Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 October 6 October >

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Traintalk 09:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhakar Sharan[edit]

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

Little significant coverage in multiple, major, reliable sources that suggests she passes WP:NACTOR. DrStrauss talk 22:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- @DrStrauss: sources point out that the subject in question is a male actor.  FITINDIA  13:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the error. Still woefully fails the criteria above though. DrStrauss talk 15:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been speedily deleted under criterion A10 by Alex Shih. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 10:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Al Asaad[edit]

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

While her story is inspiring, the coverage provided is passing and I doubt the article meets WP:ANYBIO. DrStrauss talk 22:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • DrStrauss - it looks like this person also has another article, Iqbal Mahmoud Al Assad. I'm not voting for or against deletion overall, but I do note that the older entry claims that they've won some sort of award. The source doesn't go to the correct news article, so we'll likely need someone who can search in Arabic to see if they can find the correct source. I'll drop a line at one of the applicable WikiProjects to see if someone can do a search - and so they can tell us if this award is major or not. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I do see some more sources in a BEFORE, but not enough for GNG. Amenable to changing my vote if tgere are significant Arabic sources out there.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete a 20-year-old is not a "child prodigy" so we have sources misusing terms. Being a prodigy is not a claim to being a notable person, and under no circumstances are people in medical residency notable. So the whole article has no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mostly per Johnpacklambert. Where's the notability? -- Dane talk 20:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to note that this is a duplicate article and that there is a lot more coverage in the Arabic Wikipedia entry. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged this as a duplicate and if overall deletion is to occur, I'd like it to be judged against the original entry. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Iqbal Mahmoud Al Assad and work on improving that one. Zerotalk 02:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we should discuss both here. Looking at the sources at Iqbal Mahmoud Al Assad - it does not seem to pass GNG. She had some coverage in 2013 for her graduation at the age of 20 (and most of the sources covering this event are basically covering the same thing). Other than that, she was listed in [1] in 2016 (Arabic, place 82) - mostly for being a young doctor. What are the grounds for notability?Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Traintalk 09:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosewood Mansion on Turtle Creek[edit]

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

No evidence that this hotel has any notability , or for that matter, any significance. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion had it not been around since 2007. The only one potentially useful ref reads like a promo piece. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – There are no good references to be found to support. Non notable subject. NerudaPoet (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a restaurant helmed by Michelin-starred chefs. Why would you delete this? It's a Dallas landmark. http://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/the-mansions-bruno-davaillon-a-star-is-born-down-on-the-farm-7036550 Pawsplay (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not even the only restaurant in Dallas associated with that chef.He’s opening a new one and described as an ex-Mansion chef in coverage of his new restaurant. I haven’t seen anything indicating lasting notability for the Mansion, just the chef, who might be notable enough for his own page. A restaurant that at one point had a Michelin-starred chef, however, does not (it could be a mention on the chef’s page, again if the chef is notable). Shelbystripes (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoundCloud rap[edit]

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

Despite the mess caused by recent sockpuppets, this article has no sources that would meet WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE only shows passing mentions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and improve. Music magazines and pop music critics have certainly been devoting attention to this sub-genre, even if it is nebulously defined. Music critic Jon Caramanica devoted a feature-length article on SoundCloud rap in The New York Times , noting the sub-genre "in the last year has become the most vital and disruptive new movement in hip-hop thanks to rebellious music, volcanic energy and occasional acts of malevolence".[1] Rolling Stone and Complex have devoted print to the movement,[2][3] while Spin contrasted the sub-genre's popularity with the troubles of SoundCloud the company itself.[4] I've added "find sources: SoundCloud hip hop" above to find additional material. I say develop the article as much as possible and prudent, and if it's no longer a "thing" in a year, I'd have no objection to being merged into a appropriate broader article such as Alternative hip hop or Underground hip hop, to contextualize and consolidate the plethora of micro-genre stubs— as music journalist Mosi Reeves notes: "Before SoundCloud rap was a phenomenon feted by Rolling Stone, the New York Times, Complex, and dozens of lesser trend-hunter publications, there was Tumblr rap, the nickname briefly given to buzzy acts like SpaceGhostPurrp and Antwon; and MySpace rap, which yielded "hipster rappers" like the Cool Kids, Uffie, Pase Rock, and Amanda Blank."[5]

References

  1. ^ Caramanica, Jon (June 22, 2017). "The Rowdy World of Rap's New Underground". The New York Times.
  2. ^ Turner, David (June 1, 2017). "Look At Me!: The Noisy, Blown-Out SoundCloud Revolution Redefining Rap". Rolling Stone.
  3. ^ Holmes, Charles (August 30, 2017). "The Who's Who of SoundCloud rap". Complex.
  4. ^ Sargent, Jordan (July 14, 2017). "Why Soundcloud Rap Couldn't Save Soundcloud". Spin.
  5. ^ Reeves, Mosi. "A Brief History of SoundCloud Rap". The Dowsers: A Magazine About Playlists. Retrieved 8 August 2017.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nom withdraw, any further issues can be resolved on article talk. (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 15:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Resources Institute[edit]

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

This article is promotional, entirely primary sourced, and needs so much work that it ought to be deleted or moved to draftspace. A WP:BEFORE reveals a number of passing mentions, but I am struggling to find any substantial coverage. Dysklyver 21:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2012 and 2014 NYT references, so not ""entirely primary sourced". X1\ (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't seem any more or less self-promotional than any other non-profit's wiki page. Insofar as it is, it ought to be easy enough to clean up various non-objective assessments. --Jon rainheart (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Users have added secondary sources and revised language to address the promotional aspect cited above.--Lauraleedooley (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the issues are still there, the section titled 'Initiatives' is both unreferenced and filled with external links to the organizations own website, I am not aware that government departments and non-profits have some special exemption to our rules regarding the promotional nature of mission statements, almost word for word paraphrasing of a press release in the lead, and wording like 'Under the leadership of'. That said, I will run over it myself since I reckon this can be kept as a basic article now. Dysklyver 15:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three (2011 album)[edit]

Three (2011 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per original PROD by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: No significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:NALBUMS. PROD was removed by page creator with the rationale "I created it last night, so it should not be proposed for deletion" given at Talk:Three (2011 album) RA0808 talkcontribs 21:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 21:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 21:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PROD rationale. Author needs to become familiar with notability requirements for Wikipedia. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte easily fails WP:NALBUMS, no references to show notability. NZFC(talk) 21:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable source provided. – electricController 23:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ. Technically no consensus between merge or redirect, so going by redirect and anybody interested should move material over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZZ Gundam[edit]

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

Similar to the former Z Gundam article, this article is predominantly primary sourced and does not pass WP:GNG as independently notable. More suitable for the Gundam Wikia, where a page on it already exists. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 21:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sourced content only to Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ. No need to waste sources even if they are primary it is better than nothing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are concerned about WP:PRESERVE you can migrate them to the Gundam Wikia where an article on this mech currently exists. Even if something's primary sourced it can still be cruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect; whether it can be merged doesn't need to be discussed at AfD, and the history won't be deleted. —innotata 10:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 William C. Woxlin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post Inferno Soundtrack[edit]

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

Non-notable album, article unreferenced for over a decade and searching the artist and album name on google books / news retrieves no results. Does not pass WP:GNG and the article in its current state is almost entirely original research. – filelakeshoe )³ 14:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to William Johansson. I suggest redirecting articles per WP:BOLD next time instead of AfD-ing as it would save time. — Zawl 16:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 21:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the artist per WP:BLAR and WP:NOPAGE. The album is not independently notable as it fails all the provisions of WP:NALBUM but could serve as a useful redirect as it's a somewhat plausible search term. DrStrauss talk 22:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VAG-COM[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline because VCDS software, or VAG-COM, has not been the primary subject of any significant coverage in any independent sources. There is passing mention of the existence of this product in a few product roundup lists, e.g. PC-Welt but that's it. The most extensive coverage is a total of four paragraphs in the book Water-Cooled VW Performance Handbook: 3rd Edition If Ross-Tech LLC were notable, it could be merged per WP:PRODUCT into that, but the company itself has also only received passing mention. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were also in PC mag and European Car according to Talk:VAG-COM#Ross-Tech along with with some scans of the articles. 96.54.57.109 (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 21:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Clbsfn (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JOYRYDE[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO). Regular name changes doesn't help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 21:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:MUSIC BIO, #11: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." He was prominently featured on BBC Radio, the largest radio station in Great Britain. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04m435n Also, a google news search for "JOYRYDE" will reveal numerous news articles from websites such as DJ Mag, Your EDM, Run The Trap, EDM Sauce, Earmilk, EDM Tunes, EDM Identity, and EDM Chicago, that would count as significant coverage, not just passing mentions. And his upcoming collaboration with Skrillex will boost his popularity. Abiding by WP:Crystal, I won't argue that this will increase his news coverage, since we should not predict things that may or may not happen. However, any producer who releases a collaboration with Skrillex will without a doubt receive an influx of people who discovered them through Skrillex. This much, at the very least, can be assumed about the collaboration: that the amount of people listening to JOYRYDE will increase. From this, it can be inferred that his overall popularity will increase. Whether that will cause an increase in news coverage remains to be seen. Clbsfn (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumes again. And I'm sure the Beeb wrote at-length about the subject... Oh. They didn't? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This seems like a bad faith nomination: the nomination statement is talking about something that isn't present in the article, and the only users making delete arguments are low-edit count IPs. A Traintalk 09:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. Visweswaran[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NMUSIC and GNG and is not inherited based on his wife Atomsnudge999 (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to meet GNG. Note that there is no mention at all in the article, of the subject having a wife. I'm sure there is nothing untoward at all in this nomination being Atomsnudge999's first ever edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 17:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 17:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and also Nmusic .His wife is the famous dancer Chitra Visweswaran.But R. Visweswaran is not notable by himself ,just an average Santoor player a graded artist in All India radio has given performances abroad.But there is nothing notable about him.182.65.88.95 (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I AM FROM CHENNAI he is just one of the many santoor players very average musican.122.164.255.107 (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring the significant socking, I only see two legitimate editors arguing to keep, and their arguments aren't supported by policy. For example, the number of people editing an article is no indication of WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Sehil[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet the WP:NACTOR guidelines -- Habertix (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Tipsygunny (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability standard is met by the reliable and verifiable sources provided. PapiLombardo (talk)
  • KEEP The article was created in 2015 and has been modified by many Wikipedia contributors. John Sehil has played in films and television series for 11 years and has been credited several times in the credits. All the sources prove his participation as an actor. Gisèle Latueva (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 27 September 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments so far have been variations on "he's notable" / "he's not notable" - can people expand on this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I suspect sockpuppetry...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, the two French AfDs dealing with this article had to deal with a significant amount of meat/sockpuppetry, ending up with blocking of the corresponding SPAs. Since then, new suspicious accounts have appeared to recreate the French article. --Azurfrog (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources in the article, or that I can find elsewhere, do any more than list the subject in the minor credits of a film, and, before you ask, I understand French. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources appear to be valid and reliable. He has a career spanning over over 10 years and has been in a significant number of films and TV movies. The article is encyclopedic and not promotional in nature. He has a following and the number of editors who have edited the article attests to this matter.Knox490 (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I failed to establish notability through NACTOR or the GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Combination of performing in many roles. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable for the en.wiki. Many of the above !voters apepar to be sleepers/SPAs who are showing up after months and years of inactivity. As much as I would like to AGF they are legit !voters, I have seen this too often. spi cu bean! L3X1 (distænt write) 13:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the process of filing I noticed that the nom had notified them all, so I do not question their motives for showing up. That they aren't the same person, however is a different question. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rony David[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Notability is not conferred by a single reference to an IMDB entry. Fails criteria at WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree does not meet WP:NACTOR and lacks WP:CS--EC Racing (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is tricky, but I will still give it a go. He has been part of many notable movies, mainly as the comic sidekick, and recently got a lot of praise for his role in Aanandam. I could not find many sources in English which talk in depth about the said person, though a cursory search can provide a lot of references were his name is listed among the cast members, while discussing movies he has been a part off. There are however better in depth sources about him in Malayalam - This is one from Mathrubhumi and this is one from Malayala Manorama, both of which are quality newspapers and talk in depth about him. This is an interview with him in Reporter TV and here is a feature about him in Mangalam Weekly and another in Vellinakshatram. There are also a host of references in which he discusses the medical facts about the death of his friend Rajesh Pillai, as the said person is probably the only actor in the Malayalam industry who is a qualified physician. This is in International Business Times, this appeared in Madhyamam Daily, this appeared in Oneindia, this in Kairali TV's website and this in Asianet. Probably should remain. Jupitus Smart 17:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Jupitus Smart has been an editor since 2013 and he spent a lot of time defending his position in seemingly sound arguments. Google translate was useless in translating the material I attempted to read. Unless we have another good faith editor who is able to examine User:Jupitus Smart claims and refute them, I think the article should be kept. Wikipedia is often criticized for being the province of Western, white tech males who often poorly handle articles having to do non-Western and/or developing countries. There is no reason to give Wikipedia's critics more ammunition by deleting the article when it does not appear reasonable to delete it. Knox490 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Passes GNG.Per Jupitus.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 07:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG easily. -- Dane talk 20:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has good coverage. Passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Martian (Weir novel). Compromise between those who want the article gone and those who think there is salvageable material: The article is removed, but the page history preserved for merger-ers (and discussion of what if anything is mergeable). As noted, that a different topic merits an article does not mean that this one does. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ares program (The Martian)[edit]

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

Removed prod, of non-notable fictional organization. Sadads (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-noteable fictional organization. Could easily be explained on the book's page, if needed. Comatmebro (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Martian (Weir novel), cutting down as necessary. Artw (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but, a page about a chess game in the 2001: A Space Odyssey film can exist, but my page must be deleted? It is not fair. --Aledownload (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This argument probably comes up in every other deletion debate, but see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why it's a wrong argument. Notability is determined only by how many reliable sources exist, not by how similar one article is to the next. Those sources also must be about the subject of the article, not whatever the article is featured in.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a minor part of the novel and movie. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to the movie. Not notable in itself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:ATD-M; none of the above !voters explain why merging is inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's there to merge? Ares 3 brought him to Mars, and he hoped to rendezvous with Ares 4. All else is in-universe background material. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be the content of the article in question that gets merged. Were you asking something else? Sure, it could be rewritten from the primary sources, but that's just a petty move when some editor went and did all the work already, just not in an independently notable article. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I'm getting at is that the synopses in both articles are just fine without the extra program details. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main article. Does not have reliable sources on its own to support an article. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There is no real reason to keep this article separately, in universe commentary should not be on Wikipedia unless it had major impact on reality, which this has not. The main article may or may not benefit from this material, I will not comment on that. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 13:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources themselves define the topic as not notable...although a merge into the principal article should be fine. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tension here is between the reliably reported fact that this event happened, and the fact that civil disturbances characterized as riots are common enough that this one can be considered an unremarkable example. There is a clear consensus for deletion among experienced editors. The arguments of IPs are heard, but given reduced weight because it is impossible to know the degree to which an IP editor is experienced with Wikipedia standards for inclusion. I would be glad to refund this to the user space of any editor (non IP) who would like to work on merging the content into a reasonable merge target. bd2412 T 03:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worli riots[edit]

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

A POV article, made by a promotional disruptive sock,[5] and defended by a sock of same sockfarm.[6] Article lacks notability and the "riots" have no notability. Only passing mentions that can be covered in Worli. Such incidents are common and they don't deserve their own article. Capitals00 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "a grinding stone was thrown"... um ok. Perhaps if someone could find who it was that got killed, it could be merged. otherwise I concur with the nom. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Worli or Delete I would support a merge wholly, except, as AGuyIntoBooks points out, the information in this article as it stands is unfortunately too vague. I would therefore be in agreement with either merging or deletion. MartinJones (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep The riots continued until April, were the subject of court inquiry, notable at the time in press reports and much discussed in books dealing with Dalit politics, among other topics. I added a couple references to the article. I can't comment as to sockpuppet issues, otherwise this would be a keep !vote, outright. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many such riots take place and "were the subject of court inquiry", but since there has been lack of discussion and lack of any important details or notability, they don't deserve an article. Capitals00 (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See, e.g., Anupama Rao (2009). The Caste Question: Dalits and the Politics of Modern India. University of California Press. pp. 199–203. ISBN 9780520257610. which contains a five page section entitled "The 1974 Riots" for an example of such discussion demonstrating notability: "Riots in the Worli area of central Bombay, which began in the Bombay Development Department (BDD) chawls (tenements) on January 5, 1974 are an important landmark in Dalit politics." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already read and don't see anything more than what had been already provided by the promotional sock to prove notability. WP:EVENTCRITERIA says "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." This one fails the criteria. Capitals00 (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being written about in length as "an important landmark" in a book published by a respected university press thirty-three years after the events took place is almost literally the textbook definition of "lasting, historical significance". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. Another good ref: R N Sharma; C A K Yesudian (January 1983). "Group Violence in a Neighbourhood - A Case Study of Worli BDD Chawls in Bombay". Indian Journal of Social Work. 43 (4): 420–421. Retrieved 2017-09-22.. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very minimal amount of information and lack of research or dedicated studies confirms these are random. May get a one liner on Worli whenever that article is expanded, but nothing more than that. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- The fact that the riots were serious enough to require a judicial enquiry and then have been the subject of an academic article suggests notability, but I do not really know. India has a long history of inter-communal violence. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NRIOT and WP:NDISTURBANCE. :) L3X1 (distænt write) 01:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources added by the IP indicate that the subject has lasting significance, as it is still being covered in depth years later. I'm not seeing any argument as to why these sources do not demonstrate notability. Hut 8.5 20:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 03:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has been demonstrated above that this has been covered in very reliable secondary sources. We seem, at Wikipedia, to get tied up in knots about things like "lasting coverage" because we follow the completely idiosyncratic definition of secondary sources to include news reports, which everyone outside Wikipedia treats rightly as primary sources. If we were stop doing this then we could treat events the same way as any other topics, i.e. that they should be covered in genuine secondary sources, as this one is. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:LASTING ,"a grinding stone was thrown" is not a significant incident in India and as per WP:NOTNEWS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is claiming that it is the throwing of a grinding stone that is notable, but the riots that followed. How are the sources provided above by 24.151.10.165 not evidence of lasting coverage in non-news reliable sources? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would question your addition of the {{notavote}} template, which prejudices the discussion. Do you have any evidence of canvassing? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete comes as one of the thousands of incidents· that take place everywhere. Fails WP:LASTING. Lorstaking (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was getting extensive coverage in academic sources decades later, how is that not lasting coverage? Hut 8.5 09:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This kind of political violence happens everyday, in every district of world's second most populated country, with hundreds of small, big, medium political parties. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I agree the editors who voted to delete for the reasons they gave. I especially agree with the last two recommendations to delete which point out the great multitude of violent incidents and that the article fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING.Knox490 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that none of the editors calling for deletion has addressed the existence of secondary non-news reliable sources from decades after these events. Can we please talk to each other by replying to the points made by other editors rather than give opinions that take no account of the previous discussion? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These riots resulted in six deaths and the police opened fire on the rioters many times. The fact that these riots were described in a book published 35 years later as "an important landmark in Dalit politics" shows notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 17:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criminology (film)[edit]

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

Unnotable movie nominated for an unnotable award. Created by SPA to promote actor. Imdb only source. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The film festival is notable:
https://filmfreeway.com/festival/TheIndieGathering
The movie has been nominated for an award in this notable festival:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3180310/awards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigs2update (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The award given the film does not compensate for the general lack of notability of the film. I did a Google search and found nothing of noteworthy and it had a limited number of search results.[7] . The film appears to have had little impact on society judging by its Google search profile and lack of coverage from major news outlets.Knox490 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and Jasper: A Ferret Tale[edit]

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

Completely unnotable. Director won minor awards at minor festivals. Only source is imdb. Created by SP promotional account ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this film festival were indeed minor like one person claimed it was, then there would not be a Wikipedia page created for it. The mere fact that an undisputed Wikipedia profile exists for Canada International Film Festival is the untamperable evidence that it is a major film festival thus qualifying "Jake and Jasper: A Ferret Tale" as a necessary profile on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigs2update (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the film was crowd-funded on IndieGogo, and the "awards" appear to all be suspect. I don't see coverage to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The Vulture Hound article looks like a good source. I'm not familiar with Vulture Hound, but from what I can see, it seems like a WP:RS. I'm not sure it's enough, but it's a start. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than small-festival logrolling, no sign at all of any real impact, notability, or public attention. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not quite enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Nominator withdrew this AfD. (non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 20:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Buehl[edit]

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

Appears to fail all 9 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. Borderline promotional article as well. Toddst1 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Nom withdrawn. Please close. Toddst1 (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GS shows an h-index of 47, which I think should pass regardless of field. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quantum chemistry is a very highly cited field, but this person, with twenty papers on GS with over 100 cites clearly passes WP:Prof#C1. Nominator is advised to study WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • (after edit conflict) Keep. Certainly does not "appear to fail" criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC, based on the link provided by EricEnfermero which is the very first hit in the Google Scholar search spoon-fed by the nomination process. Whatever led the nominator to believe that the subject appeared to fail that? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The very high citations/h-index is well beyond what we usually take to pass WP:PROF#C1. Doesn't seem particularly promotional to me, but that can always be fixed. – Joe (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only case seems to be for high citations for his work (I can't find a lot of press or awards) but that should be good enough. If the article is kept it should be moved to Michael Bühl, the proper spelling of his name (e.g. the name he uses on his web site [8]). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suggest that the nom withdraw the nomination and allow an admin to close the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and move per David Eppstein. I gave it a quick edit to cut out the instances of promotional tone. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Laurent[edit]

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

It does not appear that his career accomplishment meet the standards of NACTOR, nor can I find sufficient coverage to meet GNG, his page on the French Wikipedia provides no additional sources either. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nom, I have searched various French sources, and googled him, and other than finding an oxford professor of the same name, came up blank. Dysklyver 23:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject's roles to date do not meet WP:NACTOR and I'm not finding coverage to meet WP:GNG.  gongshow  talk  15:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nobel laureates by country#Portugal. A Traintalk 10:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portuguese Nobel laureates[edit]

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

No need for such per WP:LISTCRUFT. Greenbörg (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel this is a valid navigational approach. It would have been nice if the nominator had limited this to one test case or run the whole lot as a single related nomination. Carrite (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Sweden. Plenty of valid reasons for maintaining such a list have been presented, but the content is a duplicate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swedish Nobel laureates[edit]

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

No need for such per WP:LISTCRUFT. Greenbörg (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
– North America1000 04:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:NOTDUP says, as a conclusion: 'When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant. This applies to both sides of the argument.
  2. Categories are what are meant to be navigational aids, and WP:LISTPURP says that The list may be a valuable information source. The list is not a valuable information source as its content is already at List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Sweden with more information than this article has. This article consists of no prose. See WP:NOTSTATS—which as a policy surpasses MOS—especially point #3 which states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Also, page views are not a measure of notability.
  3. Same as above; page views are not a measure of notability.
  4. This point is fair, but per my statements above I will not be swinging towards keep based on your !vote.
BTW, I have changed my !vote to 'redirect'. J947( c ) (m) 07:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Sweden per J947. I believe that if this article had been caught when newly created it could have been deleted per WP:A10. Yes, list articles can duplicate categories but articles shouldn't duplicate sections in other articles. Sjö (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel this is a valid navigational approach. Carrite (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about what we feel, it is about wikipedia policy on inclusion like WP:LISTPURP.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine Nobel laureates[edit]

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

No need for such per WP:LISTCRUFT. Greenbörg (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
– North America1000 04:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel this is a valid navigational approach. Carrite (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLT; no need to delete or redirect. ansh666 18:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian Nobel laureates[edit]

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

No need for such per WP:LISTCRUFT. Greenbörg (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
– North America1000 04:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel this is a valid navigational approach. Carrite (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLT; no need to delete or redirect. ansh666 18:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Traintalk 08:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ROSEN Group[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The references cited are predominantly primary sources, with the others being in specialist publications that aren't of use for conferring notability. My searches have not found anything better. SmartSE (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if this is just an odd campaign against paid editing. The statements on the sources have little to do with reality.
42 references are given. Independent newspapers are used like “Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung”, “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”, „Handelszeitung“. Special weeklys like „vdi Nachrichten“ or magazins like „bbr Leitungsbau, Brunnenbau, Geothermie“ are used also. The company has a very special business, that’s why such sources are helpful. Perception, size and position in their business area underline notability. Some references used are primary sources (website), right. It’s in line with Wikipedia:ORGIND (“Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content”). Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Atomiccocktail's edit summary for the comment above, inserted here, does not accurately reflect his involvement and conflic of interest. A discussion about his behavior is not germane to the discussion about whether the article on ROSEN group should be retained, and should not be conducted in this thread, so I have started this discussion instead.Mduvekot (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung dedicates single sentence to the company: "Der Molch wurde eigens für diesen Zweck von der Rosen-Gruppe entwickelt". (Molch translates to newt, but in this context a molch is a Pipeline Inspection Gauge, aka a 'pig') The FAZ is a reliable, indpendent source, but the covergage they provided is in no way significant. So the FAZ as a source fails to establish notability per the GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung, unlike the FAZ, is a local newspaper, but might provide sufficient in-depth coverage if there were more than the interview and the report on their kindergarten. As for the Handelszeitung, that appears to be a routine announcement of a change in mamagement. My attempts at ana analysis of the sources are frustrated by the way the article is sourced. The Handelsblatt citation is made up of three sources: It is written as [1]

References

  1. ^ Sesselwechsel. In: Handelszeitung, 31 January 2013. van Bevern, Carsten: Vom TÜV Rheinland zur Rosen-Gruppe. In: Ems-Zeitung, 03 April 2013. Friedrich Hecker ist nicht mehr CEO bei Rosen. In: Lingener Tagespost, 07 May 2015.

They should have been witten as three individual citations instead: [1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Last, First (31 January 2013). "Sesselwechsel". Handelszeitung.
  2. ^ van Bevern, Carsten (3 April 2013). "Vom TÜV Rheinland zur Rosen-Gruppe". Ems-Zeitung.
  3. ^ Last, First (7 May 2015). "riedrich Hecker ist nicht mehr CEO bei Rosen". Lingener Tagespost.
I can't tell if this is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation or mere incompetence, but it doesn't facilitate verification of the sources and invites further scrutiny. If anyone can simplify this process by pointing out the two instances of significant coverage that could establish notability, that would be immensely helpful. I have not found them yet. Update: Change to firm delete after in-depth review of the sources. Promotional, lacking in depth. As an example, take the sourcing of the claim that Rosen manufactures 'intelligent plastics', a marking term. Rosen itself actively promotes the use of that term. We're asked to refer to Braun, Dietrich: Kleine Geschichte der Kunststoffe. Hanser, Munich 2013, p. 282. Braun makes no mention of intelligent plastics, or the Rosen-group, for that matter. Page 282 is part of a timetable in the appendix of the book. That is not in-depth coverage. It doesn't even discuss the subject. Fails the GNG, and CORPDEPTH and is an unfair burden on volunteer editors to clean up after a paid editor. Mduvekot (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Here it is pretended that roses are not subject to independent media reporting. This is wrong.

  • Ems-Zeitung, Lingener Tagespost and Meppener Tagespost belonged to the group of the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung. The reporting on Rosen is frequent and intense in these media. They did not only deal with "kindergartens", as suggested here.
  • The Stanser newspaper (Swiss) has potted the company on 10 May 2006 (Stanser Molche worldwide, 680 words, 4600 characters).
  • The Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung describes in detail how the analysis of the Nordstream pipeline was carried out. This is done in the Frankfurter Allgemeine by a detailed description of the machine ("pig"), with which this was done. It is, as the newspaper makes clear, a specially designed measuring device of Rosen. To find the "Rosen" character combination in the FAZ article and then say "only occurs once" is a "measurement method" which leads to completely wrong results. The entire article describes the inspection procedure Rosen has developed together with the operator of Nordstream, which has led to a route record.
  • A similarly intense report on exactly this use of Rosen has also brought vdi nachrichten. This is the most important weekly for German engineers. (“In zehn Tagen durch die Röhre auf dem Ostseegrund.” In: vdi nachrichten, 04 July 2014.)
  • In addition, this weekly magazine for engineers has brought an extensive company profile in 2016. ("Im Emsland sind die Molche los") (970 words, 6100 characters)
  • A similarly extensive portrait can also be found in the Deutsche Verkehrs-Zeitung (DVZ). The Deutsche Verkehrs-Zeitung (DVZ, formerly Deutsche Logistik-Zeitung) is a specialized journal of the transport and logistics branch since 1947. (Frische, Tim-Oliver: Pipeline tour with a world-wide user. In: German Logistics Newspaper, 18 September 2012). 863 words, 6143 characters

To state that intelligent plastic is nothing more than a Rosen marketing term shows the quality of the delete "arguments". It’s a term used in various books, long time before. Google books has it.

Reference 5 does not state that Rosen is mentioned there. It states that brief information about "intelligente Kunststoffe" / "intelligent plastics" (term and history) can be found there: “On the historical development of these plastics and on the term at issue, please refer to Braun, Dietrich: Kleine Geschichte der Kunststoffe. Hanser, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-446-43685-5, p. 282 f.“

Rejection against footnotes, which point to more than one source, is not a convincing reason for the deletion demand. Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My own understanding is the use of footnotes in this manner is indeed standard in the deWP; it is however advisable to rewrite articles for the enWP in enWP format. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think in this case the sourcing is sufficient to keep the article, and despite the COI, the above analysis does show sufficiently comprehensive coverage. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good analysis of sources above, which shows that there's a bit more to this than apparent. Notable. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 07:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nobel laureates by country#Turkey. A Traintalk 09:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish Nobel laureates[edit]

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

No need for such, we can cover this content somewhere like Science and technology in Turkey. Greenbörg (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nobel laureates by country#Liberia. A Traintalk 09:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liberian Nobel laureates[edit]

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

No need for such. Don't know why it exists? Greenbörg (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 17:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hansa-Flex[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The references cited are predominantly primary sources, with the others being in specialist publications that aren't of use for conferring notability. My searches have not found anything better. SmartSE (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if this is just an odd campaign against paid editing. To my mind the statement on the sources distorts the reality.
A company is a system with history, a product range and a market. The market of Hansa Flex is the world market. Hundreds of branches demonstrate this. Turnover and number of employees indicate the position in the market of hydraulics. This is not a consumer market, right. It’s b2b, therefore information about history, product range and so one is provided at the company website and in financial statements, published in “Handelsregister”. (Making false statements at Handelsregister would be punishable.) Hansa-Flex is recognized in special business magazins like „f + h fördern und heben – Zeitschrift für Materialfluss und Automation in Produktion, Lager, Transport und Umschlag“, „MM MaschinenMarkt“, „ZulieferMarkt“, „Hydraulics and Pneumatics“. These kind of papers where used here, also daily newspapers like „Darmstädter Echo“ or “Weser Kurier”. Sources named at “Further reading” indicate that Hansa-Flex is mentioned in literature as a relevant player in the hydraulics. Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Atomiccocktail's edit summary for the comment above, inserted here, does not accurately reflect his involvement and conflic of interest. A discussion about his behavior is not germane to the discussion about whether the article on Hansa-Flex should be retained, and should not be conducted in this thread, so I have started this discussion instead. Mduvekot (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's first address a few misconceptions. A company is a legal entity for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise. A company is presumed to be suitable topic for an encyclopedia article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, per WP:GNG.
WP:ORG further clarifies the notability requirement for companies. It explains that there is no inherent notability. The argument that the scope of the market or it's turnover or the number of branches establish notability is thus invalid.
The argument that information about history, product range and so one is provided at the company website and in financial statements because Hansa-Flex primarily conducts commercial transactions with other businesses makes no sense. We don't have to rely on IBM as a source because it hardly engages in business-to-consumer transactions. How a company conducts its business and what kind of customers it has have no bearing on its suitability as a subject of an encyclopedia article.
Neither is the argument that the statements are factual, or even that making false statements would be punishable, convincing. It is assumed that all statements are correct. That something is true is not a reason to include it.
The use of trade publications is problematic because such publications rely heavily on press releases and publish announcements.Such announcements may be useful for industry insiders, but have no relevance to an encyclopedia. The notability implications of type of coverage is explained in WP:ROUTINE.
Contrary to the claim that Sources named at “Further reading” indicate that Hansa-Flex is mentioned in literature, I have not been able to confirm that this is the case. There is no mention of Hansa-Flex in the index of Hydraulik. Grundlagen, Komponenten, Systeme. The mentions are captions of photos of hydraulic equipment that are credited as manufactured by Hansa-Flex, and one sentence: "Dieser Prüfstand wird erfolgreich zur Qualitätskontrolle von Hansa-Flex AG Aggregatebau in Dresden eingesetzt" (This test rig is used successfully for quality control by Hansa-Flex AG Aggregatebau in Dresden). Das Einzige, was stört, ist der Kunde: Clienting ersetzt Marketing mentions Hansa-Flex as one of four examples of "Kundenorientierung" (client focus), where a customer survey lead to strategic changes such as an increase in their e-commerce offerings.
TLDR; nobody who is independent of the subject has written in-depth about the subject. This is not a notable business, and this article only exists because the subject wanted to promote itself, and was willing to pay someone to write it. Had someone felt that it was time that our article about Hydraulics got a good overhaul and offered a scholarship to an independent researcher with well-documented credentials in the field to rewrite it, I might have reconsidered my view of paid editing. Something aling those lines exists of course, see WP:GLAM, but I never see a commercial entity that is interested in improving coverage of their field without menting them. Paid editing as we see it here is invariably promotional, non-neutral and falls under What Wikipedia is not. Mduvekot (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretended that there is no independent reporting on Hansa-Flex. This is wrong and can only be asserted, because trade journals and economic press are put under general suspicion. A regional newspaper such as the Weserkurier is suddenly suspected of being addicted. Are we playing "guilty on suspicion" here?
Transferred to other topics that suspicion would mean that only the top players of a topic (here companies) are allowed to be portrayed as specialist media for an encyclopedia could only be used in rare cases - they are suspected of being "dependent" on the object itself. Atomiccocktail (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freewill (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG as a non-notable song. I am not saying it can't be a list entry on List of songs recorded by Rush but I cannot justifiably say it should have its own article. Dysklyver 18:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appear to be numerous sources about this song. Mindmatrix 14:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes GNG with critical analysis in this book, this book, and this book (and coverage in several others, this is just a sample off the first page of a Google Books search). And it has a standalone Allmusic article here. And it has a little bit about its guitar solo here. I'm sure with some effort one could find more, but this is more than enough to demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 15:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Cumming[edit]

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

As per prior AfD, by User:reddogsix:

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that all but one keep votes appeared to come from socks of a COI account radically changes the balance of the discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. He is not a notable real estate agent. Not enough reliable, third party sources. Selling to NFL players and other celebrities does not bestow notability.desmay (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete just a promotional page, created by a now-blocked sock. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable per available sources. Name is shared with notable people and that does not make it easy to do research. However, if he was an important tv personality I'd expect there to be a detailed IMDb profile. More likely gave some professional commentary. In a worse case scenario he's counting commercial time. Either way not good enough. gidonb (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Lepricavark (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard O'Kennedy[edit]

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

Fails all criteria for notability per WP:PROF. DrStrauss talk 17:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 18:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Full professor, highly cited, elected member of the RIA – clearly notable per WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I request that this discussion run its 7-day course as opposed to being speedily kept as I think the rationale for keeping the article on the other points of WP:PROF are weak. I don't know if it's and or or but I still think discussion is better than snow in this case. DrStrauss talk 21:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Other points? Any single point is valid for a keep. It is certainly not required that professors pass all nine points (if it were, we would only have articles about poet-presidents). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. 10,000 people have cited his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is only necessary to meet one of the criteria in WP:PROF. Read the guideline. (the basicone is being an authority in one's field--the others are mainly shortcuts to more easily prove that). DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merging can be discussed at the talk page and does not have to be at AFD -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Akram (blind cricketer)[edit]

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

He has to pass WP:GNG in order to be notable which he fails so it looks a delete. Greenbörg (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 18:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 18:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is my mistake and I accept the deletion nomination of the biography about a blind cricketer which is quite doubtful for many people. As the author of the article I just created the article as he holds the world record for the highest individual score by any batsman in a 40 Overs Blind cricket match. I too propose it for a deletion. Abishe (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Abishe and Greenbörg, what about redirect to Pakistan national blind cricket team as an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator is mistaken in claiming that the subject must pass GNG to be kept. Per WP:NCRIC criterion 1 the subject has "appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level". In Blind Cricket the World Cup is the highest international level. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But that is different from this type of cricket. WP:CRIN doesn't cover Blind cricketers. Greenbörg (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only guide for cricket, thus it applies to all forms/variants of cricket unless it explicitly excludes them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no situation where GNG does not apply, so that statement makes no sense at all. An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs. SNGs exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Closing statement states There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline As per the community discussion linked above. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that SNG provides for a presumption of notability and not non notability particularly to SNGs exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG that those playing actively .The statement is a general one about the RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closure of that discussion was much more nuanced than your claim here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep world record score for a blind cricketer, covered in cricket sources such as Cricket World and almost certainly in reliable magazines such as Wisden Cricket Monthly and The Cricketer Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above world record score for a blind cricketer and subject has been mentioned in Wisden Cricket Monthly and Cricketer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments above. Mar4d (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Blind cricket, with maybe a mention in Pakistan national blind cricket team per WP:BIO1E. He is currently the world record holder, but one day he won't be. And to pre-empt the NOTTEMP comments, if it is such a permanent noteworthy thing, who was the previous holder? And the one before that? WP:NCRIC talks about the highest level for cricket. This is not the highest level for cricket, otherwise we'd be meeting notability criteria for every player at that tournament. If you want to argue that blind cricket is different, get consensus at WP:NBLINDCRICClubOranjeT 11:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julius M. Kleiner[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Very parochial article without broad interest. Very short article and not informative.desmay (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customers Bank. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 19:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BankMobile[edit]

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

Continued efforts to promote a company by COI editors User:Madeleine.hbmadv and User:QUEENLOVER94 Article has been proposed for deletion, nominated for speedy deletion, and revdel'd for copyright violations, but efforts continue. PROD and CSD were never formally declined. Looking for community feedback. Mduvekot (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: I've boldly tagged it with G11 even though it's at AfD because the speedies were never formally declined. DrStrauss talk 16:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brycen Martin[edit]

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

Not seeing the sources for this player that meets WP:GNG and is currently well below the standards of WP:NHOCKEY. (Not to mention that this article was created by a user who has since been banned from creating hockey player articles such as this.) De-prodded by user stating "there are enough sources that he may pass WP:GNG." Number of sources are irrelevant when they are all stats pages, WP:ROUTINE signings and transactions, a large number of local news coverage (as is "Look what the local kid is doing" variety), and blogs. He gets the typical prospect coverage for his speculative potential in the NHL, but the coverage was not continued. Currently just WP:TOOSOON for notability and can be re-created when/if he generates more coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yosemiter sums it up quite well. Number of mentions in sources does not matter. They must go in depth and not be routine coverage. This player does not currently meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and yet another article on a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Traintalk 08:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holland's Pies[edit]

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

Totally fails WP:NCORP. However, some of the content could perhaps be salvaged and added to 2 Sisters Food Group. Dysklyver 12:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a long-established and recognised brand, for 150 years. This is not the same thing as NCORP. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well with that in mind could you explain Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamar Foods? Dysklyver 16:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We work by policy, not precedent.
That said, Ginsters (and Holland's) are notable as they are the public face of two well-known brands. The companies behind them are not well known (until today I didn't even know that Holland's are now part of the recently infamous 2 Sisters). So I would agree with merging Tamar Foods to Samworth Brothers, but leave Ginsters as its own article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I still don't get the distinction, at what point does NCORP stop applying? How is a brand defined from a company? and how is it defined as well known? To me, Tamar foods is very well known, having taken on Prince Charles food business and being well stocked in major supermarkets, yet I had never heard of Holland's Pies until yesterday, how is this measured? (sorry for discussing two articles at once, I just find the comparison useful since they are basically identical.) Dysklyver 18:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NCORP applies if you're claiming something is notable because it's a business, which isn't the stronger claim here (although it's not a small company and probably does pass NCORP anyway). Instead it's because it's a brand, which has to be judged instead on its coverage as a distinct product, not a business.
If you're unfamiliar with them, then I presume you're in the South of England, or maybe even Yorkshire (I guess they must have pies in Yorkshire, as they have to put their Hendo's on something). They're a strongly North-Western brand. Secondly, until recently, you couldn't even buy them. Holland's market was (like Pukka Pies) for pies sold hot through pubs, chip shops and football grounds, rather than cold in shops for home heating. That doesn't stop them being hugely well known though, for their distinctively painted van fleet as much as anything.[10] Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I am in the south, where northern pies are clearly unknown :) This does clear up the issue I was having with your assertion of the brand/company distinction, it makes sense to me now. Dysklyver 19:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NCORP due to lack of necessary significant coverage. To the above keep vote, I would say that a company being long-established does not make it notable and neither does being recognised without proper sourcing. DrStrauss talk 17:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In my opinion, the article currently does not include enough independent sources to justify its notability, and a quick Google search does not reveal many more independent sources, but I agree that some of the content from the article may be worthy of being merged into 2 Sisters Food Group. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 18:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear failure of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Practically zero coverage in reliable sources. Regarding the assertions of notability above based on being "long-established" for 150 years - that is literally listed as a specific example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. - WP:ORGSIG states that "No company is considered inherently notable". Suggesting that because you "recognise" the brand or its vehicles from your local area that it must be notable is another argument to avoid. Given the age of subject the utter lack of coverage is even more telling. AusLondonder (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So just what are our notability standards for food brands? See Better Cheddars and the {{Mondelēz International}} massive brand navbox used for US brands. So Vichy Pastilles and Stoned Wheat Thins are OK, because they're part of Kraft, a US company, but Holland's Pies should go because they're not US? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe any article fails notability standards, from any country, nominate it. I will take a consistent approach, as should all editors. AusLondonder (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well most editors don't take a consistent approach, I have been threatened with indef blocks for nominating brands from that navbox above, regardless there are a lot of them at AfD right now. Dysklyver 08:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Desmay: Didn't you read any of what is written above about that bogus keep rationale? AusLondonder (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing++ 17:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of hits in a news search, and in my experience, food brands turn up less in what we normally use as reliable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per ritchie. Things like this aren't going to be super newsworthy yet are still notable. Someone needs to make a WP:NFOOD which says something like "If item doth deign to be sold in at least five locations larger than 5,000 square foot and also a national chain notablility is conferred". L3X1 (distænt write) 21:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@L3X1: superficially a WP:NFOOD type proposal looks good but from my experience of proposing and refining SNGs the advice of users including Ritchie333 and Kudpung rings true that often solutions can look for problems i.e. avoid instruction creep. DrStrauss talk 21:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other than creating a NCORP exemption for food producers like this one, what is the point? also NBRAND would be a better title than NFOOD. Dysklyver 22:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NBRAND would probably be better. I can think of a few AfDs where something household, like Borax (except it wasn't Borax) came up as a keeper. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a change in policy/guidelines it isn't right to !vote keep based on personal feelings and preferences. AusLondonder (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
20 Mule Team Borax ? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough to be endorsed by a celebrity chef and sold at football grounds throughout the north. Reference provided. J3Mrs (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe have a look at WP:LOCALFAME which disproves your "sold at football grounds throughout the north" point and then at WP:CORPDEPTH.AusLondonder (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Norwich isn't in the north. Methinks you protest too much, maybe you should try one. :) J3Mrs (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What J3Mrs says. Northerners are proud of home-bred products and businesses - until relatively recently, Morrisons was very much "a northern thing". You wouldn't be able to get a pint of Boddies in a Camden Town pub. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge some of the content to the parent company. There is already a good place for the listing of individual varieties, which is the firm's web site. There are no good references in the article: 3 links to their web site, one to a newspaper article that's 1/3 a company press release. No other sources have even been mentioned. I'm no fan of the GNG when there's something more specific but it does have its uses After this, we should take a look at many of the others mentioned for similar merging. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "individual varieties" though? They make pies. This is an article on their pies. They only make pies (at that factory). No-one seriously claims to defend listing "steak and kidney" et al. as their "varieties", but that's not the purpose of AfD. But it would be a matter of great wailing and gnashing of teeth in Baxenden (and Lancashire) though if the Hollands factory were to lose production in favour of some other plant, elsewhere in the corporate chain (and as discussed earlier, no-one seems to see the sub-companies as individually notable per NCORP).
If anything is notable here, it is Holland's Pies (as a customer-recognisable brand) and 2 Sisters (which does meet NCORP, as a customer-invisible megacorp). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support a merge to the parent company, as that doesn't include decades of 19th century history, which I'm trying to source now; also got a source of celebrity endorses including Peter Kay and Mark and Lard (no surprises for those three, really, is there?) "There is already a good place for the listing of individual varieties, which is the firm's web site." I've tried using that argument to get rid of articles that are just pointless Pokemon-style cruft, and it doesn't work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HRH Prince Charles endorsed my nans Pasties, but that hasn't made them notable. (not sure about the pie ---> pokemon thing). Dysklyver 19:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Kernow, this AfD does strike me as being similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly's of Cornwall. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The pasties endorsed by his royal highness got deleted... Dysklyver 19:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep few companies get particularly notable coverage outside of food magazines, fanzines etc unless they are screwing up, and Holland's are one of those fine examples of a company famous for doing exactly what it says on their foil trays. I think, prior to their takeover, they would have been an obviously distinct historic brand. Reducing the article post takeover as a merge action for a previously unknown parent seems therefore a bit odd (their distinction doesn't end because they are subsumed). Seems a carbon copy of Hovis and dozens of other company brands. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There are lots of sources, but many either (a) verge on being press releases or (b) often come from the same source -- the local newspaper, the Lancashire Telegraph, which has a highly local audience. This is a toughie! My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 07:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 07:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberator (CEB press)[edit]

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

Weird article. Created in 2009 but with no evidence it was being produced. Still none that I can find. There's an Atlantic article from 2011[11] that mentions it as a plan, and a kickstarter page from 2015.[12] Doug Weller talk 11:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 07:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dry (Band)[edit]

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

A source search reveals little but fan message-board entries, social media links and YouTube videos, none of which satisfy either WP:BAND or WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 11:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 07:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Revenge: Geeta Mera Naam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The sources it cites do not constitute independent, reliable coverage.

Source 1 is an IMDB-type entry.

Source 2 is just a box office stats site with no analysis of the film itself.

Source 3 is all plot and gives no major review.

Source 4 is just a cast list on Ranker, which has no editorial oversight. DrStrauss talk 11:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 07:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makam (Band)[edit]

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

A source search shows little indication of notability per either WP:BAND or WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Kirschner[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom; player had undistinguished, brief career in the low-minors and semi-pros. Unsurprisingly, the article was created by an editor since community banned from new article creation for throwing up many *hundreds* such articles, in open defiance of notability criteria, to bump up his page creation count. Ravenswing 11:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Non notable subject and fails to meet GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources. NerudaPoet (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not finding any evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable hockey player. Lepricavark (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Re5x (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orders, decorations, and medals[edit]

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

We have an article on order (honour), and an article on medals. Originally, this article was created after a user moved Decorations and medals of the Netherlands to this title and back.

This article title covers three topics and is unnecessary. It now redirects to the order (honour) article but there are two other topics that do not follow under that article. Re5x (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue See WP:RFD. KMF (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softcam (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Ordinary, orphan, WP:2DABS page where disambiguation is not required. De-PRODed by Patar knight who added See also entries (but it's still a 2DABS page). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no longer 2DABs. In any case, a useful "see also" section would be enough reason to keep. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that there are multiple "soft cam"/"soft CAM" terms that can be discovered through a Google search. These include, but are not limited to: [13] an issue with the V8 engine and crankshafts, [14] an application of the Prusik knot, [15] a mapping application, [16] a version of Content-Addressable Memory). Most of these could be added to the page with some work on their respective articles. It's pretty reasonable that this page could be expanded even beyond the four entries currently there. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The added entry is okay, but the second one isn't mentioned in the linked article, so we're still at two, with an obvious primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:TWODABS with a clear PT. The See also item is reaching. A hatnote is better,  Done, left as orphan. Widefox; talk 00:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RisingDown360 I'm happy to restore the article into your userspace as draft; the band may someday be notable enough for inclusion. I'd suggest making other edits to other articles for a while, though. A Traintalk 09:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stacked Like Pancakes[edit]

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

Article by a WP:SPA about a band who fail WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Lots of references to social media, independent blogs, even Kickstarter and Reddit, but the only real RS is this interview in the Baltimore Sun [17], and even then, that could be considered local news, as the band is from the Baltimore suburb of Towson. Richard3120 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the band's leader, as he has even less notability than the band:

Kellen McKay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking past the obvious non-qualifying social media and user downloaded references, the subject has gotten some press, but it's all small time and generally interviews of members of the band talking about themselves rather than objective, third party reportage. Other references and google search results reveal trivial or promotional mentions. Simply not enough to merit wikipedia notability. Also, it seems to be written in close-to-the-source style by an SPA account, it's purpose seemingly being simply for the subject to promote their own notability. Same goes with the forked page for Kellen McKay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate As the creator of the page, I agree that the content is exuberant for the level of the artist and the voice is slightly biased. There are several notable sources however, including a feature in an article on Thrillist showing national credibility, as well as the articles mentioned in the Baltimore Sun, Reddit, etc. The page shows growth in the quantity and quality of the sources. Notion to incubate article to allow other editors to consolidate, contribute, and pursue fixing the voice to feature an un-objective and factual viewpoint of a credible artist. RisingDown360 (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Thrillist article may not be a reliable source, as the author is described as a "contributor" rather than a staff writer, but even if it was acceptable, the article is quite WP:PRIMARY and doesn't tell you very much about the band itself – mostly that McKay doesn't care what the current punk scene is called, that the fans tell him his band is a breath of fresh air (subjective), and that he invented the term "brass rock" (unproven). Reddit is never going to be used as a reliable source in any Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS RisingDown, the fact that the photo you added of the band was taken from backstage while they were performing suggests that you are close to them, yes? Richard3120 (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is true. And coming into Wikipedia new, I had no false expectations that I was going to get the article perfect and meet every standard. I understand that some bias would be inevitable. My hope was that others would contribute and edit appropriately as is the nature of Wikipedia. I know it's only one specific source, but I don't understand your point to say the Thrillist article "may not be a reliable source." Is it reliable or not? Albeit an article written by a contributor, it will still be approved by editors and I don't think it would be fair to deem it unreliable if you were talking about any other artist mentioned in the article. To do so would be to undervalue Thrillist. And while the artist is indeed not the focal point of the article, it still serves to validate the subject. RisingDown360 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Most of the sources used in this article are published by vanity presses and non-notable media outlets, such as CD Baby. Other websites given as references, such as iTunes can be added to by any musical group, not just notable ones. The only reliable source I see in this article is by The Baltimore Sun [18] but this amounts to one reference. Editors touching the article are also mostly single-purpose accounts. The article Stacked Like Pancakes therefore does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable local band. No song or album appeared on national ratings charts, no huge numbers of sales, etc. Fails WP:BAND. Shearonink (talk)
  • Keep. Does not fail WP:NBAND. I have carefully read the terms. The article states the artist "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Pertaining to your comment Shearonink, a band is not local when they have done several notable and citable national tours in the last two years, including with international artist Reel Big Fish and the Vans Warped Tour, and are actively touring currently. The subject is thus a national artist. I want to stress that I agree with many of the points that have been made towards the voice and quality of the references in the article. Perhaps the page needs to be heavily condensed and simplified, but not deleted. I would encourage all those who have contributed to this discussion to also contribute to editing the article. RisingDown360 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"may be notable if they meet at least one of the following"... that means that inclusion in Wikipedia (or not) is up to editorial consensus.
The 2014 Vans Warped Tour was a single appearance on the Ernie Ball stage (here) - yes it's a wiki but finding information about if they headlined or what their appearances were has been somewhat difficult). In 2015, they again appeared on the Ernie Ball stage 07/01-04 & 07/06-10. In 2016, the information is somewhat difficult to find. In 2017, they did have more appearances (per here, one date on the Hard Rock Stage & then several weeks on the Skullcandy Stage). In my opinion they still do not qualify as a notable band: *None of their songs have charted on a national music chart *they have not released an album on any major record labels *None of their albums or their songs have achieved Gold status *they have not been nominated or won a major award, such as The Grammys. Etc. Others opinions may differ - that is why we are discussing the issue here, attempting to come to an editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Incubate and tone down the promotional wording in the article There are notable sources - including a feature in an article on Thrillist which does show national credibility. The band had been mentioned in the Baltimore Sun as well. The page is growth in length and in the quality of its sources. Notion to incubate article to allow other editors to contribute additional content and make appropriate changes in the article to make it less biased and more objective. Presently, the article does not fail WP:NBAND as per the artist "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." The band is not merely local because they have done several citable national tours in the last two years mentioned by reliable sources, including one with the prominent international artist Reel Big Fish and the Vans Warped Tour. The band is also actively touring and will generate further press in reliable news outlets. The subject of this article is therefore a national artist/band. Granted the quality of the article could be improved via a more neutral tone and and effort to improve the articles references. Alternatively, article could be condensed to the parts of the article which are supported by the higher quality references, but not deleted. There is no sense in throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this instance. Trimming the article would be an excellent compromise position. User: Shearonink wrote: ""may be notable if they meet at least one of the following"... that means that inclusion in Wikipedia (or not) is up to editorial consensus." There does not appear to be a consensus to delete. User: Sheronink also said and I will bold and enlarge for emphasis: "The 2014 Vans Warped Tour was a single appearance on the Ernie Ball stage (here) - yes it's a wiki but finding information about if they headlined or what their appearances were has been somewhat difficult). In 2015, they again appeared on the Ernie Ball stage 07/01-04 & 07/06-10. In 2016, the information is somewhat difficult to find. In 2017, they did have more appearances (per here, one date on the Hard Rock Stage & then several weeks on the Skullcandy Stage). In my opinion they still do not qualify as a notable band: *None of their songs have charted on a national music chart *they have not released an album on any major record labels *None of their albums or their songs have achieved Gold status *they have not been nominated or won a major award, such as The Grammys. Etc. Others opinions may differ - that is why we are discussing the issue here, attempting to come to an editorial consensus." So what we have here is a subjective opinion. Since we have non consensus and we appear to be in a grey/opinion area, the compromise of incubate and later delete if necessary is a good option at this point.Knox490 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. The only inarguably reliable independent source cited is the Baltimore Sun, and it's mainly a Q&A; there's very little editorial. If they were booked to play multiple dates on a Warped tour main stage, I'd consider them notable, but Stacked Like Pancakes played a secondary stage, and it was because they won a competition. JSFarman (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They won the Ernie Ball Battle of the Bands competition in 2014. They were an official artist on the tour in 2015 and 2017. RisingDown360 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RisingDown360, Knox490: even if the Thrillist article is accepted as a reliable source, I must say again that it's really only good for one sentence in a Wikipedia article about Stacked Like Pancakes... that Kellen McKay calls his band's sound "brass rock". The article is about the LA punk rock scene rather than about the band itself, and all it says specifically regarding the band is "the fans love us" and "we don't have a name for the scene we're lumped in with", which has nothing to do with the band anyway. I wouldn't be against draftifying the article, but please note that articles can only be in draft space for six months before being deleted, so you'd have to be fairly confident of coming up with some more good sources by then. Richard3120 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident that at the very least, more great sources will come to fruition over the course of the next six months. I also want to reiterate my invitation for others who have contributed to this discussion to also contribute to editing the article so that I am not one of only a few editors. RisingDown360 (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are at least all in agreement that the article for Kellen McKay should go, yes? Richard3120 (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the Kellen McKay article should probably be deleted but the AFD template presently at Kellen McKay is in error - in my opinion it should not link to this discussion but should instead link to its own separate nomination. Editors have been mainly referring to the Stacked Like Pancakes article, I'll confess I did not realize these two discussions were taking place on the same page. Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - closely-related discussions can be linked. Shearonink (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After an extensive discussion there is no consensus here. A Traintalk 09:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nextiva[edit]

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

Another paid promotional article for this company that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sourcing is primary, passing mention, local, routine announcements, contributer articles and non reliable sources. (Wow, Nextiva participated in the Ice bucket challenge, let's put that in an encyclopedia). The same sort of crap sourcing that has been rejected multiple times. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Back to basics: What makes the company or its product NextOS remarkable and deserving of an encyclopedia article? Nothing that I can see. Rhadow (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article has already been deleted three times over the past two years. There has been little to no change in circumstances, so there is no need to keep the article. GR (Contact me) (See my edits) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Seeing as this is the fourth attempt to revive the article, would it be worthwhile salting the article if the AFD passes for deletion? GR (Contact me) (See my edits) 13:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. We're having these AfD discussions because its because of how the English Wikipedia defines notability. As mentioned in my vote, the German Wikipedia defines it based upon turnover, or employee size, or publicly traded, etc. The rational is that large companies should be on Wikipedia because investors, potential employees, etc would be interested in learning about the company. Like, the company says its been expanding and has tons of job opening. Interviewees might be interested in learning about the company from a NPOV source. So, yeah, there is a valid reason for having a large company on Wikipedia. Salting the namespace would be more of a hinderance than help. CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: duffbeerforme has made some good arguments about the sourcing on the article talk page, and I will admit that I did not look at the article as closely as I probably should have when reviewing it. While the ice bucket challenge stuff is worthless trivia, reliable sources still exist for the company, such as this one (and I see nothing even suggesting that this is a promotional article). I found another source that cites this company being the fastest-growing tech company in Arizona according to "Deloitte's Technology Fast 500 list."
I do think that, upon closer examination, much of the other coverage is weak, and I think that this article should be trimmed and be revised. But the sources that do exist are enough for me to keep, and I think we should stick to revising the article, rather than deleting it, per WP:ATD. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are several major sources in the article that provide an in-depth analysis of Nextiva, from large publications such as Forbes [19], Entrepreneur [20], Inc. [21], and the Phoenix Business Journal [22]. The nominator has set up a straw man of the article by claiming that the majority of the sources in the article discuss the ice bucket challenge when only one source does so. On the contrary, most of them provide detailed coverage of Nextiva, such as this one by Huffpost [23] and this one by The Arizona Republic [24]. I also don't see any evidence of promotionalism here but an article that was written professionally by Wikipedia editor Renzoy16. Was that editor paid to do the job? Yes. But, did he follow Wikipedia's terms of use and appropriately disclose? Yes. People shouldn't be punished when they follow the rules, especially when the article meets Wikipedia's core policies that require reliable sources and notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bmbaker88 has set up a straw man by claiming that I wrote something that I clearly did not. Let's look at the sources they claim are good. Forbes, that is from a "contributor", not staff, it's not subject to the same editorial control, not a reliable source, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.". Entrepreneur, that is from a "contributor", not staff, it's not subject to the same editorial control, not a reliable source, see also the quote from her article "One of my favorite clients, Nextiva," so also not independent. Inc. "The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com", not a reliable source. Phoenix Business Journal, barely mentions Nextiva, does not provide an in-depth analysis of Nextiva as claimed above. Huffpost, that is from the blog section, not staff, it's not subject to the same editorial control, not a reliable source, lacks any detailed coverage about Nextiva as was claimed above. The Arizona Republic, see comments by DGG below on the problem with such local business journals and see also WP:AUD. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does fulfill the criteria of notability though, in the sense that it is actually mentioned on these few reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it absolutely does not and your comment displays a commonly recurrent misinterpretation of the criteria for establishing notability. There must be two references that are "intellectually independent". The "independent" in the phrase "independent source" does not just apply to the publisher but also to the article itself. For example, an independent reliable source might accurately publish, word for word, a company announcement and lets assume the article is attributed to a named journalist. This reference would fail the criteria for establishing notability as it is essentially a PRIMARY source, not intellectually independent, and fails WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing++ 16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's three times as long as before, and it's even worse. That the contributor included quotes from each reference (usually a promotional technique) is in this case quite convenient, because it makes it easy to see how useless they all are. Many are press releases--often, just local press releases--as can be seen from the way they read almost the same way (for example, 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 , 24, 26, 27, 29 ); many of the others are mere mentions. (7, 14, 28 ) Aa few of them manage to be both at the same time, where apparently the company press office made sure they'd be included in laudatory terms an article about something else. (for example, 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 20, 25 , 30 ,31 . There is not a single substantial one from a reliable source for notability-- Entrepreneur and Inc apparently no longer have any editorial standards and write about whatever company they can be persuaded to write about, in the same language the company suggest. Huffington Post is well-known for letting its contributors write what the want--it's the main way they differentiate themselves from other publications. Local business journals are never a RS, especially for local companies--the reason for their existence is to print press releases. Judging by these references, Nextiva is extremely good at marketing itself with press releases; they have no need to do it here also . DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The news source AZCentral is a division of the USA Today Network and USA Today is a reliable news organization (Wikipedia's article on USA Today has a long list of awards that USA Today has won). The AZCentral news article Telecommunications company Nextiva is growing rapidly is a respectable size article on Nextiva and is not merely a blurb about the company. The AZCentral article is written by the business reporter Ryan Randazzo. The Nextiva article indicates: "Six years after its creation, Nextiva had approximately one hundred and twenty workers. As such, Nextiva's growth rate, according to Deloitte, was estimated to be 1548%. Later in 2017, Nextiva was placed on the Deloitte 500 list, with a revenue of $125 million USD." Tech is a hugely important component of modern economies and a big driver of economic growth and it has been for some time (And there is no indication that tech is going to stop being a hugely important. For example, estimates that artificial intelligence could double the annual economic growth rate in various developed economies are not unreasonable). And in our global economy, the tech area of internet communications is a very important area. So to say that a fast growing tech company in an important tech sector dealing with the global economy/communications is't notable is not a plausible position. As far as the articles in Forbes , Entrepreneur, Inc. Huffpost made by contributors, these media giants have made substantial investments in their publications. They are not going to allow shoddy material fill up their publications and ruin their reputations. Readers who read poor quality material in their publications would often not return. And the type of readers who read Forbes/Inc. are not unintelligent people. They tend to be astute business people. So the summary dismissal of the Forbes/Inc. material is not warranted. And when I looked at various sources of the 31 footnotes, I did not find any information that would lead me to believe it was unreliable/untrue. The company is also a socially responsible company that gives back to its community by donating to charities. The USA/world needs fast growing companies that provide jobs and do their part in supporting the social safety net. Wikipedians needn't get in the way of these companies in terms of them having Wikipedia articles. Knox490 (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ACCentral is a local branch of USA Today--the main newspaper is of course a RS for N, but the regional version are for local news not appropriate for national coverage. That Forbes etc. have invested a lot of money in their publication does not make everything they print reliable. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The corporate culture of USA Today is one that produces award winning journalism. If the " USA Today corporate tree" is very healthy, it makes perfect sense that the branches would be healthy as well. As far as Forbes, Inc. etc. investing a very substantial amount of in their publications and thus their brand, they are astute enough business people not to harm their brand with the practice of spurious/unreliable information via their contributors.Knox490 (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The argument appears to be about the veracity of the sources, not the underlying importance of the topic, an unremarkable software company selling VoIP software. Yes it is growing. Yes, the company impressed the local reporter. I am not convinced by the paper's ownership by Gannett (USA Today). Placement of execs in the lede is gratuitous. Neither is relevant to the notability of the company. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rhadow, you declared about Nextiva: "an unremarkable software company selling VoIP software." Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple Inc., said about Nextiva: "I'm a big fan of companies like Nextiva."[25] It is fair to say that most people, including myself, would tend to believe that Wozniak is very knowledgeable about the tech industry.Knox490 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG per the reliable sources provided on the article. No doubt about USA Today, ABC and more, they are reliable sources. There are nearly 60 articles of VoIP companies of the US. It doesn't seem that we should be deleting article based on promotion, instead the article can be trimmed if it is needed. On one of the previous AFD[26] some good arguments had been made and now the company is much more notable. Capitals00 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK Let's look at what those two sources you mention actually say about Nextiva. USA Today, nothing at all. The local ABC affiliate, Nextiva is a local Scottsdale based company and they founded a charity org. That's it. Trivial coverage in a local interest puff piece, essentially free advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see trivial coverage, but rather more coverage than most of the Wikipedia articles get. If we are going to apply this logic, then I really wonder how many % of articles will remain. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ABC and CNBC have provided in-depth coverage of Nextiva, not to mention leading newspapers like the Chicago Tribune. Nextiva has over 1,250,000 Google Hits. For those who have not realized this, there are a lot more sources about Nextiva than are in the article. Even if some users have an issue with the way the article is written now, more sources can be added to the article just by using a search engine and finding them. Examples of sources that can be added include this Forbes article [27] although as one can see from the Google results, there are many more reliable sources, like this one that mentions Nextiva alongside Steve Wozniak of Apple Inc. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 15:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still chasing that paycheck, still showing how you are not here to build an encyclopedia, Still pumping out flat out lies about sources. Those ABC15 and CNBC articles simply do not provide "in-depth coverage of Nextiva" and any !vote that claims they do should be totally discounted. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duffbeerforme, have you read WP:NPA? You are in violation of this policy, which mandates that you must refrain from making personal attacks. Also, I noted your edit summary, which said "lier". If I was a lion, that noun might be appropriate but I think you meant to say "liar", although that ad hominem is also wrong. With two mistakes in a row, I believe that your nomination is a third mistake. Several other editors have also corroborated the fact that those sources provide in-depth coverage of a well known company, Nextiva. Repeatedly making false claims about the sources does not make them true, it just simply highlights your unwarranted zeal to delete the article. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 05:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was a spelling mistake, it was meant to be liar. Not a personal attack, just a statement of fact. You claim that CNBC has provided in-depth coverage of Nextiva. Lets look at that claim. What did the article you linked say about Nextiva? "James Murphy, VP of inside sales at Nextiva". That's all? Yes that's all. Which part of that is in depth coverage about Nextiva? Nope, nothing even remotely close to being, even by the most generous sycophant to be thought of being in-depth coverage. That you say it is is a bald face lie. You state that "Repeatedly making false claims about the sources does not make them true" yet you keep making false claims about the sources. Hmmm. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check again. ABC is not the source, but the local affiliate station. Rhadow (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True true, another part of Renzoy's deception. ABC 15 not ABC, and that's specifically KNXV-TV, not any of the other affiliates labeled the same. I'd updated the article to better reflect the truth. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I untangled the Gordian knot of this article the best I could. It's a private company. Revenue numbers are tossed out like Mardi Gras beads, so I'm not sure I put much stock in them. The author is the most aggressive at using quotes that I have seen. The article, if kept, is a candidate to move all the references to the bottom and use the abbreviated citation form. The company is still not very impressive to me. YMMV Rhadow (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of the content can still be trimmed, such a lot of the "philanthropy" section and some elsewhere. I lean towards "keep" (the article seems borderline, but it's enough for me), but the article still needs additional improvement. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do find the article promotional, and it needs trimming but I also think it has reliable sources and fits within WP:GNG. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The key question isn't demonstrating that the references are inadequate --which they certainly are -- the last one suggested here was as the suggestion admits, just a mention--but whether we want to encourage promotionalism by rewriting it. In the past, I sometimes suggested it myself. I do longer do. NOT ADVERTISING is a basic policy of WP, founded on the pillar NPOV. the details fo referencing are just qualigying words in a guideline. Tis sort of conflict is always resolved in favor of the policy. Th epolicy does suggest rewriting if the promotional material is incidental, but here, its the main part of the article and the reason for its existence. The only real control we have over people doing that is to remove the articles. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given there's still the same concerns as last time: Promotional information and sources, which is policy to delete by that alone, and an accessible search here shows:
  • 1, 3-5, 15-18 are all announcements
  • 2 and 10-13 is a labeled press release
  • 6 is an Indiscriminate local award only significant for a local marketing aspect
  • 7 is the company self-quoting
  • 8 is a local-interest story in a local column
  • 9 is a general business overview and not any genuine substance
  • 14 is a business trade publisher, therefore not independent of the business's goals

If good sourcing is supposedly so easy to find, a News Search would've imaginably given them all in these 2 pages but it's not, and it's worse when the company made it clear it was their own press releases published and republished, thus contrary to significant independent coverage. Equally, we cannot alone simply believe sources must exist, without knowing they're substantial to begin with. When an article is accepted again, it's obvious to say the past deletions are and can be taken into mind as they are here; promotionalism serves nothing for the encyclopedia's principles which are pillars (which cannot be said about general guidelines). It's easier to claim an article is fixable than instead actually showing and accomplishing it in the end. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 15:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - purely promotional article which does not pass WP:GNG, as per the above analyses. No sense re-hashing them. Is there something beyond "salting", since that happened last time and clearly didn't work. Onel5969 TT me 00:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep. The article has a number of reliable sources and some of them are from respected, high profile publications in the business realm. The article meets WP:GNG standards. desmay (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and are mostly WP:SPIP. $125M for a tech company is not remarkable, and is actually pretty low to assume notability in the absense of strong sources. Just a private company going about its business; Wikipedia is not a directory. Salt as well due to persistent recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an administrator on Punjabi Wikipedia, Nextiva would easily meet the threshold for inclusion there. It surprises me that a group of editors wishes to delete the article when world class newspapers like the Chicago Tribune provide detailed coverage on both Nextiva and its founder Tomas Gorny [28]. In the article on English Wikipedia, I see significant coverage coming from Inc. too. While the article could be slightly trimmed, deleting it altogether is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Chicago Tribune "article" was posted by an anonymous "Community Contributor". It was not written by a Tribune writer, it did not receive editorial oversight, it is basically a blog post (that confusingly carries the imprimatur of The Chicago Tribune) - it does not qualify as a reliable source just because it appears on the Tribune website. Shearonink (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken about that - Renzoy above said "...not to mention leading newspapers like the Chicago Tribune" as bolstering Nextiva's notability and I had assumed the ref-linkage they mentioned in that post was in the article. Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting keep only because another user has, is not yet addressing the important concerns emphasized so far: Promotioanlism and how it can be guaranteed not to happen again, despite the last 3 deletions and 1 Draft occurrence. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the company routinely showing up when experts count off major players in the field? Obviously the experts think it's notable. Problem here is that there is not a lack of sources, but over abundance. When I Google search the name I get hundreds of thousands of hits, which is more than a PR department can buy, and thousands in news and books. Needs more time, to make headway through all of that. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Review of previous AfDs shows a previous complaint regarding User:duffbeerforme's civility.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  I couldn't find "Community Contributor" on the Chicago Tribune Robots article just now, but I do remember such a problem from last year during a Tomas Gorney AfD for this Tomas Gorney article, which is a different article.  The current article is copyright Chicago Tribune, and Nextiva is mentioned in the lede sentence.  The author is Adam Bluestein Inc., which is a writing business, so was likely paid, and the copyright implies editorial control.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Renzoy had mentioned the Community Contributor column above (as helping to prove the notability of the company) and I had thought the link was used as a reference in the WP-article itself - my mistake. Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Both the Forbes and HuffPost articles appear to be blogs not written by staff, which would only be WP:RS if the author has an independent reputation.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected on one of the Forbes articles...it is by "Forbes staff".  I've now marked that citation as "Forbes staff", and eight blogs with template Self-published source.  It is not easy to tell if these authors have sufficient reputation to be WP:RS, but without more evidence I think they should be removed.  Each of the eight citations is only used once.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged four additional sources in the article with Template:Self-published source: 2 Entrepreneur, 1 Buzzfeed, and 1 CIO magazine.  This makes a total of eight sources in the article that are blogs. 
    The Inc article, alleged above to be a blog, I could not confirm.  The Inc article states that the writer is an Inc columnist, whose opinions (without mentioning his facts) do not represent Inc.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since these blogs are a known problem from previous AfDs, I also checked the AfC history, and what was happening is that the reviewers, who knew about the blogs, used their time to rant on about for-profits, instead of identifying sources that needed removal.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with option to merge  It is obvious that this is not a hoax, and that the sources in the article minus Forbes and Huffpost the eight blogs meet WP:GNG.  I'd be fine with a merge of the topic to a list of prominent Phoenix or Scottsdale businesses, as that would stuff the hyped and overwrought "notability" argument, and we could focus on what reliable material is needed in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is bureaucracy at its finest. I agree with User:Satpal_Dandiwal, the article does meet notability requirements. Satpal_Dandiwal says that it meets the notability requirements in Punjabi, I'm saying it meets the notability requirements in English as well as German.
In German, the "notability" requirements are here https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien#Wirtschaftsunternehmen . It says, for businesses, notability is given for companies with 100 million EUR or more in turnover (which Nextiva has). It also allows companies that have a dominant position in the market, which Nextiva also has since there are only 3 big VOIP services. The rationale for why the notability requirements are defined as such is that, because companies like those are so big, it'll be useful for society to include them in encyclopedias. For example, a potential employee might want to know more about that company or a potential investor might want to learn about that company. Not including a big company in the encyclopedia hinders society. At least on Wikipedia, there'll be a neutral point of view on what the company's page says, whereas, with other sources, who knows what people will post.
In English, the notability requirements are defined by press coverage. I'm not gonna repeat what other editors said but, yeah, there's enough coverage to make an argument for "keep".
So, in conclusion, I say "keep" because there's enough press coverage to meet WP:N and it'l be best for society. The article says they have 700 employees and are rapidly hiring. A few interviewees might be interested in what Wikipedia has to say about this company. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would be delighted to have us adopt some version of the deWP system-- I consider it much more realistic than our focus of the details of sourcing. But I think that while $100 million would have made sense 10 years ago,, we would probably now want a higher level--and a much higher level for financial companies. A dominent position makes sense, but one of the top 3 is not what in english is meant by dominant, which rather means leading company, which this one is not. Hswever, I think the standard of what an investor or potential employee might want to know is exactly wrong: such content is promotional--the place for a companhy to give information to those groups is on its web site, since it is meant to encourage investment of staffing; we have no need to duplicateit. Rather, an encyclopedia gives information of interest to general readers who may have heard of the company and want some basic factual inforomation--which is very different from what it would want to say to attract customers, staa, or investors. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personally I don't care how the other language Wikipedias define notability. This is the English language version. Applying our criteria we do not have two intellectually independent references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There's certainly evidence that this company has a functioning marketing department though. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing++ 16:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This one is associated with Tomas Gorny - a topic that I still feel also meets notability guidelines but that's a different story. As far as promotion, it can easily be removed from the Wikipedia page. There are references from articles such as regional press from Arizona, a mixture of publications on the national level, and the books mentioned above by editor Hyperblick. There are also reviews of its products from reliable sources which include this from Business News Daily and this from PC Mag (Note that BND recommends the service while PC Mag does not). If we don't want articles like this, we need to strengthen our guidelines on notability. As for now, I feel this meets WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"If we don't want articles like this" Exactly correct, we never want promotional articles as by policy WP:Not promotion. That's not to say an RfC about separating good promotion from the opposite, but that there would be against our fundamental policies, including WP:Not advocate. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did there. Except you need to quote the whole sentence, not just the part that you want to use to justify your position. I never said to keep promotional articles. I said promotional can easily be removed. The sentence you misquoted talks about notability. I see some people saying that the company is insignificant. Insignificant and notable are two different things. I feel that the threshold for notability on companies is too low - as I think many other people do as well. However, until those standards are raised, "articles like this" that meet the basic guideline should be kept.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The best source is an interview, and we go downhill from here. WP:CORPSPAM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have been in this discussion about this subject before. These sources this and this are definitely WP:RS. Even though borderline this passes the WP:GNG test. The article has been recreated twice via Drafts and it was approved by different AFC reviewers but one thing that stands out is it has been having the same AFD nominator 3 times even though mot consecutively. Referring to link 1 and link 2. WP:INTERVIEW states; An independent interviewer represents the __world at large__ giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. and it also states; The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported. While I think it is in order to write off what other language encyclopedia consider as matter of policy on inclusion of subjects yet all of them are working to consolidate information about notable subjects in the quest to create the sum of all human knowledge. Not unless sum of all human knowledge is supreme over all in some language(s). If anything they span off from English Wikipedia and the policies their might be better in a bid to improve coverage as DGG stated above. I have also seen an editor trash the revenue per year because this is a tech company – granted that might be the case but some companies say UBER (Taxi) had an article here when it could only raise USD 1.25M of seed capital while it was more of a unicorn and not really having any revenues. Not really citing WP:OTHER but just like law precedence is equally important when building solid foundations. KagunduTalk To Me 12:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Solid foundations" cannot be the case when this article has been extensively edited by the company employees themselves, therefore a Terms of Use violation without the necessary disclosure, which was the case here. Sources wouldn't ever matter if the foundation is on a "Using Wikipedia for promotion" one. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any evidence suggesting this article has been exclusively editted by their employees against policy save for one editor who declared as per policy regarding COI here. The created article respects the policies around COI which is declaring it. You have rightly put that "it was the case" and currently it is not. I am also irked by companies that try to dilute quality on Wikipedia by riding on its reputation to gain any form of mileage in terms of publicity. To me this looks like a case of deleting this content just because the very first one was done by an SPI without really wanting to look the other way at the information and its verifiability . BTW, not all content created by SPIs has been deleted from Wikipedia although most of it has because it is inappropriate. At times they flood Wikipedia with good edits to hide their motives. This to me looks like one of those that ought to remain. Other editors have also taken their precious time to tone it down where it has gone out of the way which is WIKIPEDIA:ATD.I am in no way suggesting we condone such behavior but we should approach such investigations with WP:AGF. 16:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as a good example of this is what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (4th nomination) which then had Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 19 and then also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nextiva, which also had 4 nominations, and that there is a good example at how the company is only interested and intent on advertising itself, and that should always be our number one priority here: Removing it and asking questions if possible later. From our pillar policy, Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia and that's the one important disclosure anyone from the company needs to know. Another similar case was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (2nd nomination) which also had Keep votes but the opposing side clearly showed this was the last thing we ever needed to accept, therefore those conditions still apply here. In fact, this article's beginnings are in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiH, which as a paid-activity organization that mass-produced promotion with sockpuppets. Regardless if this is an improved article, it's clear that the foundation here has always been to misuse Wikipedia as a webhost. That we would suggest in keeping promotionalism simply because someone else is offering to pitch in and add a few changes, is against the goals of why Wikipedia began (as a promotion-free and open encyclopedia); especially because we're clearly being misled on why the article is genuinely keep-able, one of the sources previously offered earlier, for example, was from a local TV affiliate station, not the corporate news network itself, therefore it showed it was only local coverage, not independent coverage and this, unlike what's currently being suggested on what WP:Notability means, says independent coverage is what's needed. What the Keep votes essentially insinuate is that we should keep it, despite the promotionalism and Terms of Use violations, because it's interesting or important. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about terms of use violation. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe duffbeerforme called that out above as user Renzoy16 created the page. The creator's talk page discloses that they created the article for pay so how would that be a TOU violation? Maybe I am missing something here. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree there are not sufficient in-depth independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. MB 00:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The company is on the Deloitte 500 list, a fact that clearly establishes the notability of Nextiva. Although some aspects of the article can certainly be rewritten, it should be kept on the project in light of passing WP:NCORP. PFAStudent (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok...about the "Deloitte 500" statements...this is what is factual/verifiable:
Regardless of what the article states, Nextiva has NOT been placed on the "2017 Deloitte 2017 Technology Fast 500™ Awards", those particular rankings won't be be announced until November 9th 2017 (see Deloitte's own website).
In 2016 Nextiva was ranked at 423 (see Deloitte's own information).
In 2015 Nextiva was ranked at 287.
In 2014 Nextiva was ranked at 80.
In 2013 Nextiva wasn't ranked. (See this).
In 2012 and before it appears Nextiva wasn't ranked.
That's all. Shearonink (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 15:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Maleck[edit]

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

Article violates Wikipedia:FOOTY/Notability. Has not played one match with the senior squad of any team. Player has only played with Porto U-19 and the youth teams of Santos Laguna. GoPurple'nGold24 05:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - far more than enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, (see here: 1, 2, 3, 4) and that's not including most of the citations in the article. The coverage of Maleck spans many of Mexico's major newspapers and for several years, the fact that the subject fails WP:NFOOTY is trivial since he passes the fare more important guideline anyway. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not convinced by GNG arguments. GiantSnowman 08:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and subject specific guideline WP:NFOOTBALL which specifically says youth footballers do not have inherent notability. Appreciate he is with a club in a professional league, but he hasn't played yet WP:TOSOON and may never WP:CRYSTAL. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE for footballers with potential and does not indicate this person is any different from the many thousands of youth players which the above guidelines tell us shouldn't have stand alone articles. ClubOranjeT 11:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 15:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Helfeld[edit]

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

Small time YouTube guy, clearly does not meet notability standards. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Too soon. The Weekly Standard does have an 2014 article about him, but the Las Angeles Times article merely mentions an incident involving him as its main focus. He also has less than 7,000 subscribers which is a small YouTube following and he has been on YouTube for about 9 years. Knox490 (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Garza Ponce[edit]

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

Unreferenced, there are some dependable sources out there, but they only seem to mention this subject in passing. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Construction-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas it stands — entirely unsourced article with no assertion of notability. The failure to turn up good sources immediately in English may well be systemic bias, so we shouldn't prejudice against re-creation if good sources can be found. There are a number of Google News hits from Google.mx but on first read they strike me as routine business coverage. A Traintalk 15:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per MX's new sources below and pending article improvement. Even if those don't pan out we can always re-nominate the article later. A Traintalk 15:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready - I believe the article is ready, Drewmutt. The lead still needs to be expanded, but it should pass now. I'll be adding more information in the article, and then I'll get to the intro. I don't want to give undue weight to certain events that don't need to be in the lead. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 13:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep/close - Hi Drewmutt and A Train, can we close this nomination? I'm done expanding the article, and I think it is ready now. I've nominated it to DYK too, but the nomination cannot progress unless this AfD nomination is settled. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MX: Wow, impressive work, yep, I'm mollified. Glad to see AfD actually serve it's purpose. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn (not emotionally) Due to the impressive work by MX for rescuing this pup. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 15:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossing (South African TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES. Not yet released. Distinct from The Crossing (TV series), the American series, which happens to also fail that guideline. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Although no official broadcaster has yet been confirmed"...we don't have a network to air it on, we don't have an article. We're not an WP:ADVERT for the South African television industry to consider this show on; in reverse, America's Crossing has a network and will air in midseason, so it's got that minimum hurdle overcome. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been trying to work with the editor who is making most of the edits to the article but, from both his previous and current usernames I suspect he may have a COI. Most of the edits have been completely unsourced, or sourced to imdb and have been reverted accordingly. However, if they are based on personal knowledge then it seems the series' future is uncertain at this time and unlikely to air as early as May 2018, which is what is stated in the article. It's clearly too early for this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Despite a promise from the main contributor on my talk page 6 days ago, none of the claims have been sourced. The only changes were a return of a previous editor who added content sourced to imdb, Wikipedia and a dubious Facebook page. The Facebook page seems to have been setup to support the unsourced claim that the series name had changed. However, the posts refer to "The Crossing", not "Obsession". And then there was this. The "article" at tvsa.co.za was based on a new blog post, the very first in fact, by a new member of that website. The more I see, the more suspicious I am. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surmo[edit]

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

Very little evidence that this place exists, except for google weather reports. Almost entirely unsourced. The pictures are of dubious nature and appear almost computer generated. Seems almost like a hoax. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 01:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reverse racism. bd2412 T 15:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Anti white racism[edit]

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

Content fork of Anti-White Racism, which currently redirects to Reverse racism. No unique content or demonstration of notability. Carwil (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus in favor of deletion as failing to meet the WP:GNG. bd2412 T 15:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A Hundred Monkeys[edit]

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

The mention in one book is not sufficient for notability, and there does not seem to be anything else DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one reference/award - doesn't denote notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing++ 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article subject features prominently in this NYT article entitled "The Weird Science of Naming New Products". I also could have sworn there was a New Yorker piece in the last couple of years about the company but I haven't managed to find it yet. A Traintalk 15:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Um ... the article subject gets a passing mention in the article and the CEO gets a quote. That article doesn't meet the criteria for establishing notability - it is not in-depth (fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing++ 21:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't disagree, which I why I posted a comment and not a keep argument. A Traintalk 22:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Possibly a keyword issue -- a search for "100 Monkeys" turns up the "Weird Science" article from the New York Times because it explains the company's name using exactly that phrase: "Put 100 monkeys at 100 typewriters." A search for "A Hundred Monkeys" returns two New York Times articles, 13 years apart, that cover the company specifically and extensively, How To Invent a Brand Name and Education Technology Companies Play the Name Game, in addition to articles that include quotes from A Hundred Monkeys principles in 2002, 2000, and 2014. JSFarman (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The subject of this article lacks notability and the references have nothing to do with the actual company. Instead, the references are works of the company's creative director. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs a rewrite, but A Hundred Monkeys meets GNG and NCORP. In addition to the New York Times coverage noted in my comment above, there's Salon, Slate , Fast Company , the BBC, NBC News/Inc., The Globe and Mail, and others that can be found via a search for "A Hundred Monkeys," rather than "100 Monkeys." JSFarman (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. In order for a reference to meet the criteria, it must be "intellectually independent" and ideally containing some in-depth information on the company. It should not be based on company announcements or quotations from company personnel as these are not only PRIMARY sources, but the resultant articles are not considered intellectually independent. This New York Times reference you point to above is based on an interview with Altman with no in-depth information on the company and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This NYT reference relies on an affiliated source (a customer) and quotations from Altman with no in-depth information on the company and similarly fails because it is not intellectually independent, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I cannot access the Salon reference (404 error). The slate.com reference is from a blog and therefore fails as blogs are not considered reliable sources. Even if it was considered reliable, it also fails because is relies on interviews with and information recived from Altman (again) and while it discussed some of the methodology (according to Altman) it contains no in-depth information on the actual company. The article fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The fastcompany.com reference suffers from the exact same issues as all the others. It is not intellectually independent as it relies exclusively on interviews with Altman with no independent opinion or analysis and has no in-depth information on the company. It fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The BBC article fails ... same reasons ... that Altman guy just loves being interviewed. The nbcnews article ... yup, you've seen the pattern by now! Fails, Altman at it again. No in-depth info, etc. Finally, the theglobeademail.com reference same old failings although at least we can see a photo of Altman this time. The bottom line is that no, finding mentions of this company in various publications is not enough. The references themselves must be intellectually independent and these one are clearly not. -- HighKing++ 11:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the Salon article, but I suspect that you'll have the same issue with it as you have with the other references. (I can't argue your points - I don't know as much about policy as you do - my keep was based simply on seeing the AfD, thinking "wrong search terms," and finding what I perceived as extensive coverage via reliable independent sources.) JSFarman (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glossary of video game terms. This is a slightly early close, but the WP:SNOW has fallen on keeping this as a separate article. bd2412 T 22:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pack-in game[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT are my primary concerns. This page is mostly unsourced, and has been for years. Pack-in games can easily be covered at the console's main page. JOEBRO64 00:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. JOEBRO64 00:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to a merge to video game console of anything reliably sourced (not the list--though, these are reasonably self-sourced). I would expect that the packaging of consoles would be described there to some degree. Aside: That article does not do a very good job of summarizing History of video games. --Izno (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIC. There's really not much to be said here. A "pack in game" is a "game packaged together with a console". That's it. The rest of the article is merely a (largely unsourced) massive list of every time companies packaged two things together, which isn't the type a thing an encyclopedia documents. The relevant, notable pairings (Wii Sports with the Wii) are already better covered at their respective articles. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dicdef with added non-notable listcruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Glossary of video game terms. There's a lot of junk in this article but the term is common enough for me to have linked to it at least several times. At the very least, a short, sourced definition is possible.[43] An entry in the jargon glossary would be sufficient. czar 03:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_October_5&oldid=805334788"