Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 October	8 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Great Eastern Main Line. If somebody wants to create another dab page for Geml, be []WP:BOLD]] and have at it.

Thanks, User:PamD, for pre-creating the hatnote; that makes my job easier. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GEML[edit]

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

Surplus disambiguation page. There's only two links (thus making this a WP:2DABS fail). This can easily be sorted by hatnotes on both pages. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 23:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect the title to Great Eastern Main Line, the only topic having the identical abbreviation in the title itself (and averaging around three times as many page views), with a hatnote to the other. bd2412 T 04:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect to Great Eastern Main Line - as it was until converted to dab in the single edit of a now-blocked sockpuppet. I've added the necessary "redirect" hatnote, commented out for now. PamD 08:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No longer 2Dabs, and I'm not convinced that the rail line is the primary topic. As someone not from the UK or Spain, doing a Google search for "GEML" does result in a plurality of results for the rail line, but there are nearly just as many for other topics, some of which are covered by Wikipedia. Also, most of the sources in Google Books (and presumably Google Scholar as well) do not refer to the rail line at all, but instead refer to various scientific abbreviations/acronyms, almost always in all-caps. [1] If this is redirected back to the railine, the DAB page should be kept somewhere.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are going to include "Geml" spellings, we would really need to move the page to Geml; at that point, the question would still remain of where to point the remaining redirect. bd2412 T 21:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect to Great Eastern Main Line, create Geml as the dab page. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now a valid disambiguation page. If Great Eastern Main Line is the primary topic, make a request for this page to be moved. Peter James (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect to Great Eastern Main Line. Dabs shouldn't have redlinks, and the modelling language can be made a redirect to the framework. General Enterprise Modelling Language isn't even notable. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:04, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olgu Caglar[edit]

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

Not notable, was looking to find references to remove BLP unsourced tag but found nothing. The de-wiki has an article, but it is an exact clone of this one. can't BLP prod because it links to Imdb. Dysklyver 22:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the state of the DeWiki article I think we can safely dispense with WP:BIAS fears here. Clear GNG fail. A Train^talk 22:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:35, 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 Tehcnical close. Technical close, for relisting with a better rationale. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skytap[edit]

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

There's enough to show considerable concerns, not only in its current information or sources but then also the history of its consistency, because it's also still a concern in our non-negotiable policies which state the current sources as shown are unacceptable, being only announcements, financial listings, press releases, mentions or similar, wherever published, and because our simplest standards themselves echo what's needed in genuine substance, not simply what one may consider significant by assertion alone. Similar, there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone and to quote WP:CORPDEPTH: [Unacceptable sources are]: Simple announcements or statements, press releases, mentions, anything where the company talks about itself or was published by or the company, wherever" so attempted searches found exactly this, it was clearly labeled local business announcements, press releases, financial statements, PR trade publications focusing in advertised contents. Even if there was conceived signs of Skytap's notability, that alone wouldn't outweigh our main policies for companies since it's what bases Wikipedia itself. In that case, our policies themselves show it must then be restarted to show the suitable signs. The above is the given basis advanced for deletion in February, and the history shows it's been unchanged therefore its current existence applies for deletion itself. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not even going to pretend to understand the deletion rationale above, but Skytap has received plenty of coverage, including in multiple books on cloud computing and testing. It's clearly significant enough to be included: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. --Michig (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. No offense meant to the Zppix but that nomination is incomprehensible word salad. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you need to be able to communicate in clear, concise English. Editors shouldn't have to resort to scrying to participate in an AfD discussion. A Train^talk 22:29, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rodon[edit]

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

Despite the statement from the editor who removed the PROD banner, this page still does not meet the criteria for notability, set out per WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He has not played senior football, playing in a match for Swansea's U21s (according the source which supposedly confirms notability) in the EFL Trophy. Asterixtintin (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Asterixtintin (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Asterixtintin (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Asterixtintin (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page deletions. Asterixtintin (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues, and thus fails WP:NFOOTBALL. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Eagleash (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Kante4 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator says, the article at the moment contains a false assertion: the player has not made a senior debut for a professional side; the reference says he played for Swansea's U21 squad. A Train^talk 22:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as this is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails subject specific guidelines for sports people, no other claim of notability and TOSOON. ClubOranje^T 08:14, 9 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) 10:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:39, 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) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zumper[edit]

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

WP:NOT and WP:Paid apply given the clearcut signs of it in the history, especially as the relevant users are emphasizing the company website information; the sources are only clearly labeled announcements including for financials and funding, profiles, PR-focused trade publications and anything where the company talked about itself, wherever published, such as company-hosted columns, press releases, etc. (unacceptable for WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG). Searches here show only coverage about its early beginnings. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Alexius08 (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; no value to the project. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion or a directory listing for nn companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 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 delete. A Train^talk 08:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SiteScout[edit]

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

WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid (legal policy), given the history shows a consistent level of activity from SPA author to suggest it's the case; the article contains PR business awards in any publication, including ones where the company can ask for listing (especially one is from a local media) and the sources are clearly labeled announcements, notices, company profiles, company-advertised publishers, funding announcements and columns, press releases, etc. and all unacceptable, and no different than found here. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The provided coverage is routine: announcements of acquisitions, inclusion in start-up and upcoming company lists, etc. Neither these nor anything that I am finding in my own searches indicates more than a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL company. (Note: an earlier SiteScout, a security firm acquired by Rubicon Project in 2010, appears unrelated.) Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (Possible alternative is redirect to Centro who acquired the firm in late 2013.) AllyD (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just the usual routine announcements. No justification for inclduing the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indepth sources, GNG. z'L3X1 (distænt write) 01:36, 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 delete; speedied after article creator requested speedy deletion. bd2412 T 19:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Kensington crash[edit]

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

Car crashes are common all over the world, fails WP:N as WP:ROUTINE coverage. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge) It's rare and neat to see so many injuries described as not life-changing, but that exceptionality works against its notability, not for it. No blood, no tears, no article. Fear itself doesn't cut the mustard, especially when it's brief. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Exhibition Road as suggested on the article's talk page. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 21:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good idea per Graceful's comment below. Were there any other major accidents on this road before? How does it impact the history of the area? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps if we waited for the news to clarify the story instead of rushing to create "articles" (secondhand news reports) we wouldn't even need to be here. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete becase we don't cover routine news. But what I really came to say is don't merge to Exhibition Road because that would create lack of balance. Thincat (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There'd be one event in it from the distant past and one from the relative present. That seems balanced to me. If we can find a 1934 event, we'd have a beginning, middle and end. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they are both tied to the road as the cause then I would say okay but you need to find a connection if not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Refrigeration Exhibition of 1934. It's something like that first thing, but nothing like this last thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your looking, I feel the biggest issue here would be "Is the road dangerous"? This is why we have to be careful about making a section about car crashes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. But given the lack of death or serious injury in this crash, I don't think readers would get a danger vibe from its inclusion. I also don't think readers miss anything by never learning it happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Routine news coverage of something that is not otherwise notable had it not initially been misinterpreted as something bigger. As GracefulSlick said, had we waited for the first police press briefing (as I think we always should before creating such articles), we wouldn't be here. I'm ambivalent about merging to the Exhibition Rd article. As traffic accident, definitely not notable as event to add. As a kind of reflection about media and police overreaction, it may just be of interest. But in a different context, probably failing WP:10YT. I'm just thinking back to London in the 80s and 90s. If we'd include every suspect IRA "package" that causes a scare with similar police cordons that in the end turns out to be nothing, we'd need hundreds such entries. The difference to the 90s, if you'd miss the 20 second clip in the local news that evening, you wouldn't even know it happened. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No fatalities, no terrorism, just a road accident. But possibly worth a mention in the Exhibition Road article. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Please put it on Wikinews, this sisterproject is especially for news. There is a need for new contributors there. --Livenws (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Absolutely unbelievable that this non-event has an article. What next? A page about that woman who tried to climb over the gates of Buckingham Palace?. This is Paul (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only tried to climb, but appeared to shout. Relatively complex operation. Though no, not next. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS -- Longhair\^talk 14:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS -- (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - can always be recreated if the article has lasting significant coverage over time, but given that this appears to be a simple car accident, that seems unlikely. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A cautionary tale on creating articles based on tweets from Nigel Farage. AusLondonder (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and Katie Hopkins.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:10YT. There's been a brief flurry of attention paid to those who jumped to the wrong conclusion, but this doesn't justify an article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another classic and prime example of news coverage and recentism, rearing its ugly head. Wikipedia is not a news outlet and these article must be stamped on. I just wish a boat load of other articles would go exactly the same way. This is the worst example of initial news coverage leading to branding of terrorism, this should serve as a catalyst to put the brakes on other crap spewed from the same orifice having an article created and then defended to the hilt by news-mongers. Sport and politics (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy close (article creator): Seemed worth creating when the headline was all over BBC and other media outlets, but this non-event does not need a WP article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 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) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858)[edit]

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

Biography of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is that he was the first male (and thus surname-giving) ancestor of a notable political family to set foot on United States soil. The article claims in its introduction that he was also a politician himself, but completely fails to substantiate or source any political role that he ever held, so we can't measure the claim against WP:NPOL at all -- and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so a person who didn't do anything notable in his own right does not get an article just to help fill out the genealogies of his notable descendants. And for added bonus, the only reference present here at all is a deadlinked family genealogy present only to footnote the birthplace of Patrick's father rather than any content about Patrick. None of this is grounds for a separate biography of him as a standalone topic, independently of his name being mentioned in Kennedy family. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTINHERITED. I found a more detailed bio which doesn't mention any political activity or trace of notability in his own right. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Clarityfiend. Doesn't have independent notability, clearly fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while most of this "royal family" are notable, his patriarch was not in any way. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip LaTessa[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an auditor at the city level, and non-winning candidate for higher office. Neither of these are claims that pass WP:NPOL in and of themselves, but the article isn't sourced to anywhere near enough reliable source coverage about him to clear the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders — this is sourced to one article about his initial election as auditor, one article about his announcement that he was running for state assembly, and one article about the final election results, which is not a depth or breadth of coverage that makes him notable for those things per se. Every local officeholder anywhere at all, and every non-winning candidate for office in any election, could always show these things, which makes them routine rather than notability-assisting sources. To deem him notable, we would need to see coverage about his work in the auditor's role, and/or evidence that his non-winning candidacy was significantly more notable than most other non-winning candidates — none of which is being demonstrated here at all, which means nothing here is grounds for a Wikipedia article. (Note: not eligible for speedy as a recreation of deleted content, because even though being a non-winning candidate isn't grounds for notability it does postdate the original deletion and is thus still different from the first article.) Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, doesn't pass the bar of WP:NPOL. Happy to reconsider my position if non-WP:ROUTINE coverage of his service as city auditor can be turned up. A Train^talk 22:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet the notability under WP:NPOL as a politician. There isn't the significant coverage that would meet notability under WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. The position he held, in a moderately large city, is significant. If more sources could be found, I'd be convinced to allow the article to stay. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Head Soccer characters[edit]

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

HOWTO/Advert for a non-notable computer game. Cabayi (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article Head soccer doesn't even exist yet. Also see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Paleo Neonate – 23:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a correction: the page used to exist but no longer does. —Paleo Neonate – 02:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it really matters, since there's an obvious consensus forming here, but for the record, I checked the deleted page history, and Head soccer seemed to only exist for one minute before it was speedy deleted, inexplicably as a location where an editor copy/pasted what looks to be content from the Barack Obama article. Soooooo...the article hasn't really every existed in the contexted of being related to this list article. Or as an actual coherent article at all. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, nevermind. "Head soccer (wrong capitalization) is that vandalism article. Head Soccer (correct capitalization) was about the game, which was speedy deleted on multiple grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 23:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Parent page needed to establish notability does not exist. Comatmebro (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't even know what "Head Soccer characters" are. The article does not explain. If the article is not developed with a basic explanation, I am also leaning towards that the article should be deleted. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no parent article even exists and article clearly fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no article on the game itself and this is still non-notable fancruft regardless. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither notable nor comprehensible. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, normally I would say "redirect to Head Soccer" but uhhh... A Train^talk 22:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a spinout from an article that doesn't exist, consisting entirely of content that would be deleted whole-sale from said parent article per WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:NOTHOWTO. Not appropriate in the least. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list doesn't have sources to sustain as a independent list. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Stuff like this doesn't belong on encyclopedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss (The Powerpuff Girls)[edit]

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

Notability and content forking violations. Not a major character, only appears in five episodes and is little more than a publicity stunt. Subsequently, most press coverage is of the promotional variety. The character already has an entry on the show's character list, which I feel is more than adequate given none of the other characters, many of which span all three versions of the franchise, have individual articles. Reception section should be merged into the show's reception and rewritten as a critique of the entire storyline.

The article, in general, is not what I'd consider to be encyclopedic. Looking at the edit log, the article's creator appears to not be acting in good faith, often reverting factually correct and useful additions with rude comments seemingly to suit their own personal agenda. All in all, this shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I see no reason why this should be on Wikipedia. This is an article about a minor character. Even the major characters on this show do not have their own articles. Bias is also apparent here; the reception section explains positive responses in detail, while only vaguely mentioning negative responses. ~Wekpidea

The above comment was removed by User:Wekpidea, who has decided to argue for keep (see below). I've restored the comment and struck it out; removing comments from AfDs is not good practice. A Train^talk 16:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a lot of coverage in reliable sources which examines the character and the reaction to them before and after the episodes came out. The argument that the content should be merged with the shows reception is weak because it ignores that the sources focus of the character not the series. The accusation of bias is also the most ridiculous accusation I have heard, the section I wrote is described overwhelmingly mixed reactions from audiences and critics and if you don't like it you can rewrite it. The things I have revetred were bad edits that I got tired of correcting everyone who ignored the souces or were just adding in universe nonsense, this is also not a reason to delete an article anyway.★Trekker (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should have next to zero individual character pages. Most of them are fluff that is only relevant to fans of the material in question. Perfect for a Wikia, not Wikipedia. Bliss appears in just 5 episodes of Powerpuff Girls. Because of the show's episode length, that means she's only relevant for about 45 minutes of material. She's not even a particularly notable character within the context of the franchise, so I don't see how she's notable enough to justify her own page. Given how her five episode run ends, I suspect you're not going to be given much additional material to work with in the future.Again, the returning characters, who've appeared in almost every episode across all three iterations of the show do not have a page. Characters that are unimportant in-universe could warrant an article if they strike a large amount of real world reaction, but I really don't see that here. I see a lot of promotional pieces and a small handful of critiques. Small enough that critique could (and should) be rolled into the main article about this specific series.

Your behaviour is worth pointing out when you're the article's creator, main editor and likely will be its main defender in this discussion. It indicates the article was created in bad faith. Your contributions have almost exclusively been limited to the reception section and you've prevented attempts from filling the rest of the article up with content. Go look at any usual character page on Wikipedia. Most of them are heavy on the characterization. You have previously written edit summaries calling the work done by others "dumb" and have told people to "stop adding dumb plot shit here." Most egregiously, in my opinion, was when you reverted an edit that swapped out a regional voice actor (who doesn't have a Wikipedia article) for the one used in the place of the show's creation (who does have a Wikipedia article). Not only was your response of, "So. Find. A. Source. That. Says. That." incredibly immature, it was also incorrect. That edit was cited and the source, which you actually added to the article, states three actresses have played the role regionally in English. Bizzarely, you seem to have acknowledged that by saying "you know it's possible to have multiple actresses mentioned in an infobox, huh?" You know that in the time it took you to chastize a good faith edit you could've done that yourself? Couple that with this some bizzare language in the article and it becomes clear this article wasn't written, or even intended to be written, with a neutral point of view. A neutral point of view would've probably told you that if the triplets who star in almost every single episode don't have individual articles, neither should their one-off (hey, they premeired those 5 episodes as one "TV special") publicity stunt older sister.Damnedfan1234 (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprising myself here—I fully expected to end up arguing to delete or redirect when I saw the heading. But after reading the article, this subject seems to definitely pass the WP:GNG. The nominator says that this is "not a major character" on the show, which may well be true for all I know but Wikipedia doesn't care about that. There are multiple instances of non-trivial coverage of this character in outlets like the CBC, Entertainment Weekly, and iO9 already in the article. A Google News search turns up tons more stuff. I'm not sure how much more we could ask of this article. A Train^talk 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Weekly and HelloGiggles shouldn't be given the same weight to prove notability in this situation. Both are owned by Time Inc., a company that was spunoff from Time Warner, the company that produces the show and owns the network Powerpuff Girls airs on. Entertainment Weekly in particular seems to have been used solely as a promotional vehicle for this. This isn't journalism, it's an undisclosed advertisement. All of the information in those articles was also present in the Animation Magazine link anyway.

As for the CBC story, there's a reason it was used for "Further Reading" and not directly cited in the article. It's actually an audio interview clipped from Q. It starts off about the character, but quickly goes into the subject's own personal view on things. This is wholly irrelevant to the deletion discussion, but it's a weird interview in general. The backdrop provided by the CBC overstates the character's narrative importance (the host and the summary indicate Bliss is a lead in a series yet to premiere, and not a temporary addition to an already running show) and the actress isn't even the one that'll be heard in Canada, which is never brought up in the interview ...

iO9's coverage is fine. It actually supports my position that the Reception section of this page should be merged into the overall show's article as it's a review of the episodes the character appears in. Conversely, if someone wanted to make an article about the TV special and make a Reception section talking about this, I'd have no complaints. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect, your dismissal of Entertainment Weekly seems like a bit of tinfoil hattery to me. But even if we strike that source as compromised, you can spend ten seconds on Google News to find a hundred more references. You seem to have a personal axe to grind about the article subject. A Train^talk 07:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear GNG pass. Artw (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking through sources found through Google News appears to indicate notability to me. I take a few issues with Damnedfan1234's response to Trekker above my message. His or her personal opinion on the amount of articles on individual fictional characters on Wikipedia is irrelevant and raises concerns about a bias against the article that is not directly rooted in Wikipedia policy. Also, what determines notability is the amount of independent, significant coverage on the character. The amount of time that the character appears in said medium is irrelevant to this argument and any argument trying to tie notability to screen time should be discounted. I am also not particularly a fan against the attacks against Trekker’s edit history on the article. I do not support the comments made in the edit summary, but I fail to see how it is relevant here. I apologize for the long post. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may have put my foot in my mouth talking about my own views for what Wikipedia should and shouldn't cover. I do want to note that in the near decade I've been an editor of this site, this is the first time I've ever nominated a page for deletion. I think it's clear I'm not someone gunning for page kills.Damnedfan1234 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and it is understandable. I did not have the impression of you looking for page kills so do not worry about it. We all have our own views on Wikipedia so it is nice to have different areas where dialogues can be opened and we can all learn and grow together. Aoba47 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as this may seem indeed less-than-notable, the coverage is there, and coverage matters more than your impressions or mine. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The character has clearly received lots of attention and coverage from numerous sources. Her being a minor character doesn't negate that. Having said that, the article still needs works, completely lacking any information in regards to "Production" and "Appearances". PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After thorough thought, I have changed sides. This is clearly a notable subject, and fits the criteria for a page to exist. Wekpidea (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wekpidea, you'd be a mensch if you ~~struck out~~ your previous position to make life easier for the administrator who closes this discussion. A Train^talk 07:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per other arguments towards notability. The coverage appears to be about her ethnicity rather than just promotional. However, I think the article should be renamed Blisstina Utonium per WP:NATURAL, as a more natural disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:11, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Alex Shih, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GTxcel[edit]

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

Ton of problems. Reads like advert, no sources at all, puffery. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. No sourcing, very spammy. South Nashua (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion. Devoting a section to mentioning competitors is a sure sign of promotional intent. Alexius08 (talk) 10:21, 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) 18:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Run Like an Antelope (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK - could easily be summarized in a section in the Phish article. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In a few quick searches a PW review (trade publication) is all that's on offer. If it had some secondary source coverage, I'd recommend redirection to Phishheads#Books, where the other fan books are covered, but I don't see the sourcing in this case. Ping me if you find otherwise? czar 23:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I can see that no references are cited in the article, and also I can't find much in the searches that can establish notability of the subject. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 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 procedural close. The last AfD closed 3 days ago, at least wait a little while before nominating again. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 03:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Paddock[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT. Article content is exclusively about 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting and bio information that does not make the subject notable outside that event. Number of cited sources not related to that event: 0. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I submitted this unaware of the prior no-consensus outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Paddock. No strong objection to a procedural close, although I don't know why we keep WP:BLP1E item 1 if it allows an article such as this one. The ONEEVENTness here couldn't be any clearer. I have asked Twinkle to warn idiot users like me about prior noms before they commit, we'll see if that goes anywhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is too much reliably sourced information on him to just be contained within the article for the event. Last AfD was closed 1 day ago. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alas, these AfDs never seem to succeed despite the fact such articles are clearly against guidelines. Should be closed. Objective3000 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear at all that they are against guidelines. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, for many other mass shootings, suspects who are not notable for actions outside the incident have Wikipedia articles separate from those of the incidents like Omar Mateen, Seung-Hui Cho, Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik etc, with no nominations for deletion given to my knowledge. Given that these articles have not been challenged in this manner, I don't see any particular reason to delete the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, please. The previous AfD with no consensus ended just three days ago. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural closure. Apparently, the nominator did not know about the prior AfD, nor about its closure three days ago. Please try to do some legwork next time. Quote from relevant policy: If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections... Your source: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Poeticbent talk 20:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural closure per above. We can have this discussion again at a later date, but not right after the first ended. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close per the above. Its just to soon to be listing this article at AfD again. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mandruss: - to warn idiot users like me about prior noms - listed at the top of the article talk page. There are also user scripts that display previous noms at the top of article pages. -- GreenC 23:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I knew about the article talk page, I simply forgot because I don't do this a lot. The addition of a message to Twinkle would have saved me and others some time, would continue to save editor time forever (or as long as Twinkle and XfD exist), and would cost very little. That's all I'm saying. While we're trading tips, I didn't receive your ping because the valid ping and the valid signature have to be added in the same edit. Adding a ping later does nothing except to make your comment look like you pinged somebody. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: Forgot to ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

100% Keep-This issue has already been brought up last week and the decision was made for it to be kept. As I said back then, the guidelines for Wikipedia only say the subject has to be notable. It does not say "must be notable for several things." Paddock is responsible for the biggest mass shooting in US history with 58 deaths (not counting Paddock) and 489 injured people.-K-popguardian (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a BLP1E matter, since Paddock is dead. The relevant guideline, WP:BIO1E does not ban such articles but instead explicitly permits them in certain circumstances:

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

This event is "highly significant" and Paddock's role is clearly "a large one". The worldwide coverage already cited in the article meets the guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural closure - Way too soon for another AfD. HastyBriar321 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Issue has already been discussed. PvOberstein (talk) 03:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kagundu Talk To Me 10:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XO (record label)[edit]

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

It lacks WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NOTABILITY. BJPlaya10 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Very notable record label. Unnecessary AfD nomination. MassiveYR ♠ 19:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly has had massive success with The Weekend, and significant success with Nav (rapper), and Belly (rapper) is notable. I would agree with "speedy keep" but it is sure hard to find independent sources giving in-depth information about this label, which is odd for a label that has had this amount of chart success. This success (and the label's history in general) has been as a subsidiary of Republic Records, so a "merge" to that label is not out of the question. However, "delete" would the wrong outcome, as the information is useful to discographers, musicologists, and music historians. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major label, the label has references to reliable sources for a close pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 78.26. Also, this article discusses XO as a label and brand, a la OVO Sound. gongshow talk 10:16, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DannyBoyStyles[edit]

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

It has been deleted two times and now it has been remodified under a stylized name. It still fails on certain levels. BJPlaya10 (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep grammy award winning music producer passes WP:NMUSIC with reliable sources coverage such as Billboard here and Pitchfork already referenced in the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Billboard source is good. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:33, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Quenneville[edit]

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

This article potentially fails at WP:REFERENCE and WP:ANYBIO. BJPlaya10 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep record producer who has produced Billboard main national chart topping albums also songs and is signed to Universal music label so passes WP:NMUSIC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Academy Award-nominated songwriter. Produced/wrote multiple number one songs. Mymis (talk) 12:03, 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 redirect to Aygün Kazımova. A Train^talk 08:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sevdim (Aygün Kazımova album)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. WP:ATD is redirect to artist, but creator unhappy with that (although unwilling to communicate). Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creator has now just been blocked for promotional only/undisclosed paid editing, on articles about this artist, so will no longer be able to join the conversation. Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aygün Kazımova No evidence of independent notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Aygün Kazımova as ATD per nom, blocked user now can't protest. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:39, 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 delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Adam[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a former mayor (he is not the incumbent, as the infobox claims he is, but I have yet to find a source for the exact end date of his term), which is referenced almost entirely to primary sources rather than reliable source coverage in media. This is a city where the mayor is selected internally by the city council on a yearly rotation, not directly elected by the voters, so there's no automatic presumption of notability just for the fact of being a mayor -- but there's nowhere near enough media coverage being shown to actually get him past WP:NPOL #2. And for added bonus, this is written much more like a campaign brochure, containing little to no actual substance about his time as mayor, than like an actual encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A review of the online newspapers do not should significant coverage of the subject. The coverage is local, either in the Ventura County Star or the Thousand Oaks Acorn (no coverage in the Los Angeles Times could be found). The community consensus is that mayors selected by their council do not have the same presumption of notability as mayors who were independently elected. --Enos733 (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local politician with only routine local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 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 redirect to Pornography in Europe#Greece. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography in Greece[edit]

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

There is no real reason this exists when everything in this very short article can be stated in Pornography in Europe#Greece. After a WP:BEFORE I am unconvinced there is enough Greece-focused commentary on pornography to make even a basic notable stub. Dysklyver 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pornography in Europe#Greece as suggested by nominator. There do exist some specific news articles about pornography in Greece, but what could be pieced together from those news articles wouldn't merit its own Wiki article. The paragraph at the mentioned redirect target can simply be expanded if need be. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pornography in Europe#Greece as per Magoo. –Davey2010^Talk 01:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pornography in Europe#Greece, per Magoo. Not good enough to be a stand as a separate article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pornotopia[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOT, it is a thinly veiled dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. no prejudice to this being recreated on wikitionary. Although the article supplies background information to the neologism, there is no actual topic here. Dysklyver 15:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The depth of this concept is such that entire books have been written about it—for example, the first hit from Google Scholar is Designing pornotopia: essays on visual culture (which is already cited, though not linked, in the Wikipedia page), or Beatriz Preciado's use of the concept in analysis of Playboy’s worldview, reviewed in a scholarly journal. The concept has also been used extensively by evolutionary biologist Donald Symons, for example in his book The Evolution of Human Sexuality and elsewhere.

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above - Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sources already present in the article establlish independent notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Holm[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 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 - 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) 15:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:TOOSOON and subject specific guideline WP:NFOOTBALL which specifically says youth footballers do not have inherent notability. 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. ClubOranje^T 09:11, 9 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) 10:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:39, 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) 18:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korrawit Tasa[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 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 - He has not played in a fully pro league or recievd significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considerable amount of Google News hits, some of which are specifically about the subject.[12] --Paul_012 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:TOOSOON and subject specific guideline WP:NFOOTBALL which specifically says youth footballers do not have inherent notability. 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. ClubOranje^T 09:03, 9 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) 10:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has achieved some things at youth level but not enough to satisfy WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:19, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kantaphat Manpati[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 7 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) 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considerable amount of Google News hits, quite a few of which appear to be in-depth.[13] --Paul_012 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WP:TOOSOON. fails subject specific guidelines, specifically WP:NFOOTBALL. Coverage in (mostly Thai) press is what I would call WP:ROUTINE and do not indicate this person is any different from the many thousands of youth footballers the above guidelines tell us shouldn't have stand alone articles. Fails WP:ANYBIO . ClubOranje^T 08:55, 9 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) 10:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:39, 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) 18:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EntertainmentCareers.net[edit]

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

Contested Prod .Promotional article created by a sockfarm .Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it was my PROD which stated Pure advertising created by a sockfarm and maintained since then by a few drive-by single-purpose accounts. Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. It is still unsalvageable promotion and likely to stay that way in the absence of RS coverage. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article created by a sockfarm. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 17:21, 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. A Train^talk 08:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Pogo[edit]

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

I see exactly two articles on the game in WP:VGRS (that's Destructoid and NintendoLife). This topic does not presently display notability and likely will not for the foreseeable future. Izno (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any more RS._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable unreleased VG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:41, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional secret bases in comics and animation[edit]

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

This article has been unreferenced since 2007. This list is original research. Without a secondary source justifying all or most of the list, it needs to go. Rhadow (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unsourced fancruft, and does not appear to serve any sort of navigational purpose. Reyk _YO! 07:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems indiscriminate in a way that I don't think can really be fixed through a rename or editing: secret and nonsecret bases, hideouts and...entire planets. And no good reason to limit this to comics and animation. The secret base is a significant trope in fiction, but I think focusing on that would really just be a different list. Category:Fictional secret bases is also being applied indiscriminately (the hidden Batcave is secret, the very public Avengers Mansion is not), and seems to have far too few valid and notable examples to provide guidance for fixing this. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft that is already covered by Category:Fictional secret bases._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inclusion criteria is too broad. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:57, 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 ) 23:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Imamura[edit]

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

Promotional article of no clear notability. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG PRehse (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet the WP:GNG. Nothing mentioned in the article seems to meet any of the notability criteria for martial artists.Sandals1 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the previous comments. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Coverage is not significant and independent and there is no evidence of martial arts notability. Rank alone is never considered sufficient to support a claim of martial arts notability. I believe the article on his student, Julio Camacho, has similar problems. Papaursa (talk) 20:07, 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry L. Mathis[edit]

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

specialized minor author. basically as advertisement for his lectures DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. gongshow talk 10:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NAUTHOR. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:42, 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 keep. Some spurious keep arguments here but clearly no consensus to delete. A Train^talk 08:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SHI International Corp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

trivial awards , no other notability. Refs are basically PR (I found these and other nomination today look at the oldest unreviewed articles.Assitance there would be appreciated) DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the largest female-owned business in the US would in my opinion make this notable per these two reliable sources: 1, 2.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The claims don't stand up. "The 15th largest ..." is from a press release. More than half of the references are from the company's own website or businesswire -- which is not an independent reliable source. A bunch of the references are dupes, giving the impression of a long list, which it isn't. And yes, a SPA wrote it. Rhadow (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion as yet on keeping or deleting, but must say that I have serious doubts about the "largest female-owned business in the US" claim. Did these sources really check the ownership of every larger business to ascertain that it is true? Do records of ownership even indicate the sex of shareholders when it isn't obvious from their names? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--@DGG:--Please go through ticket:2017091410026541 and SHI International.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 7.5 billion turnover. Nothing else matters. Also on three of Forbes' large business lists.

This is an awful article, admittedly. No useful content, lots of puff, lots of puff sources. But WP just does not get to turn its back on a business this size and say "You don't exist". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge though. We seem to have two on the same business. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it because of what looked like inconsistent statements. If they have a $7.5 billion dollar revenue, why does the article find it necessary to say as one of its highlights under operations that "SHI was named to a $13.7 million contract option " Contracts of that sort are not the distinguishing feature of a company that size. The article also claims that its principal operation is "managing over $1 billion in customers’ Microsoft cloud assets " $1 billion in managed assets is not a $1 billion income or turnover. The Forbes award is for a "medium-sized business-- and its for "best employer", which is not a meaningful designation, as it is based on no real criterion. (all the other awards are equally menaingless or non-secific) Apparently the 7.5 billion figure is real, so WP should not "turn its back" n the business--it should delete this article and write a proper one. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several aspects to this company: one is retail IT sales, one (the newer) is services. Margins in retail IT hardware are minimal, so large turnover doesn't imply large profits. This article, and its puffery, is presenting it as if it's a services company on a par with Accenture et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important company documented by Bloomberg. The article's current quality is not a reason for deletion. Needs to be merged with SHI International.--Ipigott (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People are perfectly happy to keep an article about some random cookie brand with similar issues and a similar reference list, so it shouldn’t be an issue to keep this one either. Dysklyver 15:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/05/27/thai-lee-shi-international/ Stuartyeates (talk) 20:21, 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. Ultimately, the strongest arguments were to retain the article, including one "delete" vote being struck mid-debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARS Public School[edit]

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

The article is purely promotional in tone. A web search does not show up any reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Mark the train^Discuss 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the classic circular reasoning to keep an article because earlier an article was kept because earlier an article was kept, etc. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is disguise... The Banner talk 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, consensus. The RfC did not, of course, override longstanding consensus. However much the deletionists would like it to have done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is your keep-opinion, Necrothesp. But the sheer fact that there was an RfC shows that your "consensus" is at best wafer thin. The Banner talk 15:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You will note that consensus since the RfC has continued to favour keeping secondary school articles. Very few have been deleted, inconclusive RfC or no inconclusive RfC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        There are indeed administrator do not act on the facts but listens to the ones that shout loudest. But as you stated here yourself: articles about schools DO get removed. The Banner talk 10:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they act on the opinions expressed, as they are expected to do; if opinions didn't count at AfD we wouldn't bother to have AfDs at all. Occasionally they are deleted. But usually not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn School. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the classic circular reasoning to keep an article because earlier an article was kept because earlier an article was kept, etc. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is disguise... The Banner talk 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per this RfC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The "longstanding precedent and consensus" mentioned above always required independent, reliable sources, which have not been provided in this case. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the RFC from February 2017 that states (among others) Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Fails WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a medium to promote a school. The Banner talk 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per Cordless Larry.I do not seem to retrieve any sourcing.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references can be located. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have found this independent source in a high-profile newspaper which says that this is a sought-after school in a city with a high reputation for education. This is strong support for keeping the article.

Shekhar, Shashank (4 June 2016). "10 aspirants for every Class XI berth - Bihar & Bengal students throng Bokaro". The Telegraph (India). Retrieved 4 October 2017.

Verbcatcher (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject isn't notable. Arguments from Necrothesp and Kudpung ignoring the consensus signed by Tazerdadog, Primefac, The Wordsmith, and Someguy1221 are essentially WP:ILIKEIT with a heavy dose of WP:IDHT. I don't care about schools one way or the other just like I don't care about baseball leagues in Korea. I am concerned when admins decide that their preferences overrule community consensus. Either we agree to abide by consensus even when it doesn't go our way or we really just want anarchy if it lets us have our cake and eat it, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman people vote or comment at AfD whether they are admins or not. You should retract your disingenuous slur at admins. I put it to you that your reasoning is that the consensus in the RfC (for there was none - it was totally ambiguous) didn't go your way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: My "term of disparagement" against your argument is not disingenuous. You should know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. My !votes are always in keeping with whatever cockamamie rule the consensus comes up with; I don't seek to implement my "way." That's the difference between me and those opposed: I don't substitute my preferences for Wikipedia's consensus. I struggle to fathom how anyone in good faith could come to your conclusions and I honestly don't want to make this disagreement mean-spirited. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman:--Actually, I will have to side with Kudpung on this one, despite our gen. disagreement on the narrow topic.The RFC did not bind the !voters to vote in a part. manner.It just said that votes of a part. type shall be added to WP:AADD et al among many other things it said.It's the job of the closer to properly weigh the votes casted by different participants.And IMHO, the aspersions could be best-retracted.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Godric on Leave: That makes no damn sense. If the RfC did indeed say SCHOOLOUTCOMES is now in AADD territory, then any call to "precedence" is similar to ILIKEIT, also on the AADD list. Perhaps you think !voters are permitted to make invalid arguments but I've seen closers struggle with ignoring those invalid arguments. I have nothing personal against Kudpung but his argument defies logic. Do we collectively not care about AADD because it's an essay? I expect admins to act within the rules, not in defiance of them. These aren't even rules I made up or am a fan of. I'm just dutifully following what it says in black and white; that's what each of us owe as a member of this community. Kudpung impugns me as if I have an agenda to delete all articles about schools, so no, I won't be apologizing for discrediting his incomprehensible rationale. If you agree with him then somehow I'm not understanding what you're saying. Therefore, please leave me out of it. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I precisely think voters are permitted to make invalid/quasi-valid arguments.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me sum up the actual situation. For years there has been a clear consensus that secondary schools are notable. A handful of editors continually claimed in AfD discussions that this consensus was not valid because they didn't agree with it and misinterpreted consensus as meaning "absolutely everyone agrees", which would clearly make it impossible ever to get a consensus on Wikipedia. Eventually they started an RfC with the wording: "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" The debate that followed was inconclusive, as are most RfCs. All this means is that we haven't added that wording to the notability guidelines. It does not mean that the longstanding consensus has changed or that there is anything wrong with stating that a consensus exists. It still does and AfDs since the RfC have proved it still does, since very few secondary school articles continue to be deleted. The status quo remains unchanged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: "The debate that followed was inconclusive" Tazerdadog, Primefac, The Wordsmith, and Someguy1221 disagree with you. You should discuss it with them. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think they said there was a conclusive result, do you? Maybe you should reread the RfC outcome ("Numerically, the respondents to this RFC were about evenly divided between supporting and opposing that statement", " leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus", etc). I see the same lack of conclusion that results from pretty much every RfC. There was no consensus to add it to the notability guidelines; neither was there any consensus that secondary schools should not be presumed notable. The status quo where we express opinions at AfD and the closer decides the consensus has been maintained. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis The RFC being referred to says "It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special" and that a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find reliable sources in local and/or print media. For schools in India this should include non-English sources and ideally print-only newspapers. Because this is not feasible for most editors we should cut these articles some slack, and accept articles on Indian schools with fewer and lower-quality sources that we would normally require.

There is a long-standing consensus that secondary schools are usually notable. Decisions should take note of long-standing consensus, and not go against it without good reason. This principle was not overturned by the RFC.

Nor does the RFC say that we should ignore long-standing precedent. WP:ONLYGUIDELINE says:

In particular, while precedents as defined at WP:OUTCOMES are not actual policy, by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy.

Verbcatcher (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: Weak sauce. The IDHT is strong with you, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is strong in anyone who disagrees with you. How strange! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--The RFC closed in that part. manner because it invoked numerous outside eyes.If this had been done on the School Project t/p, the result would most probably be a snow-oppose.And the very debate that is often happening in these AfD discussions and is happening here, lies in the fact that those outsiders who !voted against the Schools=Automatic notability stand rarely participate in these AfDs and thus, what was/is the typical project-consensus continue to get aired, nearly un-abated on AfDs after AfDs and gives way to closures which in-turn reinforces their consensus.Sort of a positive-feedback-loop.And, in all reality, it takes guts to characterize arguments from long-term sysops as in-valid and closing a disc. against the so-called-consensus without being accused of supervoting.So, I don't blame the closers either.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Necrothesp:--Err...Challenge the close?Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to. See above. Also note that I have no involvement in the schools project. I would also point out that if people cared enough about deleting these articles then they would take part in AfDs. AfDs continue to be about opinions. If they were not and notability was determined by hard and fast rules then there would be no need to have AfDs. Admins would just be able to delete articles that went against "the rules" without discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice when the administrators finally started ignoring the circular reasoning and judged the articles on their content. The Banner talk 10:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests you also don't like stubs, which also goes against community consensus. Also please stop attacking admins; we're all just expressing our opinions here. Not as admins or non-admins, but simply as editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be true: I do not like articles that are promotional and not sourced with independent sources. But promotion and non-existing sourcing is clearly not one of your concerns when it comes to schools. You just support every school, just because it is a school. The Banner talk 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No sources, written to be promotional. Unless and until sources - online or off - are found, this article should be deleted. And I'll give you three guesses why they won't participate in AfDs, and the first two don't count, Kudpung, Necrothesp. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is a source. It's not a third party source, but the organizations web site is reliable enough for the basic facts about an organization. We have once or twice fo come across school articles without even that, and those do get deleted. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES at least, past practice has required independent sources for a school article to be kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I identified a high-quality third party source earlier in this discussion: Shekhar, Shashank (4 June 2016). "10 aspirants for every Class XI berth - Bihar & Bengal students throng Bokaro". The Telegraph (India). Retrieved 4 October 2017. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that - I was just addressing DGG's suggestion that a non-independent source alone has been regarded as enough to keep an article in the past. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per J947's argument and the sources he provides, my argument has changed to Keep. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is good reason for the current practice about high schools: it's part of a compromise. The compromise is that we keep articles on high schools unless there is doubt about real existence, but in exchange we do not make articles about primary schools unless there is something really special. The purpose of the compromise is to avoid thousands of arguments just like this -- before the compromise there were sometimes more than 10 a day, and the results were essentially random, depending on who showed up. These re appropriate articles to be permissive about--they good for beginners, and people may well eventually improve them. The difficulty with sources is in large part a matter of reference availability--we have no practical access to the places where such sources would be published. As for the RfC, it the confusing conclusion said two things with opposite implications: that there was no consensus that Schooloutcomes could be quoted as a reason and that the practice reported in Schooloutcomes was nonetheless an accurate description of what we did, and there was no consensus to change that. The net result is that the actual situation is just as beefore: we keep such articles. Challenging the same thing in mltiple AfDs in the hop that by chance one will come to a different consensus is taking unreasonable advantage of the inevitable inconsistency of WP. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On that last point, DGG, how can consensus ever change if editors shouldn't challenge that consensus in AfDs? The argument is made that school articles should be kept because previous school articles were kept. This argument leaves little space for those who believe that schools are not necessarily always notable to challenge that consensus without initiating AfDs and arguing for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, consensus can be changed by a successful RfC with a clear outcome. The RfC you refer to contradicts itself so much that people could argue for or against schools notability. What we have since that RfC are the 'I don't like schools' people trying to change the existing practice through the backdoor of AfD. Ironically, it's the 1,000s of school AfD that have been closed as 'keep' that have established the practice which we employ to achieve consistency as explained by DGG. So those who 'believe' that schools are not necessarily always notable, should start yet another perennial RfC, and while they are about it, consider soccer players who have only played one game, railway and subway stations, shopping malls, and restaurants with a Mitchelin star, none of which gave us an education that prepared us for our degrees and PhDs. And until that happens, or you can ge the next 1,000 school AfD closed as 'delete', as per Necrothesp: the status quo remains; and with it, the need to constantly attack admins is moot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I don't believe that I have been constantly attacking admins, or indeed attacking them at all. That aside, I'm happier with the final part of your answer (about the next 1,000 school AfDs) than the first part (about another RfC), because I think that if a consensus is based on a reading of past AfD outcomes, then it should be possible to change that consensus through a change in AfD outcomes. That's why I think it is unhelpful for DGG to suggest that editors shouldn't challenge past practice in AfD discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Upon reading through the closure of the February RFCI have found that the closure is confusing and inconclusive, but from my understanding the result was 'no consensus, defaulting to status quo'. BTW, Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist was the status quo back then; existence has to be verified by a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. I believe though, that the correct interpretation would of been reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Now though, school AfDs have become much further scrutinised because of the RfC, and I feel that is a slightly negative aspect. Now, here are the two sources that the RfC requires: [14] [15]. This satisfies notability for third-world schools, as a contrast to this AfD. As a further note, promotional language is a content issue and ought to be discussed at the article's talk page, not here. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources that have been found consist of an incidental mention and "it exists and has a basketball team". Hardly significant coverage. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources offered by J947.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinkbeast: I agree that it's far from SIGCOV, but it's enough for the result of the RfC to be satisfied. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree, J947. The RfC doesn't, as far as I can see, suggest that school articles should be kept based on passing mentions in sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: The RfC nutshell says References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AfD. Also, a this is in a third-world country, less references are required. Therefore, one piece of SIGCOV and a mention in another source is enough for schools like this. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urban India is hardly a backwater in terms of internet penetration, and the school is apparently relatively new, so it's not a case of having to search for pre-internet era print coverage. Indian editors Adamgerber80 and Godric on Leave have confirmed their inability to find significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first time I am seeing so much traffic and discussion on an AFD. Every other time it is usually 2 or 3 people. As for this school, I want to provide a bit of background. Bokaro is a city built largely around a steel plant. Unlike the metros of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai, Bokaro doesn't have such an active media. Schools will almost never find independent coverage in India, unless and until the school is a bit old or it has become famous for a good academic record. This school seems to have been established in 2005, so it is relatively new. It is recognised by CBSE as can be seen from [16]. Other than this and the small mention in a local school news, there is not much information I can gather.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. Just Chilling (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want to keep the article based on guess work? The Banner talk 20:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand a certain skepticism over articles for schools in India that have essentially no sources at all, and about which no statement of importance can be made. But this has clear 3rd party documentation for its quality and importance, and is an appropriate short article. If we're going to start becoming somewhat restrictive it makes no sense to start here with the deletions. (and that's the purpose of the compromise, to accept them all, rather than do injustice by the happenstance of focussing on one like this). DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the above !votes/comments, I have completely rewritten the article with sources. Hardcopy search is still needed to underpin notability but what is there clearly demonstrates the significance of the school. Just Chilling (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this version for the one with all the sources.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:05, 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 no consensus. A Train^talk 08:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Under 20 Elite League[edit]

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

Per OTRS 2017090710018144

"A few months ago there were plans to establish this tournament but in agreement with UEFA it was decided to shelve the Under 20 Elite League. The scheduled matches between the teams involved will be played as friendly games, but will logically not be counted in a competition form or league table." S Philbrick (Talk) 16:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we have articles saying that this tournament has been shelved and it is all friendlies, because as it stands I would vote for keep off current information NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with comment above. If the tournament has been cancelled or similar, there is no basis for an article to cover it. But so far the information states that it is going ahead in some form. What is the source for the quote above underpinning the rationale for deletion? Crowsus (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can the proposer please provide their evidence for the tournament concept being disbanded, otherwise this is kind of a pointless exercise? Crowsus (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a source saying the tournament has been disbanded, and in light of the Italian Football Federation explicitly referring to this tournament in a match report from earlier this month (albeit referring to it as the "8 Nations Tournament" rather than Under 20 Elite League) Keep, and possibly Move. OZOO (t) (c) 15:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Under-20 Four Nations Tournament (and rename the target page). [17] appears to be a source for results. While the matches appear to exist, if we can't determine what the over-all event is even called, it almost certainly is not notable enough to have a page specifically for this year's competition. Including the individual match results is likely WP:UNDUE, I'll ping Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for comment on that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the name, the official name was never known, Italian refer as Torneo Quattro Nazioni Under-20, German refer it as Internationalen U-20 Spielrunde in the past editions. So it need a reliable source for the new names "Under 20 Elite League" and "8 Nations Tournament". Matthew_hk t c 12:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like we are waiting on external information here. Also need an answer on GiantSnowman's notability question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Huh? I don't understand your relisting comment. What GiantSnowman notability question needs an answer? ClubOranje^T 12:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- response to some above questions the matches are considered friendlies according to this. This will be because it is an invitational league organised by German FA, not a UEFA or FIFA organised event. It is definitely happening and results are here amongst other places. It appears to be an expansion of the 4 nations tournament but I can't find the ref back for that just now. That 4 nations tournament is effectively unreferenced currently. All the streaming sites and both sites I refernced above refer to it as Under 20 Elite League. ClubOranje^T 12:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The four nation was based on DFB database and FIGC database Swiss FA database and press release by FIGC, but since subsequent material added by other user, i am not sure still able to find the material they use or not. http://vivoazzurro.it seem a good (secondary) source. Not search RSSSF yet. Matthew_hk t c 15:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reasons to delete this competition article with huge amount of sources. 95.133.219.133 (talk) 11:02, 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 delete. A Train^talk 08:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cityblis[edit]

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

I have previously objected to the deletion, but the website is gone now so the page is completely useless. iopq (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete biographies because people die, we don't delete articles about buildings because they're torn down, and we don't delete articles about companies because they no longer exist. Whether or not the company is no longer active is not relevant, only if they were notable and verifiable. History is important too. /Julle (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't particularly notable when it existed either. -iopq (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that if kept/closed as no consensus, editing will have to be done to reflect its current status.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article about an online company. The article text and references describe its proposition and site features at start-up without making substantial claim to notability. There was a previous WP:PROD by an IP, which was rightly objected as the rationale was invalid: "This entity is referencing its, presumably, self-created article in unsolicited spam email. Presumably, this is to legitimize itself by reference. Propose deletion." Beyond the initial start-up announcement and some slightly later announcement coverage [18] I am seeing nothing in terms of in-depth coverage of the platform or, for that matter, for its presumed demise. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:CORPDEPTH has been cited, but it says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." This subject meets that. Capitals00 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. The coverage is all of the launch (so not sustained), and largely in blogs/trade press websites that are now defunct. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 100% advertorial content starting with the lead: "...interactive, multi-platform social eCommerce website...". Does not meet WP:NWEB / WP:CORPDEPTH either. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 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 delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyima Gyaincain[edit]

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

No proof could be found of the scholar's notability per WP:NACADEMIC. Article has been created in the same period with The Historical Status of China's Tibet, which has already been nominated for deletion, as well as Chen Qingying, another Chinese scholar writing about Tibet. Creation of these articles may be related to discussions regarding the validity of sources at Talk:Dalai Lama and Talk:14th Dalai Lama. Regardless, Google Scholar shows little significant results about Nyima Gyancain, and me and user Tiger Chair have expressed doubts as to whether the scholar and his institution are real on the talk page. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet#Articles for deletion. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No biographic information exists about this person, besides the fact that he/she is attributed the co-authorship of a book called "The Historical Status of China's Tibet" published in 1995. No information available about his/her birthdate, gender, languages spoken, academic background, publication list, conferences, current or past academic affiliation, etc. We don't even know if this person does really exist, or if it is a name given as coauthor for an official publication. This article was created as a copy/paste from the French Wikipedia article about this author, an article that was in-between removed. Erroneous biographic information previously appearing in this article was retrieved from a Chinese microblogging profile, according to which Nyima Gyaincain would have been aged 14-15 year old when his/her only work was published... Nyima Gyaincain is a very common name, so there might be hundreds of homonyms. I have meanwhile made a cleanup of the alleged biographic information appearing at Wikidata.--Tiger Chair (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing substantial in RS about this person. One could say it should be deleted per WP:One event, however the book is less than a notable event. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is borderline hoax. There's no solid evidence of notability. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence of notability, solid or otherwise. MacPraughan (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Questionable notability and no enough sources to confirm importance. --TV Guy (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As it was already assumed from the total absence of evidence of existence, Nyima Gyaincain is indeed a fictional name. The creator of this page was blocked for edit warring and later permanently blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. He has left behind him a track of disruptive POV edits that still require a general cleanup.--Tiger Chair (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E as nothing other than the credit for authoring a book is verifiable; I'm still not certain whether this is a real name or a pseudonym. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his/her book The Historical Status of China's Tibet. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:20, 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. No prejudice against re-creation as a redirect to Scott Brothers Global or similar. A Train^talk 08:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Scott[edit]

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

Notable???? How?????? TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable impersonator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- appears to be a walled garden of articles: Scott Brothers Global, Jonathan Scott (Canadian actor), Property Brothers (franchise), and Drew Scott, all edited almost exclusively by a SPA. Rhadow (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've refrained from participating in this decision as is my custom for articles I've created (except in especially egregious examples). However, I am not a SPA by any stretch of the imagination, as 12 years of edits will attest to.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Esprit15d. Your last 250 edits have been within this family of articles. I didn't go back 12 years. Rhadow (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has hosted and produced multiple HGTV shows. His number of roles and the cult following these HGTV shows have are more than enough to satisfy 1 and 2 of WP:NACTOR. - Galatz ^Talk 14:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incidental character in a franchise. Possibly, a redirect to the article on the franchise, but all the necessary information is already there. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 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 no consensus. A Train^talk 08:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Sobel[edit]

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

Herbert Sobel was a commissioned officer with the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. Sobel was a failed commander of E Company, 2nd Battalion who was relieved of his command before it was committed to combat; he was judged to be a good trainer but a bad leader. Sobel rose to the rank of captain during WW II and his highest award was the Bronze Star; on these points, he fails WP:SOLDIER. He supposedly remained in the National Guard but that information does not appear in Ambrose. There are photos of Sobel wearing field grade insignia at this page; however there are no records of Sobel in National Guard Registers for 1951, 1953, or 1954. In civilian life, he garnered no significant coverage. Sobel was portrayed in the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers by David Schwimmer. As portrayed in the series (and earlier in the book), Sobel is the perfect villain in a narrative in which virtually all the Americans are good guys. Sobel enjoyed no notability during his life. Any notability that has occurred since is inherited from E Company. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This one is certain to cause a stir but take Sobel out of E/2/506 and put him in C/1/502 (for example). We would never have heard his name.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability requirements for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are relatively few known facts that have don't come from the book which was turned into a HBO miniseries, if he was not in the miniseries there is no doubt he would be deemed non-notable. The question is whether he gains notability from being portrayed in a book, which was then made into a series, and then the series was written about in another two books. This seems to add little useful verifiable information, there is still little known about him, most of the article is dangerously close to becoming little more than an assessment on his "petty and vindictive." character. Indeed the only reason he features in the series at all is as the requisite villain, for which they just picked someone who might have been a cad. Dysklyver 13:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It appears to me that he is sourced by WP:RS and passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Herbert Sobel is easy to dismiss, and the main article is excessively derogatory, but he is a significant character for persons interested in the total background and early development of "E" Co. 506 PIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroy Johnston Ellis, IV (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I don't have a strong feeling, I've decided to abstain from Easy Company AfDs, but For what it is worth, there is a another Herbert Sobel who was an architect from Chicago born in 1902 or 1903 and married to Reeve Sobel. That Herbert lived past January 10, 1981, as he is mentioned still living in Reeves obituary from that date. Reeve was a volunteer in the American Red Cross Motor Corps during the war, but I don't see any mention of Herbert's service, if any. Herbert's firm, Sobel and Dielsma, was active during the war. That Herbert was a successful architect specializing in department store interiors. If the article were about him, I would !vote keep. There was also an Herbert R. Sobel who retired as a rear admiral from the Navy in 1950 who served in WWI and WWII - again I would !vote keep for that individual. I found a number of other Herbert Sobel's from this era, including a WWII officer from Poughkeepsie and another veteran from New Jersey (who I think was a son of Janet Sobel). I don't find anything on newspapers.com clearly about this Herbert except a 1944 mention of his arrival in Saint Omer. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Noted, thank you. I had erroneously added information about the architect to "our" Sobel's page; I reverted my errors (which are visible in the page history).--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, as to notability. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

`dd there isn o actual notabvility. The requirements for military biography are there for a reason, to prevent this sort of trivial coverage. There might conceivably be a reason for notability for the fictional character, but not the real person. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: You need to buy a new keyboard! Dysklyver 00:07, 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 no consensus. Very clearly no consensus to delete here. Discussion on moving/merging/redirecting can continue at Talk:Sagan standard. A Train^talk 08:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagan standard[edit]

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

Not enough notability. This can be either deleted or simply be merged into Carl Sagan's article. Holy Goo (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notion is important, particularly for Wikipedia editing. I think it could remain as a Wikipedia essay or policy guideline. Perhaps it needs to be renamed as Laplace standard. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
delete/merge into Carl Sagan's article as per the nominator - Govindaharihari (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Fails GNG: it is not a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", the fact that it is called the "Sagan standard", and the quotes from Tuzzi and Laplace are already in the Sagan article. There's no need to merge in the Jefferson quote or any of the other content. Scolaire (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carl Sagan#Personal life and beliefs, for the sake of getting some consensus. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ [refining position to "Merge"', explained in new entry, below.] This is a well-known phrase and principle, widely cited in discussions of science and skepticism. It is completely appropriate to have a page discussing the phrase and the principle, separate from the page about Sagan himself. The idea that "it is not a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources" doesn't pass the laugh test. Perhaps someone can add some text to the article with cites of these^[1]^[2]^[3] three references?

^ Deming, David (2016). "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?". Philosophia. 44: 1319–1331. doi:10.1007/s11406-016-9779-7. Over the past few decades the aphorism 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' (ECREE) has been popularized. It has been called 'a fundamental principle of scientific skepticism' (Voss et al. 2014: 893) and 'an axiom of the skeptical movement' (Goertzel and Goertzel 2015: 292). ECREE is frequently invoked to discredit research dealing with scientific anomalies or any claim that falls outside the mainstream.[...] ECREE has become so ubiquitous that there are instances in the scientific literature where it has been used as the title of a published article without any apparent relation to the content of that article (Light and Warburton 2005; DeVorkin 2010; Hauser and Johnston 2011).
^ Sauerland, Uli (2014). "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (And Ordinary Ones Require Ordinary Evidence): On Experimental Linguistics For Less Well Studied Languages". Revista da Abralin. 13 (2): 121–149. The late physicist Carl Sagan, whom I quote in the first part of my title, skillfully phrased the common sense view on evidence in mature sciences. In linguistics, however, evidence has become a controversial issue, especially so when it comes to investigations of less well studied languages. In this paper, I argue that Sagan's principle should be applied to linguistics.
^ Voss, Robert S.; Helgen, Kristofer M.; Jansa, Sharon A. (2014). "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: a comment on Cozzuol et al. (2013)". Journal of Mammalogy. 95 (4): 893–898. doi:10.1644/14-MAMM-A-054. The late Carl Sagan's aphorism, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, expresses a fundamental principle of scientific skepticism.

-- Gpc62 (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carl Sagan. The quote extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence redirects to Marcello Truzzi. I don't see evidence that this is well-known as the "Sagan standard", the discussion on Carl Sagan is sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That quote now redirects to Carl Sagan#Personal life and beliefs. It makes no sense to have a quote be a redirect to someone other than the person quoted. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 1 and other sources given above by Gpc62. Not sure about the title however, as I also agree with power~enwiki above on that point. Perhaps an article should be created at extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this merged to there. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided 1 mentions Sagan, but does not use the term "Sagan standard". Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[See below] Redirect to Marcello Truzzi. The term "Sagan standard" gives little or no relevant hits in Google Scholar. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narssarssuaq, surely it should redirect to Carl Sagan? "Sagan standard" redirecting to somebody else's quote seems...strange. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the best place for a redirect is to Consilience. It may be Sagan's quote, but it's not really Sagan's concept, as Truzzi and apparently Laplace [19] have made equivalent statements. Sagan merely created the recognizable aphorism. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/refining position to get to consensus: I agree there's not much evidence (so far as I can see) of the term "Sagan standard" being used as a name for this concept. So I think it is reasonable to rename the page as Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since that currently exists as a redirect, we would:

merge "Sagan standard" into Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in place of the redirect currently at that page.

The papers I cited are some of the evidence that this concept does deserve its own page instead of being a minor piece of Sagan's page or Truzzi's page. (Those three papers happen to use the term in the title of the paper, as well as discussing it in the text. There are many more that discuss or refer to the term without including it in the title.)

Another point needs to be made about Truzzi's version ("An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof"). I think that Sagan's version is the one that everyone quotes and discusses not only because of the Matthew effect and because it is more pithy, but because Truzzi's version is objectively fatally flawed compared to Sagan's -- because of its use of the word "proof." First, science does not deal in "proof", it deals in evidence for hypotheses. Proof is relevant for mathematical theorems and logic, not for weighing the merits of scientific evidence for a claim (except in the case where the claim is entirely theoretical/mathematical/logical, such as "Newton's Laws imply conservation of momentum"). Second, the phrase "extraordinary proof" is incoherent in the sense that Truzzi is using it. A proof (of the logical, mathematical kind) is either valid or not. There are not shades of validity where one needs "an extraordinary proof" because a mere "ordinary proof" will not suffice. The first of my references above explicitly discusses this flaw of the Truzzi formulation.

And... the fact that there is this kind of published philosophical discussion of Sagan's term (and, to a lesser extent, earlier formulations such as Truzzi's and Laplace's) is further evidence that there ought to be a distinct page about this concept.

Personally I would also keep "Sagan standard" as a redirect to the new version of "Extraordinary claims..." But that could just be my tendency to err on the side of making things helpful for people seeking knowledge on Wikipedia. -- Gpc62 (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. As I've uncovered that Philip Abelson arguably coined the aphorism before Sagan, as mentioned in my recent edit of the original article, I change my position to suggesting renaming the article to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The first sentence can read: "In the philosophy of science, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is a commonly used aphorism. It was popularized by Carl Sagan.^{[original research?]}" Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Proverbs are not very different from aphorisms, and Wikipediahas a List of proverbial phrases. Apparently, some of them have own pages. Not sure what Wikipedia policy dictates here. I feel that it's a bit similar to the Correlation does not imply causation article, which also is a sceptic claim that does not have a term of its own, and which looks and feels a bit awkward as an own Wikipedia article.Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the information about Abelson on the page. You are correct he is quoted using the phrase in 1978, but that was in a US News & World Report article, not in a book by Abelson. (The title of the article matches that of the supposed book, which I can't locate.) I think Sagan also used the phrase in Broca's Brain in 1980. -- Gpc62 (talk) 00:25, 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 Aygün Kazımova. Nomination supplied no rationale and Boleyn's suggestion is eminently reasonable. A Train^talk 08:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yalana Bax[edit]

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

Mister Memmedov, please add your rationale for nominating this for deletion.

Redirect to artist. This doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG so I redirected to artist. The creator undid this twice with no edit summary and no improvements made to the article, then tagged it for AfD. I'm extremely confused. Mister Memmedov, please be aware that WP:Communication is required and reverting people's edits with a blank edit summary, twice, is disruptive editing and edit warring. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator has now just been blocked for promotional only/undisclosed paid editing, on articles about this artist, so will no longer be able to join the conversation. Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 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. A Train^talk 08:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cup of Salvation[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOK - nothing to suggest this book is notable or significant. St Anselm (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What do you mean "nothing to suggest"? You have Mark Rutland a renowned Christian minister and Professor Brad Yound, a top authority on biblical literature endorsing the book. I call to keep the article. --Omer Toledano (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are merely endorsements - for notability, we'd need multiple reviews, preferably in significant journals. St Anselm (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I should explain to you the fact that this book is the first of its kind to lay out a full commentary solely devoted to the Hallel Psalms, something which hasn't been done before, even in Jewish circles, that while this might not mean a whole lot to you but is breaking new ground in a field of utter importance to a large number of people in this world. --Omer Toledano (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, however, that another book on the subject is being published in 2017. St Anselm (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hot topic, my friend. That one is for 2018, not 2017, by the way. Cup of Salvation has already been published. I have stated my claim. Please retract your nomination. --Omer Toledano (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you claim, this book is of major importance because of its coverage of the topic, then it should be possible to find articles discussing it in detail.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BOOK.--Pontificalibus (talk)#
Redirect to Pesach Wolicki as alternative to deletion. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a common book review search and no press on the book's website. Anything that needs to be said on the subject should be said on Wolicki's own page. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 02:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i know gsearch is not perfect, but entering the term "Cup of Salvation wolicki reviews" brings up nothing useable, as its only just been published its probably WP:TOOSOON, a ~~redirect~~ to the author may be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps~~ Delete -- The whole thing looks like an ADVERT or a publisher's blurb, with a couple of favourable comments from Christian theologians. I do not know what to suggest, but ~~merging to the author~~ is a possibility. This kind of stuff belongs on AMAZON, not WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As COI is established, this is now a clear case of delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article states that the book was published on 1 October 2017 while the article was created on 21 September 2017, just wondering what sort of relationship the article creator Omert33 has with the publisher/author/book? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omert33 links to their own "official website" from their user page and on that site claims to have designed the websites both for this book and the organisation that published it. A clear conflict of interest.--Pontificalibus (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, now it is a delete from me as a clear case of WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, does not seem to be mentioned in independent reliable sources. The creator has a COI and the article reads like an Amazon blurb. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. If a redirect is made, it should be made later. The only weapon we realy have against advertising is to make it futile by removing the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 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 delete. This is not the most resounding delete consensus and even among the editors arguing to delete there is acceptance that some of the sourcing for this article is solid, so I don't think we should hold any prejudice against recreation with better sources. If anyone would like this article recreated in their draft space please just ask. A Train^talk 08:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yardbird (restaurant)[edit]

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

fails WP:N, appears to have been written entirely by someone associated with the business UniNoUta (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - It was mostly garbage, but I've taken out the trash. It's a little citation heavy now, but it's not gonna kill anybody. WSJ, NYT, Food & Wine, South China Morning Post, two years voted consecutive top 50 restaurants in all of Asia by a notable magazine. What more could we really ask for? GMG ^talk 19:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete What more could we really ask for? Encyclopedic significance, for a start. Anmccaff (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GreenMeansGo. The first reference is a review written by the WSJ, by our definition it is significant.Ifnord (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as promotional COI editing , Of the references, #1, the WSJ, seems to be a review about the restaurant. #2 is a mention, #3 is a mention within a group article, #4 is within a general article in the NYTimes, but it gives very considerable emphasis to this restaurant; #5 is a promotional entry in a travel guide #6 is solely about the restaurant in a respectable magazine, $7 is a mention, #8 is a general article #9 and 10 are an online restaurant guide that is not a RS. This yields 3 good sources, which might enough--the restaurant is apparently significant.

but why would any good faith editor include the bad references? Presumably, because they are editing carelessly, and haven't actually read them. The alternative is that they are not editing here in good faith, but for promotional purposes, and are therefore following the practice of most promotional editors here, and adding whatever they can find. The matter is greatly clarified by looking at the edit history: the article was written by "Yardbirdhk " and incorrectly accepted from user space , by an experienced ed. who must have realized who the contributor was, but apparently didn't check to see that that most of the references were useless. The rule about WP not being used for advertising is basic policy, and considerations of notability are a secondary guideline. I almost used G11 on this. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give Ifnord the chance to respond to DGG's response to them, as well as to give any other editors the chance to weigh in. No strong consensus at this point anyway.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Clearly notable; clearly spam, and a stub. Additional sources are available. It is possible that a thorough review of all the sources will return only positive things, and if so, we should not punish the reader by denying them information merely because there was nothing negative to say. However, with an entity like this, we should doublecheck all the niceties proposed in one set of sources against the findings of equally independent sources. If it is moved to draft, and the draft can not be substantially improved, then it will go the way of all abandoned drafts. bd2412 T 21:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to end promotional editing, especially promotional paid editing as this is likely to be, is to remove the article. Just as with sockpupetts, nothing else will discourage them. If the subject is notable, a volunteer editor will write an article subsequently. Otherwise, we find ourselves in the position of doing the work, so the guy violating the terms of use can collect the money. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alle-effin'-luia. Exactly. Well, one minor caveat: who says this stuff really is notable, in an encyclopedic sense? I don't remember too many restaurants in Americana, Britannica, F&W... Anmccaff (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article's nearly a year old, so the guy (or girl) has already collected the money. So what's the point of deleting and recreating it? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. I have blocked the creator of this article for violation of WP:CORPNAME. I've also listed a draft they had in progress for another restaurant: WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yardbirdhk/sandbox. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've also found a Forbes article listing it among Hong Kong's "6 Must-Try Restaurants" and a Globe and Mail article about its founder. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that Forbes article is already there, as #3. I discussed it above. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added that Forbes source, so where exactly did you discuss it? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:DEL4 (in keeping with DGG's emphasis). Only the lead 2 sentences are non-promotional. If someone wants to create a non-promotional article about this potentially notable establishment, they should go through AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG.Forbes article only mentions this restaurant is not about the restaurant now every restaurant merely mentioned in Forbes cannot have an articlePharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:57, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W64 Self-rescuer[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for products. A source search shows little independent, reliable coverage and the article is written like an advert-manual hybrid. DrStrauss talk 12:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- What a cool device! No point to include this advertisement when there is a perfectly good and balanced article at Self-contained_self-rescue_device that wasn't written by a SPA. Rhadow (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advert, no point bothering. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 19:38, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Commonwealth Bank Series statistics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS. We don't need to have a separate page of statistics for this series. All relevant information is found on 2007–08 Commonwealth Bank Series – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These are not notable on their own, and are fanboy/listcruft. And it's all unsourced to boot (not that sourcing it would mean it can be kept). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely as nominated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:NOTSTATS. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ian. WP:NOTSTATS. No point in merging with tournament article as that would breach NOTSTATS then. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everybody else. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and per WP:NOTSTATS. Greenbörg (talk) 15:33, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Additive Tasty Awards[edit]

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

No indication that the award is notable, and the article is just a list of dozens of brands. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. gongshow talk 01:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indicationof notability in article sources or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aranmula Rice[edit]

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

The references are just press release. This is merely a brand, not a strain or variety. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; not a notable brand. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable sources to back up the existence of the article as per WP:GNG. Kagundu Talk To Me 13:11, 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) 18:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWICS Group of Companies[edit]

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

No way of judging notability . The source is just the company website. Awards are asserted but without anything more as a reference, they seem to be just listings of multiple firms. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without independent reliable references, it's original research and promotion written by a SPA. Rhadow (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:03, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 08:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nortec Software[edit]

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

no evidence for notability . The references are just listings that it meets the minimum standards. (and a few miscellaneous notices) DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. References are to routine events or just directory listings. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 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 redirect to Google_Chrome#T-Rex. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offline Dinosaur Game[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. -- Dane ^talk 03:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Google_Chrome#T-Rex, where it is covered in the parent article and properly sourced. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Google_Chrome#T-Rex. Editor-1 (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do we think that this is really a search term that needs a redirect? It isn't referenced anywhere in the target as this? -- Dane ^talk 18:55, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Dannette and Jeannette Millbrook[edit]

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

no general significance DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing about this case differentiates it enough to show true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - national+ coverage some 30 years later as can ben seen in gNews. Coverage is diverse, and comes in a few spurts.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ongoing coverage after many, many years suggests passing WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - still ongoing coverage. Per WP:GNG. Good sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing the GNG. Bold lead should be tweaked to reflect the title. gidonb (talk) 01:56, 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.

[1] Deming, David (2016). "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?". Philosophia. 44: 1319–1331. doi:10.1007/s11406-016-9779-7. Over the past few decades the aphorism 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' (ECREE) has been popularized. It has been called 'a fundamental principle of scientific skepticism' (Voss et al. 2014: 893) and 'an axiom of the skeptical movement' (Goertzel and Goertzel 2015: 292). ECREE is frequently invoked to discredit research dealing with scientific anomalies or any claim that falls outside the mainstream.[...] ECREE has become so ubiquitous that there are instances in the scientific literature where it has been used as the title of a published article without any apparent relation to the content of that article (Light and Warburton 2005; DeVorkin 2010; Hauser and Johnston 2011).

[2] Sauerland, Uli (2014). "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (And Ordinary Ones Require Ordinary Evidence): On Experimental Linguistics For Less Well Studied Languages". Revista da Abralin. 13 (2): 121–149. The late physicist Carl Sagan, whom I quote in the first part of my title, skillfully phrased the common sense view on evidence in mature sciences. In linguistics, however, evidence has become a controversial issue, especially so when it comes to investigations of less well studied languages. In this paper, I argue that Sagan's principle should be applied to linguistics.

[3] Voss, Robert S.; Helgen, Kristofer M.; Jansa, Sharon A. (2014). "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: a comment on Cozzuol et al. (2013)". Journal of Mammalogy. 95 (4): 893–898. doi:10.1644/14-MAMM-A-054. The late Carl Sagan's aphorism, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, expresses a fundamental principle of scientific skepticism.

[1]

[2]

[3]