain the page. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ibanez RG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ibanez RG. Sandstein 06:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibanez RG Tremolo[edit]

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

Subject of article is a distinction that is not particularly useful or in current use. There is already an Ibanez RG article into which the content of this page (should anyone find it useful) could be merged. It does not appear that there is any editor who has maintained this article, leaving it with a level of detail on one particular period that has not been maintained. The amount of effort required to bring this article up to the level of detail of parts of it would be fairly immense. Finally, I'm not convinced that an article with such detail is necessary or useful in the scope of the overall encyclopedia. This is a subject that might be (and is) better covered in a different resource. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ibanez RG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ibanez RG. Sandstein 06:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibanez RG Fixed[edit]

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

Subject of article is a distinction that is not particularly useful or in current use. There is already an Ibanez RG article into which the content of this page (should anyone find it useful) could be merged. It does not appear that there is any editor who has maintained this article, leaving it with a level of detail on one particular period that has not been maintained. The amount of effort required to bring this article up to the level of detail of parts of it would be fairly immense. Finally, I'm not convinced that an article with such detail is necessary or useful in the scope of the overall encyclopedia. This is a subject that might be (and is) better covered in a different resource. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ibanez RG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At least the promotionalism seems to have been addressed by a rewrite. Sandstein 06:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PerfectDisk[edit]

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

Not notable and promotional in tone and wording. (Advertisement.) Wikipedia:CORPSPAM, Wikipedia:V, WP:PROMOTION FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author feedback
The nomination says "Not notable and promotional in tone and wording. (Advertisement.)"

The Wiki "packaging" for the nomination says "Find sources" and gives a list of suggestions.

Following Wikipedia's words:

The first item I clicked on at the nomination is the the one on the right of the screen: WP reference.
The first item that came up is titled "Diskeeper vs. PerfectDisk." (It's an article from TechNet, a publication now owned/controlled by Microsoft)
Obviously something doesn't "click" - until I added PerfectDisk to List of defragmentation software, WP_Ref's #1 wasn't even listed!

The Wiki policy pointed to by the note now atop the PerfectDisk article, WP:Guide to deletion, says:

A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged.

Is there nothing that can be salvaged?

As for promotional, why would I promote something I've never even evaluated/tried.
(see TALK page re why/how; Raxco Rabbit V.A.S.T. is the closest I've ever come to Raxco, and that was an evaluation, on a VAX long since gone; my then-employer chose Diskeeper for their Vaxen).

Speaking of DEC/VAX/VMS, for those who've used or even ever heard of Digital Equipment Corporation, it's an embarrassment to the concept of Wikipedia that ... look at the note atop OpenVMS - "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement..." Is that a collective best? Does this nomination encourage? Pi314m (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My brief search shows some news, one short review and few pages in books about Windows NT (for NT version). I will post these later. As of current article content, TNT is the best way to go... I will try basic rewrite to stub-like state. Maybe this article can be saved after all. Pavlor (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scannell, Ed (October 6, 1997). "Raxco´s NT utility defragments disks". InfoWorld. Vol. 19, no. 40. IDG. p. 46. ISSN 0199-6649. News about NT release, mostly based on company announcement and words of company representative.
Freed, Les (August 2002). "Defrag with PerfectDisk". PC Magazine. Vol. 21, no. 14. Ziff Davis. p. 56. ISSN 0888-8507. First look at PerfectDisk 2000 Version 5.0. Half page review, best source I found so far.
Dragan, Richard V. (May 24, 2005). "defraggers, PerfectDisk 7.0". PC Magazine. Vol. 24, no. 9. Ziff Davis. p. 98. ISSN 0888-8507. Short mini-review among other such applications (1/6 page).

There are several short news about various versions (eg. original VMS release in 1990), but these aren´t substantial for notability. Hard to judge, I´m not sure this is enough to estabilish notability. However, I will try article rewrite, if I find the time. Pavlor (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a WP:TNT deletion wouldn't be unreasonable here, the content is awful. (e.g. "Both this product and Diskeeper, which is the competitor that keeps Raxco on its toes were rated negatively in their most recent iterations for"). I see no claim of meeting GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep After article rewrite and review of published sources. There seem to be also some online sources (pcmag.com, pcworld.com etc.), I will post these later. Pavlor (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best online sources I found so far:

computerworld.com: [20] (2005; comparison of PerfectDisk 7 and Diskeeper 9)

pcworld.com [21] (2010; mid-size review of version 11)

techrepublic.com: [22] (2010; review of version 11), [23] (2010; review of version 11 Server) Pavlor (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the references posted and it either was a trivial mention of the product or or a review which provided no indication of notability. This is generally a case of sources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then check again. There you have broad coverage in multiple reliable souces, enough to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to only prove that there is a lot of trivial coverage which does not establish notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft:Tom Pitts. @Rory1262: You can work on the draft indefinitely, and submit it to review when you think you are done with improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Pitts[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer and musician, who has no strong claim to passing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable sourcing. Of the 11 footnotes here, seven of them are to blog posts on WordPress, Blogspot or Squarespace; another is an interview in a non-notable zine reduplicated as two separate footnotes; and one more is an unreliable fansite for another band the subject's band once opened for, which completely fails to actually mention the subject's band at all. And #11, literally the only source here that represents an acceptable media outlet for the purposes of Wikipedia referencing, is in this instance a Q&A interview in which the subject is speaking about himself, so it's not a notability-assisting source either. As always, neither writers nor musicians are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, or because their existence can technically be referenced to blogs and zines -- they must be the subject of coverage in reliable media sources, which verifies that they've accomplished something that satisfies a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Draftifying per discussion below also acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the initial feedback. Based on experience, I expected this as normal course. May I please ask for some forbearance while I shore up sourcing? I recognize that articles need to be rooted outside the blogosphere. In the interim, however, I'd like to submit for consideration that the plaudits Mr. Pitts has earned from notable authors who themselves have passed Wikipedia notability standards do go (in my view, at least) a good way toward establishing his own notability. Rory1262 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken some steps to reduce the "advertorial" tone that was mentioned. More can be done in this direction. Rory1262 (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some further steps taken with tone and to reduce reliance on blog sources (duplicate citation removed). Rory1262 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 2001:569:7C0B:6100:E061:FE21:FC1B:CACD (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I please inquire as to the proposed time frame for deletion? I wish to conduct further research. I will also attest again that I am not the subject or a member of his family, nor have I ever met him. Thank you. Rory1262 (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also advise whether the following independent sources, both of which have provided reviews of the most recent work by Mr. Pitts, are considered reliable: http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/about-us and http://www.thebigthrill.org/about-itw/ -- if so, I would seek to cite them in a non-advertorial way. Continued thanks. Rory1262 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have stripped this piece down to essentials, focusing on independent recognition and removing the personal/miscellaneous info. I believe the advertorial tone has been shed. Would you please take another look? Continued thanks. Rory1262 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesrichards12345, thanks for your note on the main article's talk page that you are now happy with this. Regards, Rory1262 (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ some of the references suggest that his book American Static might be notable, but it doesn't currently have a Wikipedia article, but it's only one book and only trivial coverage of him. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR; the Usual caveats apply. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Additional support brought in for a second book from a different independent source, and it also speaks more directly to the notion of notability. Rory1262 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found more searching for his other book than I was expecting. The current article has problems, but I think there's a good chance it will meet WP:NAUTHOR as a completed article. I would suggest Move to Draft, possibly add back some of the biographical information that was removed, and go through the AfC process. Unfortunately, it may take several weeks before anybody responds there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to hear about this constructive alternate route. If the piece can't be certified directly, AfC would be preferable to deletion. Thank you. Rory1262 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for a third work brought in. I look forward to more input and formation of consensus. Rory1262 (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per power.enwiki. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relisting and consideration. Input on how to make this bio more fully realized remains welcome. Rory1262 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Rossi (musician)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable musician, can find no coverage in RS and after removal of iTunes "sources", I can find no evidence this person has charted in anything that would qualify under WP:NMUSIC. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come this guy is being deleted? He was in a movie with E-40 and Mike Epps. Just use google to see what you find about him. he has features with major artists in the industry. how does that not qualify as notable? Constantly in the media this guy. 213.182.149.13 (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being "in a movie" with notable people does not grant everyone in the film notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Johnpacklambert, He released musical works with major label artist such as Kirko Bangz, Mickey Shiloh, B-Legit, and many more. His music work entitled "Bottles on Me (DJ Seip Dance Remix)" is currently in the German national charts at number 19. ^[1] That is not the first and only chart reference this musician has. I believe that is being overlooked by you with your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastiannrk (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)— Sebastiannrk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (blocked as a sock ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True, being in movies with notable people does not make one notable, but the chart references definitely make the musician notable in combination with the movie credits and interviews referenced about him. That amount of chart placements should definitely be considered notable, since the chart placements are RS based on the info found in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.JustinGotBiebers (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC) — JustinGotBiebers (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck as a sock. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple RS found such as ^[2] and ^[3] just to name a few. — Salkin25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Struck as a sock. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. BTW, I smell beans and something in the drawer and will go check. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Deutsche TrendchartsDUC Charts 43 - Deutsche Trendcharts". Trendcharts.
^ "Deutsche TrendchartsDUC Charts 42 - Deutsche Trendcharts". trendcharts.
^ "What Are the Cahnces? (2016) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb". Wa-com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per an spi Justin and salkin25 will need to be struck out after they are blocked. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sockpuppetry is alarming, and the article is in dire need of an Augean cleanout of iTunes links. But Rossi's had singles hit the Deutsche Black Charts, which establishes notability per WP:MUSIC. Here he is at #12 this year. Chubbles (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: His current single is at #11 on the same chart. [24] Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MNSSH[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable musician, can find no coverage in RS and after removal of iTunes "sources", I can find no evidence this person has charted in anything that would qualify under WP:NMUSIC CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:NMUSIC, "Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria ... 2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." According to WP:CHART, "A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics: 1) It is published by a recognized reliable source. ... 2) It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources." The subject and the chart listed (itself the source of a WP article: Deutsche Black Charts) seems to qualify. Greenman (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greenman Except the source provided doesn't even make mention of any of them, in fact the only "charted" source is a Facebook screenshot which is neither verifiable or reliable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source which Greenman referres to is also shown again on a german print and online publication, which is also included in the wikipedia page references. Source:http://www.rap2soul.de/2015/deutsche-black-charts-kw-3715-25678 FrankKoch (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC) — FrankKoch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

FrankKoch And yet the actual chart does not list them at any point in time, ever. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two versions with them listed: http://www.trendcharts.de/duc-charts-51-2/ and http://www.trendcharts.de/duc-charts-20/ Greenman (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How so? As pointed out in WP:NMUSIC and WP:CHART, they seem to do so. Greenman (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charting *may* be an indication they meet the criteria but a total lack of coverage in RS means there can't be an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Wikipedia:Notability states "Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability.." and "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." According to this definition the musician is notable as he is present in multiple sources talking about him including high profile sources such as his feature on TV, but also lower level sources like the digital interviews.GloverG16 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC) — GloverG16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Struck as a sock. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviewing all the references in here so far I have to admit the article appears to be legitimate. But my experience is still low on wikipedia so I can only say what I see here so far.Seektruth87 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC) — Seektruth87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Struck as a sock. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seektruth87 -- RoySmith (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whilst it is possible the subject of the article may meet WP:NMUSIC, I cannot find sufficient reliable sources to verify this. Unless someone is able to produce any coverage, I don't believe it has surpassed the threshold of notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hillsong Channel. Sandstein 06:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Channel Now[edit]

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

Not notable streaming service. Limited significant coverage in third party sources. Most of the article are lists of not notable programs breaching WP:NOTGUIDE and a list of devices numerous things can be streamed on. Topic could easily be managed in either Hillsong Church or Hillsong Channel -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I want to note that I am the creator of the page, so I am obviously biased. I want to clearly list out my reasons for why I believe this page is worth keeping and why WP:NOTABILITY has been met.

Firstly, I have rectified the issue relating to WP:NOTGUIDE that User:Whats_new? has raised, the only programs that are listed now ones that are notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages that either form the content of the program, or are extremely directly related to the program. These are all notable as they all have their own wikipedia pages with much media coverage to achieve notability criteria. (I believeWP:IDONTKNOWIT comes into play here.)

Secondly, the wikipedia entry that I built was based on the format used for Stan_(company) a different VOD service in Australia, which formats the article in the same way with little complaints. Content, Programming, Supported Devices, See Also. This is still a short article, I do intend on continuing to work on it, as I did with Hillsong Channel.

Thirdly, I think this fits well into WP:OBSCURE. "When an article meets WP:N or any other guidelines for inclusion, the mere fact that its subject is obscure does not under any circumstances mean it should be deleted".

On the real topic, of meeting notability guidelines, the article links to two articles which are explicitly about Hillsong Channel service being available on personal devices being the path forward. These articles are by Hope_103.2 (FM/Digital Radio Broadcaster in NSW) and Phil Cooke (Media Consultant). Further articles about Hillsong Channel Now and Hillsong Channel will appear in the media as they have been for a while.

Christianity is a topic close to my heart, but I want to cover it as impartially as possible, I have recently started the proposed deletion process for Hillsong Conference 2006 for various reasons and specifically for its lack of notability. Cheers, Luke L32007 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your interest in the subject, but comparing this article with Stan is not a like-for-like comparison. Stan is far better sourced, is a stand alone service and has in-depth third party coverage, unlike this article. Your claim that the list of shows no longer breaches NOTGUIDE is also false - not one of them has an article. For example, the Hillsong Conference article is about the physical gathering, not a television program covering it. None of the others link to anything regarding a television show. To meet OBSCURE, an article first needs to meet notability. Linking to other Wikipedia articles does not establish notability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stan was the structure that I used to create the article, the Streaming Service is more comparable to Hunter_TV which meets both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:OBSCURE. L32007 (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability needs to be established for this article, not compared to another. This streaming service is simply not notable. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely comparing the two articles, both with 2 sources from media so far, both slightly obscure. L32007 (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

obvious merge into Hillsong Channel: I can't see how a streaming service of a broadcaster has an independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hillsong Channel, not notable independent of the programming. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mayors of St Pancras. Sandstein 06:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Richard Morris[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. An impressive lot of sources, but they are not about him, but about persons or events in his vicinity (e.g. the ODNB entry is not his entry, he is mentioned in someone else's entry). Fram (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of St Pancras. (And that list needs work badly, but there is no deadline for that I suppose.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected speedily as duplication. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice Kids (Dutch TV series)[edit]

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

Duplicate scope of The Voice Kids (Netherlands TV series) Hiwilms (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to The Voice Kids (Netherlands TV series) Nothing to merge; it's a duplicate with a lesser page history. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 07:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disagreement about whether this is a run-of-the-mill housing development, or has architectural or historic value warranting coverage. A renomination discussion, if there is any, should focus more on this topic's coverage in sources rather than on general principles. Sandstein 06:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myatt's Fields South Estate[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is an article about a very ordinary housing estate in London. There is no evidence whatever that it is any more notable than most housing estates. I proposed deletion (WP:PROD) in May. An editor contested my proposal, and another editor stated that he knew of sources showing notability, and would add them to the article. I left the article so that they could provide the evidence of notability they both believed existed. Five months later they have not done so.

There are 13 sources cited in the article. At least 4 of those 13 don't even mention Myatt's Field South. Others merely briefly mention it in passing. (The most extreme case being a 32 page document which has no mention of Myatt's Field South except a footnote containing the document reference "Myatts Field South Development: LBL/BDD/1/92", which appears, as far as I can make out, to be merely a council record of phases in the building of the housing estate.) Many of them are about a dispute about heating on the estate, a single event in the 40 year or so history of the estate, and without significant coverage of the estate, as opposed to coverage of the dispute. One source is an obituary of the architect of the estate, which does not mention Myatt's Field South. Another is entirely about a nineteenth century estate in the same area, which had been demolished before Myatt's Field South was built. Two of them are about Myatts Field North, without any mention at all of Myatt's Field South.

Some of the sources are press releases, very local campaigning web sites, and so on. One of the sources is an interview with a resident of the estate named Ruth Lang, on a personal blog, consisting of Ruth Lang's personal reflections on the estate, such as the feeling that her contributing to the "gentrification" of the area "irks at [her] conscience". The article was created by a single-purpose account named Ruthlang.

The editor who contested the PROD gave an edit summary which said "it has received significant coverage from sources including the BBC, Evening Standard and Inside Housing, and is of historical architectural significance". However, the Evening Standard coverage is a brief report on the heating dispute, giving no substantial coverage of the estate, the BBC report is about Myatt's Field North, with no mention of Myatt's Field South, and in five months no source suggesting "historical architectural significance" has been produced.

In summary, no evidence at all has been produced which comes anywhere near to showing that this housing estate is notable in Wikipedia's terms. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All Ted Hollamby estates are notable. I have had to revert a major deletion that JamesBWatson made to this article in the past. There is a lot more to add, but the correct approach is to go to the talk page (currently empty) and discuss it there. There is work to be done on the construction methods, in this case some are wooden frame which is in itself notable. Of the 13 references given, there is still a lot of information to be gleaned. I have checked and the article is included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Social Housing in the United Kingdom articles to be improved list. ClemRutter (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm currently working on a project to improve coverage of Social Housing estates in the UK and this estate is an important historical example of an estate by Ted Hollamby. The subject area is very topical, with the discussion of housing issues in the UK and the Grenfell Tower disaster. There's just been a major documentary released on the housing crisis called Dispossession which looks at other Ted Hollamby estates which are currently threatened with demolition, meaning this could be one of the last of his estates still in tact. There are sources available in the local Minet Library archives which I need to access and still plan to, so I would really appreciate if you would give this article more time to develop, rather than repeatedly nominating it for deletion. Jwslubbock (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwslubbock, are there references that state "all of the Edward Hollamby estates are notable"? His works are not well known to me. It appears that every social housing estate has been added to the english wikipedia. I'm genuinely interested in why every estate is listed? I'm not sure that is similar to other articles on urban planning as social housing across the United States and Canada are not discussed on a settlement by settlement basis. That might be why there is AFD for this article. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean 'every social housing estate has been added to the English wikipedia'. The coverage of Social Housing on EN-WP is very poor, which is the reason for the WikiProject Social Housing in the UK. There are a good 17 or so references on that article now. I'm not sure how many more it's going to require to prove notability. Perhaps I could propose the following solution: the article could be renamed 'Myatt's Fields Estate', and then incoporate all the references to Myatt's Fields North Estate too, which has since been demolished. The North part received greater coverage in the national press when it was demolished, and I think it would be quite hard to say that an article on the entire estate including the North part would not pass notability guidelines. What would you say to that proposal?Jwslubbock (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a housing estate, with no evidence of notability. The arguments for keeping don't relate to Wikipedia policies. "All Ted Hollamby estates are notable" amounts to WP:ITSNOTABLE. You need to say why they are notable, not just state that they are. "Some are wooden frame which is in itself notable" - again, you have to say why, not just state that it is notable, and in any case are we really to believe that every group of houses which use wooden frames are notable? How many articles on housing estates would we have in that case? The fact that an editor put it in a list of article to be improved is not a proof of notability. The fact that a subject area is "very topical" has no connection to any notability guideline, and the speculation that this "could be" one of the last remaining estates by a particular architect hasn't either. The king of the sun (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand how you can state 'no evidence of notability' with all the references that exist. Notability on Wikipedia is about reliable, independent sources talking about the subject, and there are lots of sources there. It's notable because it's been talked about and described in multiple sources.Jwslubbock (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources comes near to being the kind of substantial coverage required by the notability guidelines. None of the reasons given for keeping stand up to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and Jwslubbock's arguments are based on several misconceptions about the guidelines, such as thinking that a large number of references supports notability. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm currently seeking opinion on a compromise solution, which would be to merge this into a bigger article called Myatt's Fields Estate which would include all the coverage of the demolition of the north part of the estate. I think that there is enough coverage for it to be notable, especially in reference to it being an example of Hollamby's work, but I think that the assumption that this is 'just another estate' is resulting in people discounting its historical and architectural merit.Jwslubbock (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is a growing impetus towards the importance of these these estates - those by Neave Brown (awarded the RIBA gold medal last week) have been listed already, and those by Ted Hollamby, including Cressingham Gardens, are gaining notoriety. As the estates were designed anonymously under the council's authorship, realisation as to their importance in London's architectural history is only just coming to light. The website referenced as a "personal blog" is actually the web presence of a published book, Modernist Estates, by the interviewer Stefi Orazi - there are two other books in this series featuring estates from Europe and America, and the inclusion of Myatts Fields in this survey reinforces its nascent relevance. The inclusion of the Estate enables the otherwise disparate information about this estate to have a home for its aggregation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthlang (talk • contribs) 14:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- As I've continued to argue, this estate is an important example of Ted Hollamby's work, which is covered by a number of the references listed, which means that it is not just another estate. There are numerous other references relating to aspects of the design and history of the estate. However, I would be willing to compromise with the people who simply want to delete this article because they don't seem to think that social housing estates are noteworthy by changing the article into a wider article on Myatt's Fields Estate, which would also include the now demolished North part of the estate. Doing this would allow the article to use the many other good references to the North part of the estate, and I think that would remove the objection that there aren't enough references specifically about the South part. I would be interested to hear from the people who want this deleted whether they would be satisfied with this resolution. Jwslubbock (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ClemRutter, ~~North America 1000~~ Ruthlang and Jwslubbock — OwenBlacker (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nb. I haven't contributed to this discussion; I only provided deletion sorting. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Doh! I misread the wikitext because Ruthlang hadn't signed her comment. Corrected now :) — OwenBlacker (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: While preventing this article from deletion is important, more important is to understand each others point of view. There are two guidelines to consider and one legal interpretation. If we can solve them here it will save a lot of future trouble.
- WP:GEOLAND All settlements are presumed notable, and a housing estate is a settlement. The text actually says :

Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable.

Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis.

legally recognized places seems to be the keywords. A quick google on legally recognized mainly finds legally recognized marriage- in the UK all land has a legal status, and a legal owner. In France we look at the Cadastre. From the London perspective, that has been documented since 1215. (Maybe the article Unincorporated area is helpful in explaining legal differences, maybe not)

WP:GEOLAND goes on to give examples of locations that may be considered places without legal recognition which should be considered on a case by case basis. These are examples not policy, aren't they? Within the list is the technical term housing developments. To me, a builder buys a plot of land, and submits an application to build one to 50 houses on it, to the Local Planning Authority, if approved, foundations are dug and the housing development goes ahead. The recommendation is that housing developments are considered on a case-by-case. The examples do not include housing estates or housing schemes. Nor should they because housing estates are legal entities, in the main designed and built by the municipal authority with public money on publically owned land and were owned by the municipal authority. The population of such a settlement can run from a few hundred to almost 100,000. Contrast Myatt's Fields South Estate 324 with rural settlements such as Planken population in text 366.

WP:SIGCOV WP:GNG Is the fall back position, but again all housing estate will easily jump this low hurdle, if we were to take this on a case-by-case. Significant, reliable, indepentant, sources. Two sources will establish notability. Every year, details of the finances of the estate will appear in the housing revenue account, of the audited accounts of the local authority (some will be on line- some will be on paper in the authority archives The beauty of this source is that it is a legal document that has been signed off by independent auditors commissioned the full council. There is always a paper record of the planning appraisal made before the estate was built. Due to changes in local government powers the management of all estates has been tendered and awarded to a private company. This resulted in further appraisals and often significant press coverage, in local papers and the national building press. BDOnline (paywall to read- but searchable free). For notablity we only have to prove coverage, not to give detailed page references.

There is a lot to take on board there- but I have written it up to generate comments, then refine the text, and to gain a consensus which we can encapsulate in message template to be used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Social Housing in the United Kingdom.

ClemRutter (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the work you've done to look at this from a policy point of view, ClemRutter. I think these kinds of considerations are important for subjects where a historical lack of interest in the worth of a particular subject creates a situation where there are few prominent references available. This is really important when it comes to topics that are poorly covered by Wikipedia because of a dearth of available sources - biographies of notable women, indigenous and minority cultures with minimal written records, and people who have little access to information technology with which to create easily citable references. I think that it's important to consider social housing developments in this context, because they often house poorer, working class and minority ethnic communities, and therefore have received historically less interest in their importance than other types of settlement or construction. I think that we should be very careful about dismissing such places as inherently non-notable unless something of significant national importance has happened there, especially when many of these settlements are currently under threat of being demolished in the next decade to make way for expensive houses for metropolitan elites. Establishing the notability of settlements including housing estates is an important issue for the many other potential articles which could be created on housing estates which currently have no Wikipedia page, and perhaps this discussion could be linked to in Wikipedia:WikiProject Social Housing in the United Kingdom? Jwslubbock (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Yes, from wigan.gov.uk --Synnior22 (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)— Synnior22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User:Synnior22 has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a WP:MILL housing estate with some coverage about a dispute over maintenance. I don't think it meet WP:GEOLAND, and it isn't close to being encyclopedic in any other way. There might be a larger topic it could be merged to, but I don't see any that exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but do not agree with you interpretation and it needs to be challenged. To quote from WP:GEOLAND from Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features).

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."- this is a pass- therefore presumed NOTABLE.

Looking down to

"Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."

As a development of Ted Hollamby this is a estate of historic architectural importance- we are short on online references, but paper records will abound and available in the London reference libraries, and in places such as the AA and RIBA libraries. A editor living in London needs to visit one of them.

You quote WP:MILL which is an essay, that has a distinctly US tone and again and the authors opinion is that a Housing development is Run-of-the-mill. I looked for notable reference on Housing development, the article is tagged article, I cleaned up the two references given . Housing development makes it very clear that Housing development (US) and a publically funded Housing estate(UK) are not the same. I am disturbed that this posting confuses the Housing estate with a 'run of the mill housing development'

From Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features):Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Here we have at least 3 notable features Hollamby- woodframed construction in public housing and the LCC/Lambeth transitiion. Plenty to fulfil the notability.

Thanks for the intervention, it will help to form precedence.ClemRutter (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the first two points you cite from WP:GEOLAND, the first is not relevant as this is not a "populated, legally recognized place". That phrase refers to settlements such as villages, hamlets, parishes, wards etc. A housing estate within a city is not a legally recognised place any more than a single house is. The second point is however driectly relevant and what this discussion should focus on.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a problem with "Populated, legally recognized (sic) places" do you have a accepted UK definition- in my limited library and online I cannot find a UK definition. When contracts were written by the Environmental Services department of the local authority on which I sat, the name of an estate was used to define the area, I have difficulty in defining the limits a hamlet in the UK context, though we broadly know what it means. (This ties in with a discussion we are having at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead- description of settlement). I think also that your understanding of the legal status of the planning committee differs from mine. As a member of the planning we were constantly lectured by the City Solicitor about our role and the need to demonstrate independence, if the application for planning permission was made from another department of the council, members who sat on the controlling committee had to find a substitute and depending on the issue, definitely not vote, probably not speak and often leave the room. Defending a decision at judicial review would have blown the council budget. To my mind, for those reasons, the members appraisal in a planning document is independent, the application document from a direct works department on submission would not be, but would be when it was published and archived. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus doesn't exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 04:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The question is whether there is discussion in detail about this estate in reliable, third-party sources. This coverage shouldn't just be about run-of-the-mill issues such as maintenance disputes but should be about the estate itself. The reasons for this are given at WP:WHYN - we need this in order to be able to write a balanced article. So even if this estate is considered to be of importance for whatever reasons, unless we can find this sources, we shouldn't have an article about it, for the reasons listed at WP:WHYN.

The source Modernist Estates is a website that is marketing properties on the estate. It is clearly not an independent source, and therefore neither is the booked detailed on the website.
@Jwslubbock I note you have added the source "Lambeth Architecture, 1965-99", however this is not available online. Could you let us know the depth of coverage about this estate in that book?
The source ""Myatts Fields South Phases IVa, V and VI. Lambeth Council. 1974. pp. LBL/BDD/1/92/3."" is a planning document published by the council and is therefore not an independent source suitable for establishing notability.
The English Heritage report "HOUSING IN LAMBETH 1965–80 AND ITS NATIONAL CONTEXT - A THEMATIC STUDY" does not discuss this estate in detail.
None of the other sources currently listed discuss the estate in detail.

The article doesn't therefore contain sufficient sources to meet WP:N. The contention is that there will invariably be such sources, because this estate is of historic significance, but that these sources are not accessible via Google. I tried a more thorough search via a legal deposit library, and while this search returned some results for Myatt's Field North, nothing was found on Myatt's Field South. This search includes books, newspapers, and publications such as The Estates Gazette, Progress in Planning and Construction News. If there are articles discussing the estate in detail languishing in hardcopy in local libraries then the question is - what are they and who are they published by? In the absence of such sources we can't write a balanced article that details the historic significance of this estate. I would suggest that the article is therefore deleted, but if multiple suitable sources come to light, an editor can ask an admin to restore the deleted article to draftspace where those sources can be added to establish notability before the article is restored. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always love it when we are right, and supposedly reliable sources are wrong. Run the search again : with exact match "myatts field south" omitting the apostrophe!ClemRutter (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources are those which are wrong? No one has yet revealed any independent reliable sources that discuss this subject in detail. I did run the search again without the apostrophe as you suggested, yielding two results neither of which represent significant coverage in reliable sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can't look at the results- I am the wrong side of the pay wall, but we are not looking for significant independant coverage in every reference at this stage- just that a reference exist. It is tricky to sort out WP:policies from WP: guidelines and project POVs and interpretations. (my text)

I think you are being too dismissive of the views of Ruth Lang,(link) published on the Modernist blog- which is highly regarded. She obviously is big in architectural history and the London scene.

All we have to do here is prove that there is sufficient out there to build up notable article not to deliver a ready made GA. At this stage we are looking for proof the estate exists and there are some references to it, and that really will be sufficient to get it up to a B. If this were my baby, I would want to get into a Lambeth reference library or the RIBA library and to investigate Ted Hollamby further, and the wood frame construction that was used. Someone should also start looking at Myatt's Field North and see if there is an easy article there, but looking at the Modernist site it appears we have a major tome coming out on Sidney Cook (architect). ClemRutter (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has mentioned WP:GA, we just need to satisfy WP:GNG. Ted Hollamby, Myatt's Field North, and the construction technique may all be notable, but unless we can find find sufficient in-depth sources discussing Myatt's Fields South Estate per WP:WHYN, then we don't have enough for this article. I don't want to bludgeon this discussion by going around in circles so I will end my input here and leave others to judge the arguments.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I thinks we should keep this article first for generally meeting some points of WP:GNG. (And it's not hard rule to meet all). Second, Wikipedia documents history for posterity, this article at least has substantial historical claims which are well sourced. This article may not have the wide WP:SIGCOV that will convince everybody here to easily change their !vote due to the inherent nature of the subject. And this is clearly reflected in WP:GEOLAND guideline, it is very relaxed compared to other criteria, because everything is assessed on their on merit and nature, that's why we have tens of specific guidelines and general ones, so that by weighing against varying criteria we come to reasonable conclusion of whether to include or exclude. — Ammarpad (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This estate has significant architectural history, as well as importance that comes from the population size that has lived there, comparable to many smaller towns in WP:GEOLAND. We should cover urban communities too, particularly those that are publicly organized. There is significant coverage on its own for this, in my opinion, though I could also see someone merging up to Myatt's Fields estates to cover the North Estate too.--Pharos (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with above.Leutha (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John McPhee (Ret. Special Forces)[edit]

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

Promotional biography on a borderline notable at best soldier who has some minor TV appearances. Has all the hallmarks of undeclared paid editing as well, and as such should also be considered for deletion as a TOU violation on a BLP. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no real evidence of notability. Should have been deleted via speedy G5. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He jumped and didn't die. Non-notable SOLDIER. non-notable reality contestant. non-notable business man. Sources out there do not satisfy GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete., not notable; passing trivia. Kierzek (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN former NCO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person, who might be worth a footnote for his actions which disrupted others attempts to create works of art, but nothing of note on himself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Books[edit]

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

No reliable and independent source found on the subject. Not notable enough to be featured in an encyclopedia. Dial911 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no reliable source coverage either — even on a ProQuest search to catch older coverage that might not show up on Google, I got exactly zero hits for this at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable small company failing all criterion of WP:CORP. The page itself seems written like essay just for the sake of company's existence — Ammarpad (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted, clear G11 fish&karate 10:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AEI Media[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Cited to itself / WP:SPIP sources and does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Family History Society[edit]

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

Geneaological society that doesn't appear to have been the subject of any actual journalistic or scholarly coverage; fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- I do not believe local family history societies are likely to be notable; they are not learned societies, though no doubt they do good work in transcribing records, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. Geneaological societies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuhiko Yoshino[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. All sources primary or from wrestling database with no criteria for inclusion. Nikki♥311 01:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Article has poor references, but <ref>http://puroresuspirit.net/guts-world/tatsuhiko-yoshino/</ref><ref>http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2016/10/27/tatsuhiko-yoshino-small-things/</ref><ref>https://dramaticddt.wordpress.com/tag/tatsuhiko-yoshino/</ref> exist, as I'm sure some stuff on F4WOnline. Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PW/RS. Puroresuspirit.net and voicesofwrestling.com are not reliable sources. DramaticDDT is primary. They do not establish notability. Nikki♥311 16:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no one has yet identified any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried? We don't delete based on what other people haven't tried to find. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The subject competes in Puroresu, which is the Japanese version of professional wrestling. As such, according to WP:NATHLETE, pro wrestlers fall under the WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines. And based on what the article says, he appears like he might meet criterion #1 in that guideline. The article sourcing is terrible, I agree. In the case of specific guidelines for certain professions, however, sources aren't the point; rather, the guideline criteria must be examined. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding, the promotions he has worked for are all smaller independent promotions rather than major promotions, and he has only held championships in one of them. Does this meet "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."? If anything, that is a significant role in one company, which doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER. Nikki♥311 05:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikki311: I was referring to "Guts World" and "Big Japan" performances as described in the article to meet the criterion of "multiple". Whether those are notable, I cannot say, hence my qualifier of "weak". ~Anachronist (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable wrestler. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cleat (shoe)#Lacrosse. If this was more recently created than 2013, this would be a clear A10 candidate. As it is, though, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and this is covered at Cleat (shoe)#Lacrosse in greater detail. Therefore, I am boldly closing this to redirect to that target. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrosse cleats[edit]

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

Not different than cleats in general. No sources, orphan. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Sym[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly an in detail. No claim of notability or significance; does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Article is cited to blogs, interviews, and online directories. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, minor and trivial work and interest. Kierzek (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though I ran into the article by accident and attempted to correct what was there, in the end it adds nothing, as the only 'noteworthy' thing she has done is being one of the many Playboy bunnies. The latter can be found on a single Playboy page as well, for those who are interested.Forage (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has been criticized for having way too many articles on pornographic actresses. Sym might not quite qualify as such, but the over coverage of women who have been feautured in certain publications such as the one she is mentioned in the lead as having been in, is part of the same generalized problem of the choices made on who to have articles on in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The solution is to write more articles on other subjects, not to delete ones to meet some arbitrary quota based on moral objections. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atmail[edit]

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

Not notable,fails WP:V and WP:GNG. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 2 November 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, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is a bit of RS material out there but it does not look all that strong. If I can find time I might have a closer and more detailed look and I might swing over to weak keep but not for now. Aoziwe (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews reveals solely industry press. I would say it needs some mainstream press coverage to get it passing WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter[edit]

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

Not all Star Wars novels are notable, this one fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. No reviews, no critical reception, awards, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly for procedural reasons. Yes, it may well be true that "not all Star Wars novels are notable", and it's almost certainly true that just being a Star Wars novel does not in itself infer notability. But a look at the contents of {{Star Wars Legends novels}} indicates that very nearly all of them have articles, with only one exception that isn't either a YA novel (of which all but two have articles) or an ebook supplement to a novel. Considering this, this is something that needs a discussion at the relevant WikiProject/s as to whether or not "being a Star Wars book" should equal "has an article", and if the answer is "no" then there needs to be a mass redirection (to either a series article, such as Star Wars: The Last of the Jedi, or to List of Star Wars books) of the articles in question. Until then, individual articles shouldn't be sniped at AfD, either as good faith "oh, this isn't notable" nominations (such as this one) or as the sort of "we'll whittle this down one by one" sort of pointiness that I've seen too often, alas, to be able to rule out somebody getting the idea of when they read this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping something. If you think there are many similar problematic articles (and I agree), yes, RfC or such would be useful, but in the meantime, deletion of such articles will further show that there is consensus for taking action. And SW project is notified, assuming they use the Article Alerts function. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not comfortable with the concept of "these all need to be deleted, so let's establish a consensus one by one". I've seen that abused in too many areas to trust it being used responsibly anymore. If there's a batch of articles that are, as a group, a problem, they need to be deleted as a group or not at all. Having one article redlinked when everything else on the subject has an article is tempting ridicule and - more importantly - an invitation for the article to be recreated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger. Presumably many Star Wars novel articles fall into the class of " articles created when notability guidelines were looser and should no longer have standalone articles." But Star Wars novels as a class have multiple targets for merging, whether that is a (potentially hypothetical) article on the series that the book is part of, or a list of Star Wars books. Star Wars novels as a class is certainly notable, so it would make much more sense to have a discussion at a relevant WikiProject forum and ID Star Wars novels that should be upmerged into a series page/list article as an alternative to deletion. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not always an invalid argument, when used to argue that articles which are obviously in the same class (e.g. Star Wars novels) should be treated consistently unless there is good reason not to, that's an entirely valid argument. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep An RFC on how/when to group the lesser books or where to create standalone articles would be IMHO a better course than AfD, AfD is too blunt an instrument without grouping all potential ~~victims~~ articles together which would only result in a no consensus keep anyway. Gnan garra 01:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my web research this novel looks notable. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the Google News link above, I do see book reviews or mentions in apparently RS'es, making the WP:GNG arguably met and requiring an appropriate amendment to the nomination statement to encompass them. Further, the above suggestions to merge multiple expanded universe novels together provide a policy-based alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-M. As a general rule, material in large franchises like Star Wars can be much better and less controversially improved through merging. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rwibutso ivan[edit]

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

Does not satisfy general notability or biographical notability. Purely promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could have just tagged CSD-G11, though people from Rwanda are very under represented group on en.wp Gnan garra 01:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and more mention of the subject's media platform than the subject itself. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject doesn't have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Also head of an organization which is not notable, is not notable. '--Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "wordhcmc.com/images/printmag/The_Word_Ho_Chi_Minh_City_December_2010.pdf" (PDF). Word HCMC. Retrieved 9 November 2017.

[2] "Detusche TrendchartsDUC Charts 34 - Deutsche Trendcharts". trendcharts. Retrieved 9 November 2017.

[3] "DJ Seip - Actmondo". Actmondo. Retrieved 9 November 2017.

[4] "Mustafa Alin - Wikipedia". wikipedia. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[5] "Artists - MTV". mtv.

[6] "DJ seip Ft. Mnssh - Künstler - VIVA". viva.

[7] "DJ Seip - Photos". facebook.

[8] "Alex Offener Kanal Berlin". wikipedia.

[9] "Deutsche TrendchartsDUC Charts 43 - Deutsche Trendcharts". Trendcharts.

[10] "Deutsche TrendchartsDUC Charts 42 - Deutsche Trendcharts". trendcharts.

[11] "What Are the Cahnces? (2016) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb". Wa-com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]