Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 June	8 June >

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 speedy deletion. —Cryptic 06:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirudhandan[edit]

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

An engineer works for Apple. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The unreferenced detail in this article seems inconsistent - the subject is a schoolboy apparently about to embark on senior secondary school but is also said to have completed post-graduate qualifications from University of Cambridge? And all that in addition to a track record of jobs with various technology firms? This sounds somewhat aspirational... AllyD (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC);[reply]

Comment Hi AllyD, The sources provided are subject's twitter account, website and Quora.com, how do these sources are considered reliable and independent? Wikipedia does not merit a page that the subject is "inspirational" but subject needs to pass notability requirements with independent, reliable source with significant coverage. As a new page reviewer yourself, I believe you review a page based on the criteria as state above. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe my tone didn't come across: by "somewhat aspirational" I was suggesting "wannabe". I am tempted to mark this article for CSD as a hoax but am doing some due diligence for sources first. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllyD, Understand your thoughts and where you came from. I PORDed the page under no source first to give the author a chance to provided sources. After sources provided, it is evident that the subject fails WP:N requirements. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article about a 15 year old schoolboy, lacking sources independent of the subject, and making unverified claims to a portfolio of IT employments and various post-graduate qualifications, all while still at school. Even if verifiably true, none of these would be indicative of encyclopaedic notability, though. No evidence found to suggest biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7; I've tagged the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Cunning[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about someone who has received no nontrivial coverage in independent sources, as I fail to see how the sources presented in the previous AfD constitute significant coverage. Fails the relevant notability guidelines (GNG, NMUSIC). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I guess this article passed the last AfD back in 2009 because back then the criteria was simply "can find mentions on the internet by Googling". But the three sources are of dubious reliability, and even if they are allowed, they're not exactly in-depth: the Resident Advisor ones consist of a press release for the launch of his record label, and a short Q&A between Cunning and one of the acts on his label (the link in the article is dead, but it's archived here [1]), asking such profound questions as "what dance would you use to cure the world's evils?" 2009 was just about as famous as Cunning got: at the end of that year his show on Kiss FM finished and he now broadcasts a show on local internet radio station Kool London and runs his own DJing school, but that's about it. The article name drops famous acts played on the Kiss FM show who aren't really linked to Mr. Cunning at all, while the acts on his record labels and the labels themselves are non-notable (Rico Tubbs is a blue link but understandably redirects to the Miami Vice character). Wikipedia has deleted DJs a lot more famous than this one. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails — Preceding unsigned comment added by NANExcella (talk • contribs) 09:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAKO (video game)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The poor quality references don't establish significant coverage, nor do they confirm much of the text which reads like a self-written game review, so I suspect WP:OR. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of reviews on Pako 2 given a flick through the news section in a BEFORE google search, as well as the critic links in metacritic (one needs a google translate). Certainly enough to satisfy WP:GNG, as well as WP:NVG for those that like it.

These refs are all for Pako 2, and I'd suggest a name-change, post a keep !vote in AfD. Regarding the WP:OR claim - I think that might be hard to demonstrate sufficiently. There are WP:PROMO aspects, and it clearly isn't smoothly written, but neither of those is grounds for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 22:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NVG. I didn't see any promotional aspect to the writing, but the grammar was poor and I've since revised it. By the way, I moved the page from it's original title to PAKO 2 (video game). Nanophosis (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://toucharcade.com/2014/08/22/pako-car-chase-simulator-review/ is a review for the first game written in 2014, but the title is now changed to talk about the second game that came out in 2017. The metacritic entry http://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/pako-2 is for the second game. Do the four review sites it mentions there count as reliable sources? The article at the time it was nominated for deletion was about both games. I think the name should be changed back, and just have both games there since you have references for both of them, and they are similar. Dream Focus 19:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sources look mainy like user generated content to me. --Derek Andrews (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agreeing with Nanophosis, article seems to pass WP:NVG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has reliable source. Mayamaya7 Poke! 08:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, since coverage is routine (ie having a game review does not make it notable). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subzero Records[edit]

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

This record label does not substantial coverage in independent reliable sources for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not one single independent source in the article as stands, so I went looking. Nada. Nothin'. A label solely distributed by CD Baby is never a good sign. No notable artists. No indication of any influence of significant within any genre or cultural subset. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Appears to be purely a label set up by two people to release their own records (Paz is D.J. Joker, Burnett is D. Burn$) and those of acquaintances from San Diego, none of whom are notable. The label's website is dead so I assume that the company has ceased to exist. Richard3120 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage, PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As pointed out, the page is actually pointless at the moment, especially as it has no incoming links. As pointed out in the nom, if someone feels there is a neutrality issue then start an RM at Skandha to move the pages around and then create a dab. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skandha (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary dab page as there is a main topic and one disambiguated topic which can be handled in a hatnote. An editor believes the dab page is needed to preserve neutrality: they could propose a page move of the Buddhist topic to Skandha (Buddhism), but at present there is no need for this disambiguation page. PamD 22:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant DAB, Skandha at the base name is the primary topic, and with hatnotes both there, in Skandha (Jainism), and in Skanda (Buddhism) we should be covered. Sam Sailor 22:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. We basically always keep pages that disambiguate three articles, even with a primary topic. Only notable concern is that one of the subjects is a mispelling, but even so, they are all similar enough in pronunciation that there could be confusion, hence the DAB page. It's serving a purpose, and it's not like a DAB page is doing any harm to the project by existing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. Can be used when absolute neutrality is required. 2. Important to avoid religious discrimination. 3. An article can be primary from one point of view, but not from all points of views. Eg I didn't even know there is someting called Skandha in buddhism before I clicked on a wikilink for Skandha from inside a Jain article pudgala which incorrectly linked to Buddhist article (I have correct link since then) Realphi (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Skanda. Since Skanda (Buddhism) is spelled differently than "Skandha", the DAB page should only include "Skandha (Jainism)" and a "see also" section linking to "Skanda". I think merging the two DABs that contain "Skanda" and "Skandha" would be the best way to go forward. It would not be the first DAB page that includes multiple spellings. Regards So Why 13:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delele There are only 2 pages and no need for a disambig page. A hat note is sufficient. A hat note does not mean that one topic is "fringe". I already discussed this with the creator and basically ended with IDHT. Natureium (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Skanda, inclined towards merging. older ≠ wiser 17:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS. IMO a compelling argument could be made that Skandha is the primary topic (using Wikipedia's definition of primary topic) based on the relative number of adherents and number of hits from a google scholar search. Therefore a hatnote there should be sufficient, and Realphi has already added an additional bullet under "see also" at Skanda for the Jainism topic. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one more relevant entry in "see also" section. Please check if it changes your opinion. Realphi (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, merge with Skanda, as these two terms are quite similar in pronuncation and are likely to be confused, so disambiguating them on the same page makes the most sense. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Rouse Wells[edit]

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

I've tried finding any kind of better sourcing for this individual, and come up empty. I find their books, of course, but very little more than that as far as biographical data or indications that the books are particularly significant (few reviews, and those tend to be on blog-style sites). The name is somewhat common, so I've tried some variant searches ([2], [3], [4]), but can find nothing besides "about the author" blurbs from publishers (and in books; while I initially thought the Google Books results looked promising, those are about the author sections too!), and I just don't see enough here to sustain a biography. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBIO for having no in-depth coverage outside of autobiographical and primary sourced content. By the way, thank you Seraphimblade for laying out your WP:BEFORE searches so clearly via prose, it's something more editors should do when nominating. Nanophosis (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I restored the "laundry list" of books to have some additional search terms apart from her name. I have searched using the titles of her last eight books + name/full name, and I can't find sources. Fails BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 21:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

move to Robin Wells, the name on the book jackets. USA Today believes that she's got fans [‘The French War Bride’ author Robin Wells celebrates ‘forbidden love’ with some recommended reads; the French War Bride appears to have been published in French translation [5]. Here she is in Bustle (magazine): 16 Books Everyone Should Read Before Getting Married (scroll to end of list). I suspect that there is more if searches are run with her proper name and book titles. I also suspect that she lived in Louisiana because The Advocate (Louisiana) covers her and pretty regularly and The Times-Picayune covers her intensely. I'm almost out of time for now, but the paper covered her fist novel with A WOMAN TO WATCH WRITER A REAL SUCCESS STORY: [MANDEVILLE Edition] LYDIA BELL Contributing writer. Times - Picayune (pre-1997 Fulltext); New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]29 Sep 1996and has continued to cover her with articles like (2013) Mandeville author Robin Wells to teach novel writing courses at SLU, and Shelf Life: Adventurers in reading Larson, Susan. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]13 Feb 2008 a book review of Between the Sheets that ran in the general, not the local, edition. there's more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails — Preceding unsigned comment added by NANExcella (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and failing WP:NBIO. While not everyone counts autobio/COI as a factor, it also weighs in this for me. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NBIO. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - national reviews, besides those E.M. Gregory found: [6] [7][8] Sufficient. --GRuban (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Twitch.tv[edit]

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

The content of this article and sources listed are an effective duplication of the content on the main Twitch.tv article and do not provide any more info aside from information on competitors such as a streamer changing platform which is irrelevant to a timeline of Twitch anyway. It is a format which just focuses to closely to unimportant details which are far better explained in the main article. It also seems to not have been updated in sometime (unsurprising for a paid article), probably also because the main article is a better place for any updates, as it has been. FeWorld (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability for its own timeline. Relevant points in the company's history should be in the main article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockweather Holdings[edit]

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

First created in September 2017 and promptly deleted straight afterwards, this relatively new hedge fund remains as non-notable as it was just under a year ago, with no substantial new sources, but a lot more Crunchbase etc. company profiles jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable hedge fund that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The text itself is identical to the deleted content and was created by the same user. Possibly native advertising. I've already notified the creator of WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 20:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weakly sourced ARTSPAM, fails NCORP/GNG, delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 21:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NCORP. Likely a violation of PROMO. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Blockweather was among the first cryptocurrency hedge funds in the world, established in 2016. It is the #1 ranked cryptocurrency hedge fund on digitalcurrencyhedgefunds.com, which is the only such ranking of cryptocurrency hedge funds that I know of. It is among the only cryptocurrency hedge fund in the world open to both retail and institutional investors. It has among the most experienced of any cryptocurrency trading teams, including traders from Wall Street and Chicago.
Blockweather is among the only cryptocurrency hedge funds registered with the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
It is among the cryptocurrency hedge funds with the most experience in trading of options.
Previous news articles mentioning Blockweather have been listed on FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, InvestorPlace, Google News, Yahoo!, International Business Times, and the Wall Street Business Network.
Blockweather's Founder was interviewed on CEO Money on iheartradio, on a Hawaii radio station, and by a CNBC reporter.
Blockweather has partnered with several other prominent cryptocurrency businesses worldwide.
Blockweather is a member of the Microsoft Partner Network.
Wikipedia page "List of bitcoin companies" lists numerous bitcoin-related companies, many of which are less notable than Blockweather and some of which were defunct 3-4 years ago, and such less notable companies have existing Wikipedia pages. For example: The last references cited for coin co were from February 2015. It's website (coin.co) simply states "We'll be back," and I am unaware of coin.co having any relevant notability. It has a Wikipedia page.
37coins has a Wikipedia page. It is a bitcoin wallet provider that existed from 2013 to 2015. On its Wikipedia page, 4 references are listed, the last in May 2015. The "official website" listed is nonfunctional. This company also has no relevant notability.
In contrast to the less notable companies on the List of bitcoin companies, each with their own Wikipedia page, Blockweather is the #1 ranked global cryptocurrency hedge fund. Millions of people around the world are aware of Blockweather.
My understanding is that a global information source, such as Wikipedia, should provide information that is sought after and is relevant to a significant number of people. Many pages on Wikipedia are about obscure topics and defunct and irrelevant companies. I saw an article about a specific high school in Russia. This would be relevant to few people. The Wikipedia page has no references. An article about Blockweather would be relevant to millions of people (who are already aware of Blockweather).
The Blockweather Holdings article can be modified as needed to address any concerns noted above, but it should not be deleted. Blockweather has been covered in multiple, significant, independent, reliable, secondary sources - more so than several other bitcoin-related companies with Wikipedia pages.--Digitalcurrency (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. This is the best explanation I've seen, from KJP1: It's always tough to help new editors understand that comparisons with other articles are rarely strong arguments. This essay has a good shot at explaining why. Wikipedia's a constant work in progress and articles are created, amended and deleted all the time. I see both of the competitor articles you cite have been either tagged for deletion in the past, or still tagged as "multiple issues". A quick look suggests to me that at least one of them is very weakly-sourced. Neither may survive. Or they might. But, in the end, your draft will be accepted on its own merits, or declined on its own flaws. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional, poorly sourced, (other stuff as well!) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient evidence of ntability, Fails GNG and NCORP. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Boyce[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as she hasn't played for a senior national team or in a game between two clubs. Fails WP:GNG as none of the sources are anything other than routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because none pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG for the same reasons.

Dougal18 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I would of gone for delete all but you included Erin Clachers which has a number of sources in the article. I really don't like it when you combine multiple players into one AfD. Govvy (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clachers' sources only mention her in brief ie "she made a save" or "scored from a goal kick" in the second source. They are just routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as per Giantsnowman, none of them are pros or interntional so don't pass WP:FOOTBALL.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but with reservations. I really don't like deleting Boyce or Clachers - we'd keep a number of players in lower-level albeit professional leagues for a similar amount of coverage, whereas Boyce has played in the Women's Champions League. NFOOTY really isn't designed for women's football, unfortunately. That being said I can't make a vigorous argument to keep either of them, and the others are pretty clear deletes in terms of current sourcing. SportingFlyer talk 19:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none pass our already overbroad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Insufficient evidence of notability, Fails NFOOTBALL. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Winglet[edit]

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

Non-notable FUTURE PRODUCT. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has received a lot of coverage, but the coverage is about trials or other stages towards bringing the product to market, which has not happened. As a standalone concept, it is very similar to the Segway PT, so I don't see how the article could be expanded beyond its current state as a product announcement. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (1977 TV series). Sandstein 08:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sítio do Picapau Amarelo Vol. 2 (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable soundtrack without any coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirect to Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (1977 TV series) could be considered - if that article itself survives deletion or redirection. The first album, Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (2001 album), is currently a redirect to that target. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why the 2001 album redirects to a 1977 series. There seems to have been multiple reincarnations of the series and I'm not sure the album released in 2001 has anything to do with the series from 1977. This Vol. 2 album most likely relates to the 1977 series but with no coverage on it, it doesn't deserve a mention in (and therefore doesn't need a redirect to) the article on the series. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, the first album was incorrectly titled – it was originally released in 1977... I don't know where the "(2001 album)" addition to the title came from, maybe it was reissued on CD in that year, and the article creator used the new title to recreate the article after deletion.it was a delayed third addition to the series of soundtrack albums based on the 1977 TV series. This Vol. 2 is from 1979, and is also related to the 1977 series, so a redirect to that series would be plausible, but I take your point that with an identical search name to the TV series and no independent coverage found, a redirect might be pointless. Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have just reinstated the afd tag at the top of the article that has been removed twice now by the article creator, Felipe Wamenson.Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (1977 TV series), as per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (2001 album). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christodora (novel)[edit]

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

Novel which has no strong claim of notability besides the fact that it exists, and no strong reliable sourcing about it to get it over WP:NBOOK. The only references here are the author's own self-published website and his user-generated GoodReads profile, not reliable sources that help to establish notability, and other than stating that it exists and then mini-biographing its writer because he doesn't have a standalone BLP yet, the only other content here is a plot description. Every book that exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article, however -- it needs to have a credible claim of notability (such as making a bestseller list and/or winning or getting nominated for a notable literary award), and it needs to be the subject of enough critical attention to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article itself isn't worth the server space it takes up as things stand, sure. That said, the subject is very much notable per WP:NBOOK criterium #1: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."

The book has been reviewed in The Guardian in its 'Book of the Day' series (23 Feb 2017);

received a short review in The Guardian's sister-publication The Observer;

was reviewed in the Washington Post;

was reviewed in the London Review of Books;

was reviewed in the Star Tribune;

was reviewed in Slate's 'Outward';

was reviewed in the Irish Times;

was beyond-trivially mentioned in the New York Times in its L.G.B.T. fiction shortlist;

and was reviewed in French-language Canadian weekly newspaper Voir.

(There's quite possibly more. This is the point where I stopped looking). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (above editor beat me to it, so there will be repeats), doo, doo, doo, i wonder if there are any reviews of this book, ie. The Washington Post - "If the novel's first hundred pages are disorientating and occasionally plodding, the last hundred have a rare narrative sweep and force. The broad strokes and bald statements don't recede, exactly, but they're like the manipulations of a Puccini opera, so skillful that it seems churlish to object.", London Review of Books - "Tim Murphy has written a generational family saga, but in the hope of writing something else.", Slate - "His (Murphy) prose has an easy, fluent style with plentiful references to popular music (Madonna, Leonard Cohen, Lupe Fiasco), historical figures (Ed Koch, Marina Abramovic), and notable places (including in Los Angeles, where some of his scenes are set). He’s good at building scenes into dramatic, sometimes scary climaxes.", The New York Times - "The book, a sprawling social novel in the Tom Wolfe tradition..." (snip), Newsday - "It’s an exciting read, sometimes a little confusing, but ultimately all the pieces fit together; the reader’s patience is rewarded.", The Guardian - "What makes this novel remarkable, though, is the way it captures the full arc of Aids in New York, a subject Murphy has long covered as a reporter.", and "For fans of Bonfire of the Vanities or, more recently, Garth Risk Hallberg’s City on Fire, this novel is your next must-read.", The Irish Times - "Murphy pulls off a neat trick of placing two non-humans at the heart of the novel and bringing them entirely to life. One is the building itself which, often through the presence of the doorman Ardit, seems to silently judge its residents as they pass through the lobby. The other is a disease: Aids.", to just name a few, in additino to some "tradies" eg. Kirkus Reviews - "An ambitious social novel informed by an extended perspective on the HIV/AIDS epidemic, from the early 1980s to the near future.", Publishers Weekly - "Skipping back and forth in time over 40 years, and projecting itself into the near future, the novel achieves a powerful evocation of the plague years.", Booklist (starred review) - "His multigenerational tale is a clever inversion of the usual addiction-begets-AIDS narrative and a reminder that despite recent medical advances, the disease still finds ways to ravage people's lives.", no wonder WorldCat lists 650 library holdings from both sides of the pond and the ditch down under, so a keep as meeting WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. ps. i think a forecast of snow is appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per AddWittyNameHere and Coolabahapple. Satisfies GNG. An early close is in order. James500 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Bearcat:, per the above sources, any chance you would be willing to withdraw your nomination? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than sufficient reviews to meet WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Coolabahapple. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media5[edit]

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable Canadian company. Does no meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Cannot find significant RS coverage; what comes up is trivial mentions and self-promotion link. The page was first created under Media5 Corporation and deleted twice under speedy delete and PROD. It's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedic entry. Edidiong (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON, it might scrape by WP:CORPDEPTH sometime in the future but mostly seems to be for promotional purposes at the moment. Nanophosis (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I assume good faith but the contributor's history causes me to suspect promotional intent. Deb (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references here are not reliable or notability-assisting sources for the purposes of getting a company over WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH — they are press releases and entries in business directories, not media coverage about the company — but I can't find any evidence of the kind of sourcing we require. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations database on which a company is entitled to have an article just because it exists; we are an encyclopedia, on which a company has to surpass certain specific quantifiable standards of notability, and certain specific quantifiable standards of reliable source coverage about it in media, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Internet Telephony piece by Richard "Zippy" Grigonis is probably the most substantial, but consists of what the company says of itself and its product lines. Searches find more routine announcements, along with a notice of government aid granted to the firm ([9] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) in 2005. Not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient evidence of notability, Fails CORPDEPTH. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Supermarket[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill supermarket chain that has 6 stores. No indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has a tag at the top saying it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Vorbee (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

168 Market[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill supermarket chain that had 5 stores before being bought. No indications of notability. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:TOOSOON and not having received significant coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG let alone WP:CORP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As participants have noted, there was nothing procedurally wrong with importing public domain content into Wikipedia as long as the authors are properly credited. The fact that an article solely consists of properly attributed public domain material is therefore not a valid reason alone for deleting an article. However, several editors have noted that the same content exists in better form in other articles on Wikipedia, namely Aegean civilizations, and because of this, there is a consensus that it is unnecessary to keep this article. Mz7 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of discovery and distribution of the remains of Aegean civilization[edit]

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

This seems to be just a straight copy of the 1911 David Hogarth article in Encyclopædia Britannica which is given as its source. Surely an article should be based on its sources, not copying them? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete - Addition of unchanged EB 1911 text on Wikipedia violates WP:PLAG. Note that the text is also used for a subsection of Aegean civilizations, but that can stay as long as it's properly attributed (and ideally, cut down and reworded) usingthis guide. Since this page contains only the copied text and has no other purpose for existing, ~~the article should be speedy deleted under WP:G12.~~ Nanophosis (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I misread the G12 criteria, public domain content isn't G12 even without attribution. However, the page should still be deleted due to all information already being contained at Aegean civilizations. Nanophosis (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aegean civilizations. I think the attribution notice is enough to stay within the letter of WP:PLAG, but there's no reason to keep this page around when we have another that is a little better incorporated with the rest of the encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (after ec). There is nothing wrong in policy with reusing EB 1911 articles in Wikipedia. I believe the entire contents of EB1911 were incorporated in WP at some early date of our development. There is an attribution template explicitly for the purpose which this article is indeed carrying. Of course, just because it's ok in policy does not mean we should use it uncritically. There may be problems with out-of-date research and POV from the historic period. SpinningSpark 17:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted in WP:EB1911, PD EB material was used to seed wikipedia pages in the early days of the encyclopedia. Much of it was formatted and cleaned up in various ways. In particular, this material was moved out of the Agean civilizations article in September 2002 with this edit but was returned in a better formatted form to the article in May 2005 with this edit. For some reason, this page was not deleted at that time, I am not sure why not. But I don't think there is any reason it should be kept. I have no problem with a redirect, but don't know that this is a useful search term. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would not be a useful term for search so would definitely prefer to delete rather than redirect. I'm finding all this about 1911 EB very interesting, though, and must research it all. Thank you, all. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This extract doesn't work as a standalone article and it seems the useful bits have already been incorporated into other pages. – Joe (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters. However the nominator is swinging his axe rather incautiously in this area, & should go more slowly. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My enthusiasm may get the better of me. If you think I have made a mistake, please correct it and let me know as I am still on the learning curve here. I don't think the categorisation has been done very well and I've been trying to improve it for the sake of navigation. I suppose that is what you are meaning about being incautious? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the actual grounds in the nomination are not valid, as has been pointed out. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately Delete -- This has the feel of an essay. EB 1911 and certain other encyclopaedias that were in the Public Domain were indeed used to start WP. However this article is of its time and inevitably says nothing of the last 107 (odd) years of archaeological research. The question may be whether we have a suitable general article on the archaeology of the Greek world to replace this one with, perhaps replacing it with a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Situs Holdings, LLC[edit]

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

For the same reason as last time: a promotional article about an unremarkable company.

The first AfD was closed as "no consensus" because of keep !votes from two editors: Variation 25.2, a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, and Mar11, who has just been blocked and seems to be associated with the same UPE sockfarm. See WP:COIN#Mar11 reviews. – Joe (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging non-blocked participants in the last AfD: @Okamialvis, K.e.coffman, and King of Hearts:. – Joe (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill company listing, propped up by warmed-over press releases. --Calton | Talk 16:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Got to go the way of the dodo. scope_creep (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SamHolt6. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SamHolt6. Also the article hit a nerve - they sell "business solutions" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the references are not from reliable sources, but there are enough references from reliable sources, including Reuters and The Wall Street Journal, to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Reuters or WSJ references meet WP:CORPDEPTH. – Joe (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient evidence of notability, Fails CORPDEPTH. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CAD Red Plaanet). MER-C 18:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instapage[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG . Promotional article about a non-notable company. Razer(talk) 15:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete yes refs are horrible. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been cleaned up and references are adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSimmons23 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cáel M. Keegan[edit]

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

I don't believe this scholar satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. The page has sources, sure, but on close inspection I do not feel they provide the significant coverage required. Polyamorph (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keegan's page cites five reliable and independent sources, including NBC News, Vice, Inside Higher Ed, and Michigan Public Radio. Although each source has a only a brief discussion of Keegan, altogether they show that Keegan is an essential voice in contemporary discussions of transgender identity, rights, and representation. The stature of these sources demonstrate that while Keegan is an early career scholar, he is already acknowledged to be a recognized expert in this important field.

According to WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

These five sources are indeed "reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I argue that the coverage of Keegan in these sources is more than "trivial," and thus this entry meets the criteria that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."

Chronophoto (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment google scholar suggests this person has not made a significant impact on their field. The mentions of Keegan in those sources is rather trivial, and the articles are not about Keegan themselves. Very much a case of too soon. Polyamorph (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 21:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several academic publications that discuss the impact of Keegan's work have been added to the page. Since Keegan meets the Wikipedia general notability standards I think the page should be kept. Regarding citation count and citation index - those numbers are less meaningful for humanities disciplines. Keegan's impact on the public sphere has been documented. Here are some well-recognized critiques of citation counts and indexes as a way of measuring impact: "Publishing frequency and types (ex. books vs. journal articles) vary from one field to another, precluding comparisons across different subject areas. Authors who frequently cite their own work manipulate impact metrics and make them less reliable. Impact metrics focus on the volume or attention received rather than the quality of research. Having a large number of citations is not necessarily a marker of merit, as articles may be cited for negative reasons."^[1] Chronophoto (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

35 total citations, it doesn't matter that it's humanities, that is very low academic impact for any subject. Polyamorph (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronophoto (talk · contribs) are you in any way associated with Keegan (professionally or personally)? Polyamorph (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* As I wrote on the article's Talk page, I have briefly worked with Keegan as a co-editor. However, I am otherwise entirely independent of Keegan and have tried to adhere to Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Chronophoto (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* I think Polyamorph's stance on this article and my stance on this article are very clear. I have made my arguments as best as I can. I will now step back and accept whatever decision the Wikipedia editorial community makes on this page. I do ask that if the editorial community decides to delete the page, that I be allowed to "incubate" the page for a few months until Keegan's book on the Wachowskis comes out, at which time there will likely be a deluge of press on him and the book and the page could be revised to take this press into account and republished. Chronophoto (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt your integrity, but you do have a conflict of interest and should have passed this article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the fact that there may be a deluge of press on him in the future does not make up for the lack of significant coverage now. Polyamorph (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've volunteered to incubate the article in Chronophoto's stead. (Fully disclosure, I've monitored her classes under my Wiki Ed account.) If this deletion discussion is closed as delete, I'll incubate/edit this and when it's ready, submit it through AfC to help assuage any COI concerns. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you've volunteered do you mean you are volunteering now or you have volunteered in some off-wiki conversation with Chronophoto. Because there have been two wiki ed editors and three single use accounts contribute to this discussion (either here or on the article talk page). In any case, I don't support incubating as if deleted then the community will have deemed it non-notable.Polyamorph (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Shuttleworth, Kate (May 23, 2018). "Impact metrics: Scholarly publishing". Simon Frasier University Library. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

Caél Keegan is a respected professor and scholar. His work has impacted the fundamental bases of the cultural studies when it comes to gender, sexuality and social representation. I am a Brasilian student and currently I'm studying his production about the Wachowski sisters as a base to my thesis. The University of São Paulo (UNESP) is been studing the fastest way to bring him to Brazil for international cooperation work on his expertise field. His latest book has been choose to be anylised in the gender and sexuality research group of the IBILCE - São Paulo, Brazil, along with Judith Butler. Cáel Keegan is currently one of the few and strongest voices on the gender and sexuality studies. A reference to us all. Pereira.David (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC-3)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

Interesting Pereira.David (talk · contribs) this input on the discussion is your sole contribution to wikipedia (WP:STEALTH?). But in any case, from the start your argument is incorrect, Keegan is an "Assistant Professor". Please explain, using reference to wikipedia policy, how Keegan meets our notability requirements detailed in WP:NACADEMIC. Polyamorph (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Well, this is odd. I've never contributed to wikipedia because I've never experienced such situation, one of my references needing help to keep a simple page online. And to be acurated I've actually tried to help wikipedia by appointing grammar mistakes on the page in portuguease when I was with my old login that I cant access anymore , but the autors never paied atention. I have no ideia why professor Keegan (just because he's an assistant professor doesn't mean he's not a professor) is been under such pressure. Maybe you don't like trans people. I first read about Mr. Keegan through an academic assay. He's a very competent scholar. His essay "Tongues Without Bodies" is the first academic production in use as reference in Brazil about the Wachowski sisters's T.V. production and his last book is chosen to be analised by the gender and sexuality group of studies. My doctor chamber at University of Sao Paulo (UNESP) is really concerned about the trans ban over the world. We were argumenting about the fact that wikipedia doesn't allow to correct the name from The Wachowski Brothers to The Wachowski Sisters and what it means to gender representation. Well, I've done my best to try to make things right. I know I won't stop reading his production just because he doesn't have a wikipedia page. Pereira.David (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC-3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.187.102.24 (talk)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Polyamorph (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete promotional as hell, as written. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Keep. not sure google scholar is the best measure of significant impact. As a scholar in a related field, I've included Keegan's work in my teaching and the students really engaged with the themes of the article. Wiki articles like this one are are really helpful resource for students and other scholars to follow an individuals work, particularly as academics often move between departments and universities. Botanicalbee (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another single use account. Although I am convinced the nominator has not been canvassing, there has perhaps been some off-wiki conversation.Polyamorph (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, first post - first time I've seen someone trying to delete an informative article. I've never met Cáel Keegan, I'm just pointing out that there are different ways of assessing academic impact other than google scholar. Use in teaching on a different country maybe worth consideration. Botanicalbee (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would interest us to know how you heard about the discussion. Also note that new users are welcome to join a deletion discussion but, quoting directly from WP:AFDEQ "the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus." There are now at least 3 single use accounts who have contributed to this discussion, 2 on this page and one on the article talk page. This is unusual and points, perhaps, to some off-wiki discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable, and in essence promotional. In an academic field based on books, one book is rarely enough to show a person as an authority--and at any rate cannot be judged until published: at this point he has published no books at all. For journal articles, citation figures are not very reliable in the humanities, which is why we mostly go by books in that area. But for the published journal articles here, if it could be argued that his particular niche they might matter, there are almost no citations at all. His various interviews and talks do not amount to notability eithe by WP:PROF or the GNG. Incidental comments made about him merits by other non-notable people in the subject are not evidence of actual importance, and no matter who said them, wouldn't necessarily mean much more than politeness. Influence in the classroom requires much more solid evidence than this--we usually expect a textbook used as the major one in the subject, or the like. The promotionalism is as important as the lack of notability. 90% of the contents of the article consists of what he himself has said. The listing of individual interviews, complete with quotations from the subject, is characteristic of an attempt to inflate the subject's significance. And so is the attempt to write an article a little before a subject's book is going to be published: it usually amounts to a promotional effort for the book. (Otherwise the article would be written after the book had become a well-received work in its field and no longer needed the promotion.) Calling someone in the lede just "professor" even when it's actually a lower rank is often a sign of a press agent's ignorance of the academic world--but sometimes, like here, it's just something students tend to do, or perhaps mere puffery. I don't think this article is commercial promotion, but rather the effort of one academic to promote closely related work of another.

The material presented shows at most that he might someday be notable. It's not likely to be within the next 6 months, even if his first book is successful, so there's no reason to move this to draft. The usual level in practice at WP when an academic becomes notable is full professor, and there's a long way to go here. (I have sometimes said it should be associate professor, but it's rarely been accepted).

I don't think the various apparently canvassed comments here are canvassing by the subject--from their impression that a person gets an article in WP because in their opinion he ought to be notable, it seems like students. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. the Notability rules state 'professors of various ranks' ^[1] so I'm not sure the above comment about 'full professor' is legitimate. the cited references on the articles page are not only local news media outlets but national media outlets and therefore qualify under criteria 7 of notability for academics rules^[2]. Continuing my earlier comment about the the relevance of publications and relevance in teaching in measuring scholarly impact (criteria 1 of the notability rules), I did an online search and found 4 courses using Keegan's work in their reading lists. I can't seem to upload pdfs from this platform but two at USC (USA), one at Uppsala university (Sweden) and one at Carleton University (Canada). an earlier comment stated Keegan's work was being used in Brasil. that is a wide spread for relatively recent work in an emerging field suggesting that Keegan is already a notable voice in the area.Botanicalbee (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a plain fact in 11 years here we have almost never kept an article on an assistant ptofessor at AfD. This is reasonable, because intil someone gets tenure, it is entirely unclear whether or not they are a major authority in their subject. The very few times we have done that is when someone happens to have received really extensive press coverage in an international basis. As for their works being used, the explanation of that point reads "... if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." That's a good deal more than just a paper or two that are used as course reading. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:PROFESSOR aside, the article is just teeming with promo, verging on G11. Looking at the notability factor, while I disagree with WP:PROFESSOR because I think it's too lenient, I still think this is a failure to meet the standard. As DGG says, this professor is not tenured. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina González Rodríguez[edit]

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

Not notable. Apparently this person created an article about herself. Hddty. (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LACaliNYC (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that a self-created article has lasted over a year says our system is flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. There is obviously no chance further discussion will result in any other outcome and will only be a time sink. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 01:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gish gallop[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is an inflammatory term used by anti-theists and anti-creationists exclusively. It is a character assassination attempt on Dr. Duane Gish. Kanbei85 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2018 (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/2018 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasingly alliterative term, in fairly wide use as can easily be checked by clicking on the links above, named after a notable exponent of the technique. A useful little article, which we should keep. Hunc (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of all terms in use, even if this were common, which is debatable. It is intrinsically a biased term, which makes it a violation of WP:NPOV, especially if it is not properly qualified in the text. It is not an uncontested fact to say that Duane Gish engaged in that behavior! Are you unable to tell subjective from objective?--Kanbei85 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is not a dictionary entry; "neutrality" does not mean avoiding controversial topics, but rather, writing about them in such a way that viewpoints are properly attributed to those who advance them. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that neutrality means avoiding controversial topics. Where was that ever said here? This is an inherently-biased term used primarily by a particular group at the expense of another group they wish to disparage. It is also disparaging of Dr. Duane Gish, which should of course go without saying. There are other terms such as

Elephant Hurling which represent the same concept, but which are not represented on Wikipedia.--Kanbei85 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It is intrinsically a biased term, which makes it a violation of WP:NPOV". That's not what NPOV means. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll grant that the name itself does not automatically make it a violation of NPOV. However, I still think it fails WP:N, as it is a term largely known only to a certain special interest group of people, namely, anti-theists and anti-creationists, and is used as a mocking, derisive term against those they oppose. Similar terms exist like Elephant Hurling, which are not included on Wikipedia; so why should this be, either? --Kanbei85 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, consider our article on the Chewbacca defense. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a topic of "special interest" is not a reason for exclusion from an encyclopedia. Nor does the fact that X is not mentioned mean that Y should be ignored. Nor is the claim that a phrase is "mocking" or "derisive". XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. Telephone hybrid is "a term largely known only to a certain special interest group of people", namely telephone engineers, but I doubt that Kanbei85 would want to propose it for deletion on those grounds. SpinningSpark 17:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kanbei85's arguments are not valid grounds for deletion. The article is not a dictionary definition, and if, as he claims on the article talk page, the article is biased, that should be discussed and (if valid) fixed.

As for notability, see these sources (search for "Gish Gallop" on each page):[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more [23] (which, like several of those posted just above, indicates the spread of the term outside the debunking of creationism). XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: even a cursory search establishes notability. --tronvillain (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguing that this is a character assassination is very odd. Gish's own article says, with sources, that he debated in exactly this way, and there are no countering opinions offered. SpinningSpark 17:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a dic def, and being offensive is not a valid rationale for deletion. Something something Category:Ethnic and religious slurs. GMG ^talk 18:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced stub, on a notable topic. Supposed bias was never a reason for deletion in Wikipedia. As for Duane Gish, he is more famous for his underhanded debate techniques than anything resembling science. "...during the debate, Gish attempted to prove that Shermer was indeed an atheist and therefore immoral, even though Shermer said he was not an atheist and was willing to accept the existence of a divine creator." Dimadick (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, for reasons already stated, and admonish the nominator for wasting the community's time. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gopika Poornima[edit]

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

Sources are all track listings, profile pages, interviews, and fluff pieces. No comprehensive or serious journalistic coverage. Waggie (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hi Waggie!. Gopika Poornima is a notable singer in Telugu film industry. This link is a serious news website with respectable standards at least in Andhra Pradesh, the state to which the singer belongs to. There are other news articles where her name is referred though they do not cover her biographical details. They are mostly taken from the interviews. this link belongs to one of the top 3 Telugu news paper Andhra Jyothy which proves her notability. Let me know what else can I do to save this article from being deleted.Ravichandra (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello రవిచంద్ర (Ravichandra), unfortunately interviews aren't sufficient to establish notability. We need comprehensive coverage that is independent of the subject. Can you provide links to news articles that discuss them that aren't interviews, and are serious journalism? I just don't see any here. The only thing close is the article regarding the Veturi Memorial award. Non-English sources are acceptable, provided they follow the guidelines set out in WP:RS. Thank you for your time and efforts. Waggie (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie Thank you for the suggestions. I got one more reference from another good resource The Hindu where she got best singer award. this link. One more here. I will take some time and I am sure I can gather more resources. Please don't delete this article.Ravichandra (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sources you added. Unfortunately, these sources do not offer comprehensive coverage, they only mention Gopika in passing. Content from articles should be summarized from what reliable sources have to say. If the source only lists her name alongside many others and doesn't discuss her at all, then it's not a useful source for establishing notability. Waggie (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, You mean to say there should be at least one full article dedicated to her in a reliable source? how about this? Ravichandra (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interview. And we require multiple articles that discuss the subject comprehensively and independently of the subject, otherwise there isn't independent content to summarize for an article. Waggie (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added one more article as a source from Andhra Jyothy. This article is not an interview and independently written by a journalist. Waggie can this be considered for notability? Ravichandra (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poster above says Interviews aren't sufficient. These seems a strange reasoning. An interview piece shows that the publication had an interest in writing about the singer. The way the publication writes about the subject (interview, bio, review) seems irrelevant to discussions about notability, unless it's merely an advertorial. Also, I believe the submitter is nominating this subject for deletion based on the article, not the subject. Not sure the nominator here has done sufficient WP:BEFORE. Egaoblai (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egaoblai Thank you for your comment. I don't have much experience in identifying/differentiating sources which can prove the notability of the subject. I was thinking that if a reliable news paper (In India) like The Hindu or Andhra Jyothy publishes an article, irrespective of type of the article, it can support the notability. However I have already given one Independent article from Andhra Jyothy as a source and a few interviews from the The Hindu and other references for factual correctness. These are not advertorial in nature. I don't know if these are sufficient for removing the proposed deletion tag. Ravichandra (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this seems like an easy vote to Keep from me. TheHindu.com featured article is a strong indication of notability here, and there are plenty of other source to verify and pass wp:n too.Egaoblai (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources, they are the subject talking about themselves. We need secondary sources to provide content to summarize, and consequently need secondary sources to establish notability (ie: whether there is content to summarize for there to be content for an article). Waggie (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of notability, if an independent publication chooses to publish an interview with an individual then it can be seen that this publication has found the subject notable, which is of course the basis of notability here. Egaoblai (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but we need articles to be summarized from reliable, secondary sources. How can we do that if all the sources are primary (them talking about themselves), or simply track listings? It would require original research, which isn't what Wikipedia is about. Waggie (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, This article is secondary. Though the content is written before I added this source, but all the important facts written in this article have a reference to this article. There is only one source (allmusic.com) which contains track listings. If it is not going to help this article in any way, I can remove it. Remaining all sources are supporting the article in some way. Can you remove the deletion tag now? Ravichandra (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi రవిచంద్ర! That's a good start! Do you have any more such secondary sources? We can't base a Wikipedia article on only one such source, it would not represent a balanced viewpoint. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, I will try to find other secondary sources. But my question is, If the article is based on a single source supported by other primary sources, is it deserved to be deleted? As far as I know {{One source}} is a better tag for this article.Ravichandra (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm leaning delete on this due to lack of sources and coverage. The article in TheHindu is a good start but it's only one source and as Waggie has pointed out, it is primary. Notability isn't really established enough for me to justify keeping this one unless someone can find more sources (I looked - didn't see anything). -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dane, This article is secondary source as the other languages are also acceptable. I already pointed out and is submitted for notability There is one secondary and multiple primary sources. She has received some awards for which there are references from the leading news papers like The Hindu, Times of India, and other language news papers to which the subject belings to. Ravichandra (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Delete - I believe this article should continue. The references provided are sufficient and they are notable. More references can be provided in due course. Hence not necessary to Delete.-- స్వరలాసిక/Svaralaasika 15:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
No Need to Delate.she is known singer in telugu film industry. These preferences are enough to keep article. Later can add more references..--B.K.Viswanadh (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm rather suspect of all these accounts with very low edit counts showing up to comment on this discussion. Trying to assume good faith, but it's not easy. Waggie (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any problem if users with low edit count participating in the discussion even if they know the context of the subject? Ravichandra (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gopika Poornima is famous singer in South India. So, No need to Delete this article.--Pranayraj1985 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be good to get some more opinions of established editors, different from the obvious sock/meatpuppetry (or canvassing on other websites).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment'-!voting soon....Please wait a bit:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage including secondary coverage such as the Hindu. Interviews may be considered for notability as per the last section of WP:Interview, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThese interviews are taken by mainstream newspapers of India and are notable enough to be acknowledged here. Besides, secondary coverage is also available on the subject. Also, she has been awarded for her work in the past. Referencing needs to be improved, but poor referencing doesn't mean the subject is not notable. Dial911 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Atlantic306 and Dial911, I would encourage you to read that section more carefully, especially the second-to-last paragraph. Interviews where the subject are basically given carte blanche are mentioned specifically as something that WP:NOTPROMOTION discounts. Also, "An example would be a fan magazine interview with a celebrity about their new movie or new child. They're not likely to question them sharply on whether the movie is any good or whether motherhood is really a joyful experience." Then please take another look at the interviews. I do not believe the interviews constitute solid journalistic coverage to meet the threshold of WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:NMUSICBIO. Aside from the interviews, we have AllMusic, simple filmographies, and passing mentions. What secondary coverage are you referring to, Dial911? Can you provide some links? I found nothing of better quality than what's already in the article (most was far worse). What notable awards has she received? If I've missed something, I'm happy to concede. Waggie (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National newspapers are not fan magazines, and the Hindu piece is a secondary coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting they were, I was pointing out the principle of basically letting the interviewee promote themselves, which is what that section of WP:INTERVIEW was talking about. Waggie (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABN Andhra Jyothi, a notable Telugu TV news channel also covered her significantly. News TV channels don't generally cover a man on the street. You can find videos of the telecast uploaded by the official verified account of ABN on youtube. These video references meet WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOREF. Also, just because these regional language news sources are not 'famous' in the world, doesn't mean that they are not notable. Hope you get the point. After finding news TV coverage on the person, it has become Strong Keep for me. Dial911 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notable award she received is Nandi Awards for Television the reference for which is already mentioned. This is the from The Hindu. This article can be cited for the notability of the awards. She was nominated for Filmfare award for the best singer multiple times. You can check here entries here.Ravichandra (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander S. Lundekvam[edit]

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

Non-notable, Google search yields one result only. lovkal (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and every other guideline. Geschichte (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know gymnastics is a sport where the people who excel most are teenagers, but Lundekvam still does not seem to cut it. I am also less than convinced that 3100 followers on instagram makes one even close to being notable. I think at one point I had more friends than that on facebook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not fulfil WP:GNG criteria and all cited references are from social networking sitesHeshiv (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Contemporary Sculpture and Plastic Arts[edit]

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

The article, which was created by an editor named SGallery, is basically advertising for the gallery. It is unreferenced except for a link to the gallery. Although the gallery has a museum component, it also has multiple sales pages. I wasn't able to find independent sources for the article, although there may be some in Russian. Leschnei (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Russian WP has an article here created around the same time by the same editor, no help there. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. SpinningSpark 18:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ARTSPAM with no effort to have provided even a modicum of sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burning the Masses[edit]

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

non notable band. only one source on the whole page, and also it’s a A7 Redundant article because they already have a place on metal archives which is more comprehensively put together. Googling their band name also doesn't turn up any significant media coverage. Second Skin (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In this and another recent nomination, it appears that User:Second Skin is citing guideline #A7 incorrectly. That guideline does not contain the term "redundant" but does mention that certain types of articles can be "speedy deleted" if they make no claim of notability. Also, already having an article at a different website is irrelevant. The most relevant guideline to discuss in this type of nomination is WP:NBAND and associated guidelines. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that it was a criteria solely for "speedy deletions", but as a guideline for anything regarding non-notable music articles. Forgive me Second Skin (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - One of their albums has a fairly substantial review at AllMusic ([24]]), and they have been covered at the reasonably reliable No Clean Singing webzine ([25], [26]). Other voters may find this to be enough for a basic stub article, but I am concerned about their lack of coverage elsewhere beyond basic song listings at MP3/streaming sites and social media posts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Webzines aren't noteworthy sources. Allmusic is notable, but that's a single review and not even a source from a noteworthy publication like Deceible or MetalSucks like most of the more noteworthy bands like this garner. Second Skin (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant, independent reliable sources. The label they are affiliated with does not seem significant despite having a wiki page. In fact, it may be a good candidate for AfD. Note the discussion above re: AllMusic as reliable source. This particular review is user submitted, a feature on the site that allows members to log in and leave a review. (exact verbiage from ([27]]) when you click the "+" icon reads: "Sign up or Log In to your AllMusic Account to write a review." ) Perhaps a different discussion needs to be had elsewhere regarding AllMusic's unfortunate, regressive slide into more and more non-notable, user submitted content. But, at the very least, absent a valid AllMusic entry, there is nothing I could find that establishes this subject meeting wikipedia notability. As mentioned above, webzines and blogs--no matter how reliable some information may be therein--can not be used to established notability because of lack of verifiable editorial oversight. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berthold Technologies[edit]

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

Promotional, unsourced article about a non-notable company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Suspected undisclosed native advertising created by a SPA. MER-C 11:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The WP:SPA has created a very similar article on the German Wikipedia, equally lacking in 3rd party sources. Searches are not finding better than routine listings, which verify that it is a company going about its business but do not demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly specialized company, significant coverage even in industry publications has not been found. Fails GNG. The article is not unreferenced, however. Sam Sailor 21:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamcracker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established. There have been multiple attempts to find suitable sources that establish notability and a talk page discussion specifically on the subject of meeting the notability criteria. The contributor has removed the notability tag multiple times (or perhaps that is some single-minded IP editor who is not the contributor). It's my conclusion that this company does not meet WP:NCORP and I'm looking for community consensus. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see press releases, but nothing that is independent coverage, or even explains what the company does. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Repeated insertion of copyvio material and edit warring over maintenance templates makes it impossible to construct a neutrral article even if it were notable, and there is precious little evidence of that. A textbook example of why companies should not write their own articles. SpinningSpark 18:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Walter Buffalo Turf[edit]

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

Lack of independent secondary sources coverage. This is an advertisement for a product that does not meet notability guidelines. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator JarrahTree 13:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tezpurbuzz[edit]

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

This should be a speedy delete A7/G11, but the speedy tag got removed by a third party. Clearly fails WP:NCORP, definitely pure promo John from Idegon (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - one of a billion Indian news blogs. Zero coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:WEB in all respects. It might well be "first ever" in Tezpur, but that wouldn't make it notable. Obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry by remover of the speedy tag. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the name of the website is actually Tezpur Buzz. Linking also to variant spellings TezpurBuzz and Tezpur buzz for future reference. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Agreed. I can't find any independent sources to show this site's notability. Nothing but a promotional near-copy of the same blurb from their website that is being mirrored everywhere else. Meters (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can tell this site has only been online since May 6 2018 (i.e., exactly one month). Meters (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no notability, Paid COI, promo etc etc - clearly no sources to support it. It is beyond me how this made it through either NPP or AfC Nosebagbear (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It didn't, Nosebagbear. I speedied it on NPP. Speedy template was removed by a third party, who then left me a message on my talk page calling me a "F****r" in Hindi. Hoping next administrator that wonders by puts this out of our misery. John from Idegon (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lovely person then - deleting tags doesn't remove them from admin lists, does it? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes it does, as long as it's not the article creator. John from Idegon (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting - seems a flaw to me; thank you.
Comment - since the article creator and the user that removed the speedy have been blocked as socks of each other, I've replaced the speedy template. John from Idegon (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FreeFileSync[edit]

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

A product of no demonstrable significance. Sources lack intellectual independence, they are affiliated or based on press releases, with the exception of one product review which is not primarily about the product but is a side by side comparison of multiple products. Guy (Help!) 06:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No indication of notability per Wikipedia standards. A supposed CNET.com quotation in the reception section (the only source cited there) is sourced to a link which leads to a download page - for FreeFileSync along with multiple similar applications. Even if the quoted text appeared there (it doesn't), this would hardly be a legitimate third-party review, since websites offering things for download are inevitably going to praise them. And a search on the web finds little commentary but blogs, and comparative reviews discussing similar software. The only other commentary on the application seems to revolve around alleged malware content. Lacking meaningful in-depth third-party commentary of the type WP:RS mandates, any article can only either be promotional guff, or negative content regarding malware. Neither of which constitute a valid Wikipedia article. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:130:351B:68D3:4C6D (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While researching another issue (which I will not mention here because it has nothing to do with the question of whether this article should be deleted) I did a lot of searching, and I found that what little coverage exists consists of:
- Download descriptions from websites which clearly offer for download every program they can find (including a couple of programs I wrote years ago which might have three users total if you count my mother).
- Discussions about how the author has tried to monetize the program by offering a super-duper extra-features version if you pay him.
- Discussions about how the author has tried to monetize the program bundling malware that installs things on your computer without your permission
- Promotional material obviously written by the author of the program.

What I did not find was anything that satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of depth-of-coverage required by WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article or searches of passing WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found articles about FreeFileSync on PCWorld, Framasoft (in french), CNET, MakeUseOf, LifeHacker, TechRepublic, MakeTechEasier and others.

Also, maybe not an indicator of notability, but at least, popularity: on AlternativeTo, FreeFileSync has (a lot) more "likes" (for what it's worth) than all of the alternatives, including rsync, Beyond Compare, IPFS, GoodSync, SyncBack, SparkleShare, SyncToy, Allway Sync and many others. (Note that all of the alternatives I've just mentioned have their own Wikipedia article).

(BTW, I'm new here, I hope I understood the purpose of this page correctly). StayAwhileAndListen (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC) — StayAwhileAndListen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! regarding the above, you might want to read Wikipedia:Notability (software). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSOFT; as mentioned by User:StayAwhileAndListen, multiple notable reviews seem to exist. --Stempelquist (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"An app that is distributed commercially or supported by businesses is a commercial product. Sources used for such apps should satisfy the breadth and depth of coverage required for a standalone commercial product article." --WP:NSOFTWARE

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to whether the coverage in PCWorld, CNET and Framasoft is enough to establish notability, since the other sources seem to be blogs or otherwise insignificant. Three sources are technically multiple sources. WP:NSOFTWARE also states: "A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it meets any one of these criteria: [...] It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." WP:CORP simply states: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Wouldn't you say that criterion is met in this case? I may very well be wrong here, I don't have a feeling of the precedent. By the way, I'm not entirely sure FreeFileSync classifies as a commercial product (do the donation edition and ads equal commercial?). If it isn't regarded as commercial, "it is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown." --WP:NSOFTWARE. Also, now that I have the opportunity: Your research into the program's OpenCandy component is very fine work!--Stempelquist (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 30 May 2018 (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/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NSOFT specifies "multiple [...] reliable reviews by [...] independent publishers" as stated above. Such reviews do exist. There may not be enough material for an FA, or even a GA, but there's enough for an article at least somewhat useful to a reader. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 09:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a judgement call, and I understand those who disagree, but even after reviewing everything above, it it still my considered opinion that it isn't quite notable enough. It is close, but not quite close enough. I am fine with whatever the consensus turns out to be. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the sources mentioned above, Ubuntuusers lists and describes features and uses of FreeFileSync. Ubuntuusers.de is a common source of help for german linux users. Heljastrom (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — Heljastrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would like someone who speaks the language to confirm this, but the above reference looks like one of the many places where the creator of FreeFileSync has tooted his own horn. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiff No Beat[edit]

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

No references to show notability, promotional language. Delete, or draftify if there is a chance to salvage. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the claims of notability are sourced, and this seems to fairly clearly be COI editing by the article's creator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If deleted, delete La Vie de Louga (Kiff No Beat song) & Approchez Regardez (Kiff No Beat song) per WP:A9 — IVORK _Discuss 05:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

President (song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized {{R from song}} to album article The Alternative (The Alternative (album)) for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. R from song redirects are one of many redirect types that uncontroversially should be boldly made per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR rather than simply nominating for discussion. User:Lachlan Lachlan has been told so repeatedly on their user talk page (permalink). Sam Sailor 12:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source found to indicate any notability, and not worth keeping as a redirect as anyone looking for a president song would more likely be looking for a song about the US president (Hail to the Chief, etc.) or other presidents. Hzh (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with User:Hzh above. As opposed to the increasingly usual practice of redirecting to the album as described by User:Sam Sailor, this one adds the problem of a very common term in its title, which is bound to create unnecessary confusion if redirected. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018#District 22. Sandstein 09:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Janz[edit]

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

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, he fails WP:NPOL. Yes, there is coverage of his campaign--but the only coverage of him is coverage of his campaign. We typically redirect such articles to the relevant election page and recreate them only if the candidate wins the general election. Marquardtika (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018#District 22. Fails WP:GNG as the coverage is too limited to be "significant". It's mostly about the election. Article created WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - In case this candidate becomes notable. It was too soon to create this article since all the coverage is related to the election. I wonder if there is such thing as "delayed delete" or would we just go to WP:RFD?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be the most appropriate outcome here. If and when the candidate wins the article can be recreated.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable unless elected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Disagreement about whether to redirect or to keep. Both sides have valid arguments. Sandstein 09:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikie Sherrill[edit]

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

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, she fails WP:NPOL. Yes, there is coverage of her campaign--but the only coverage of her is coverage of her campaign. We typically redirect such articles to the relevant election page and recreate them only if the candidate wins. Marquardtika (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, not delete. Keep the history we have in case it's useful later, but as noted above, the title should currently be a redirect and not a full article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PerWP:BASIC, she is notable. The article cites ten sources, many of which devote significant coverage to Sherrill. These include The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, NJ.com (the website for the Star Ledger, NJ's largest newspaper), and Politico. These sources were published over the span a year already. This is not even an exhaustive list of places that have given significant coverage to Sherrill. She already won a contested primary and her race is one of the most closely watched house races this cycle. We do not automatically assume candidates are notable, but being a candidate for office should not be used to delete without consideration of an article. She has received significant coverage and clearly passes the basic standard of notability. Knope7 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018#District 11. Fails WP:GNG as the coverage is too limited to be "significant". It's mostly about the election. Article created yesterday out of WP:RECENTISM of her primary win. WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 days ago I would have said delete. That changed when Navy veteran wins Democratic nod in battleground New Jersey district (Washington Post). In New Jersey and 7 Other States, Democrats Fill Ranks of Challengers (New York Times). WP:NPOL allows for this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Still a bit much about the election though and not the candidate (at least the NYT one you produced), no? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point of mentioning the Times article is the fact that Sherrill is singled out among yesterday's election results. INDEPTH exists USA Today, 24 May 2018: Mikie Sherrill flew helicopters for the U.S. Now she wants to turn D.C. blue, The Star-Ledger 11 May 2018 Ex-Navy helicopter pilot plans to challenge Rep. Frelinghuysen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The in-depth articles about her as a female U.S. Navy helicopter pilot / attorney / mom who has become a politician establish her strong claim of notability. In addition to the area coverage, the articles about her in USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and this piece in Glamour all provide the significant coverage needed to establish her notability per WP:GNG. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Return to Redirect- Fails WP:POLITICIAN, while her career with the navy may be admirable, it is not notable. All coverage is in the context of the campaign which can be covered at the redirect target. If and when she does win, the article can be restored.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and others. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for extensive previoulsy-mentioned reasons (above) Djflem (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking over the citations it looks like a nice span of time over the course of a year about this lady from highly reputable sources. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018#District 11 per WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E. There is a lot of coverage because Sherrill is the nominee in a very competitive House race, but all of that coverage is in the context of this one election. Being a nominee for a House seat, even in a marquee race, is not enough to confer notability. If Sherill wins the election, then she will be notable and the page can be restored. If she loses the election, then she will not have any notability besides this one race. -LtNOWIS (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reese Havens[edit]

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

fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of New York Mets first-round draft picks. Spanneraol (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was the subject of a New York Times profile here. He also has articles about him at least here and here. There was also at least one article about him and Justin Smoak in the Times and Democrat from June 6, 2008 that doesn't show up in my Google search. I am pretty sure there was more, possibly offline, since I remember reading about him and not in the Times, but this should be enough to establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources provided above. He fails WP:NBASEBALL, but that's enough to get him ov4er the GNG hump. Smartyllama (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New York Mets first-round draft picks. Coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for a first round pick and thus doesn't help him get over the GNG hump. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most draft picks do not get such coverage, and even first round picks typically do not get profiled in the NY Times, not even Met or Yankee picks. Even if they did, GNG does not make an exception for coverage that is typical of first round draft picks. 16:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Rlendog's sources, which overrides WP:NBASE. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Eh, clearly fails the notability guidelines for baseball, but may barely pass GNG. Creating this article was probably a case of recentism, but the potential to create a worthwhile article is greater here than other articles on subjects who only play a few games, make it on a box score, and are forgotten.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sing Bhujia[edit]

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

Fails notability. Sources available on the net are either products or recipes. MT Train^Talk 12:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Concurring with nominator...Pretty tasty recipes though — F R ⁺ 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I know WP:NOTCOOKBOOK, but there's tens of thousands of hits to this "product". It appears massively popular, it just needs some references that I'm going to start looking for. I already read the most boring article ever from the Journal of the Indian Potato Association (seriously, I did). ^[1]Ifnord (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Journal of the Indian Potato Association. 28 (1). July 2001 http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/2054433/1/CPRI273L.pdf#page=177. Retrieved 6 June 2018. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried finding sources to save this article, and failed. Ifnord (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft VI: The Devil's Mistress[edit]

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

Straight to DVD film from Troma pictures. No indication of notability, not enough in-depth sourcing from reliable, independent sources to show it passes WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't pass WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Certainly, at some point in the series, the individual titles are best left to the series page (having attracted little individual attention, and notwithstanding the fact that our article on the series is in sad shape). But I'm not convinced this one doesn't warrant its own page. I only have snipped views via Google Books, but this and this look like independent reviews. The A.V. Club's omnibus treatment of the series speaks more to the notability of the series proper than this individual film, but still includes review elements that would be useful for fleshing out a critical response section. Worst case, a merge to the series article is a far more reasonable outcome than deletion, although it's not really in any shape to receive a merger, and I tend to think this meets the barest standards for retention anyway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified above, passes WP:GNG thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure when mere listings in guides pass as notable resources. If so, then every entry in Leonard Maltin's movie guides. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but the AV Guide article and reasonably long TV Guide review are sig cov for WP:GNG if not NFILM. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of the socking and POVFORK concerns outlined in the discussion, and the unrebutted assertion that the history of this article is already in the history of Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations, which allows editors to build on it if deemed necessary. Sandstein 08:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman-Portuguese War[edit]

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

There is currently a non-formal discussion regarding this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#The_Ottoman-Portuguese_Conflict_deletion. I haven't read through the whole article yet, but a quick glance shows that it's a WP:POVFORK of Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations (formerly Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts). My main concern is that there are so many quotations in it that I had originally considered it for WP:G12, but it may have some material that could be saved and incorporated into the already existing article. The article (formerly "The Portuguese-Ottoman War") also very clearly essay-like and non-neutral in its tone. It was a good faith initiative by its creator, but there are so many issues here that we're way past the point of preservation, and improving it would most likely involve cutting its size down by over 80%. And finally, the inclusion of "Ottoman" in the title may be misleading, since the majority of confrontations in the Indian Ocean involved other Muslim states like the Mamluk Sultanate, for which we already have Portuguese-Mamluk naval war, as well as the Gujaratis among others. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it would be better if people read the Ottoman-Portuguese War carefully before suggesting its deletion since it provides objective and valid sources about the matter. It's not reasonable to label this article as WP:POVFORK since the other article (Ottoman-Portuguese Conflicts) is not clear about its objective and aim, putting inside it cunfusing battles and nations from different conflicts. We cannot say what the creator of the article had in mind when he/she wrote it, but no primary source is cited expressing the main point of the article. This can be attested by looking at other periods of battles between other nations that this article mentions like the articles Turkish Crusade and the Ottoman-Venetian War which are totally inaccurate and odd (at minimum) when it comes to the Portuguese participation against the ottomans since no Portuguese primary sources (or even Ottomans', I'm sure) attest a state of war between both nations prior to the 16th century. On the other hand, the article Ottoman-Portuguese War provides at least three different Portuguese primary sources about this state of war, and this article is all concerned about the 16th century in which the war was really declared according to these Portuguese sources. Well, why should an article cite the Turkish Crusade and Ottoman-Venetian War in the Ottoman-Portuguese Conflicts? Certainly, this has nothing to do with the Ottoman-Portuguese War. Because of these confusions and lack of clarity we can understand why the Ottoman-Portuguese War article was correctly created. That's why it was suggested the deletion of the Ottoman-Portuguese Conflicts, because it's totally vague and does not express an objective perspective on the matter.

Now, the claim that the Ottoman-Portuguese War has a "non-neutral" tone is not right to say either. Perhaps, this 'feeling' is due to the fact that the majority of sources agree that the Portuguese were militarily superior to the Ottomans in the 16th century, mainly because of its superior sea power. By the way, how could we explain that the Portuguese succeeded against the Ottomans (and their allies, of course) to secure the Indian Ocean and control the monopoly of spice trade in the region if we don't explain their ability and capacity to do that? This impression of a 'non-neutrality' concerning the article should and must go away by simply reading the huge ammount of sources cited (western and eastern, by the way), which some people unfortunatly don't bother to read. Reading the article carefully we can see that the crontributors of the page always cite a valid source to confirm every point presented, letting the sources speak for themselves. This is neutrality. There are no contradictions in this article. It's also wrong to say this article is "essay-like" because it is not based on "personal opinions", but it's based on dozens of respected and valid sources about the matter. Again, the sources cited can clarify that misunderstanding.

Again, the Portuguese primary sources are very clear in the state of war against the Ottomans, which are totally supported by the modern sources cited in the Ottoman-Portuguese War article, and as also cited there, the Ottomans fought allied with many muslim powers in the 16th century. The Portuguese-Mamluk naval War were one of the many wars the Portuguese fought in the Indian Ocean, but according to the sources, the Ottomans were the only power present in virtually every battle against the Portuguese during the whole of the 16th century, not the Mamluks, the Somali, the Mughals and other small players.

Once more, I would kindly ask everyone to read carefully and study both articles and check the sources cited, because the difference between both articles are very clear. Sadly, some people are just concerned about the guidelines of Wikipedia instead of read the articles and analyse them critically according to the facts presented. Sir Thiago (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thiago is the creator of the contested article and so far practically the only contributor to it. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thiago has been banned for being a sockmaster. -The Gnome (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since we already had Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts, Conquest of Tunis (1535), Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559), Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-1589) and also Ottoman naval expeditions in the Indian Ocean, creating a new article was clearly superfluous. Having read it carefully, I came to the conclusion that it makes no attempt to explain what events actually took place and when. Most of the sources are also nothing more than a title. Crenelator (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be better if we provide evidences for our claims, because it seems this discussion is heading towards personal opinions only. The article Ottoman-Portuguese War has nothing to do with the battles alone, in which only names and references are cited for the sake of examples; no discussion is taken on that assumption, because it deals with the background, military and economic aspects of the war. It's the only article that cites primary sources and the aftermath of the entire strife. So, what's the reason of separating the war into two, like Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559) and Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-1589)? On what evidences are those articles based? Should we write now a third, forth an so on? Should we write an article about the "Ottoman-Portuguee conflicts (1506-1509, (1510-1512)? There are no sources supporting it, again, those articles are considered stubs here. Also, according to primary sources at Torre do Tombo National Archive there was a declaration of war on the first years of the 16th century, just check the section "Declaration of War" on the Ottoman-Portuguese War article for more information.

As for the point that "most of the sources are also nothing more than a title" could you tell me which ones are these? Almost 100% of the sources cited on the article can be checked on Google Books, but not all of them because they are simply not available there. However, the complete reference is provided for further research, according to WP instructions. So, this point cannot be taken against the article whatsoever. Sir Thiago (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a WP:CFORK and full of synthesis due to forcing modern terminology and conventions on a pre-modern conflict. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on account of evidence-based independent notability per sources cited ~~and of Sir Thiago's reasoning detailed above~~. Most "delete" suggestions are essentially based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

To the point: All the issues raised about text quality are and should be worked on, i.e. modern terminology should be amended where inappropriate (however, note that every serious historical analysis is made from a modern point of view); whatever lack of neutrality exists can and should be washed off; and essay-like verbiage can be corrected. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you overlooking the CFORK concerns and the possible copyright infringement? Are those "IDONTLIKEIT" arguments? I actually did propose that we incorporate the non-problematic material into Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations, and I invite Sir Thiago to take the lead in the process of saving this material. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the remarks. I find your concerns about WP:POVSPLIT valid but I do not see much of an issue: This is an article that can stand on its own, although the similarity with other subjects might lead eventually to merging. I see no reason to delete altogether, though, but as is my nature I remain open to argument. The copyright concern is evidently more serious. File under "issues that can be solved" through extensive paraphrasing and deletions. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Certainly, there is no reason to delete this article. Now, what copyright issue is the article facing? Sir Thiago (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Let's just start for now with the fact that the article overly relies on quotations. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~It should be very easy to deal with, what more? Sir Thiago (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Diannaa: Would you be willing to investigate this? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over-use of quotations and copyright violations are not the same things. One is a violation of our non-free content policy, and the other is a violation of our copyright policy. Articles with excessive quotations are not copyvio and do not qualify for G12 deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Until now, the only persons that presented valid arguments and reasoning are Sir Thiago and The Gnome since by just reading the Ottoman-Portuguese War article it's totally clear that it's not WP:CFORK at all. This article deal with the reasons, politics and military aspects of the war. Also, some of the arguments presented here against the article are totally invalid in terms of reliability. Every point made in the referred article is supported by valid sources, and that's the proof why this article is by no means essay-like. As for the other articles, supposedly about a war between the Ottomans and the Portuguese, what's the objective of those? Indeed, what's the porpuse of the Ottoman-Portuguese Conflicts article if inside it they cite Turkish Crusade and Ottoman-Venetian War? Compare this with the articles Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559) and Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-1589) and see how vague and shallow they are. It seems clear that some here are just beeing driven by personal opinions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitudes and are not really critical about the article, because it's not possible to compare these articles with the Ottoman-Portuguese War. So, before suggesting a deletion of a valid and well done article, people should help to fix and improve it, that is the main focus of this encyclopedia. LordPedro (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)— LordPedro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Striking comments by LordPedro, confirmed sockpuppet of Sir Thiago. -The Gnome (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you guys serious about the deletion of this article? It's the only high-quality article citing primary sources about the war and presenting respected sources, and you want it to be deleted because of other bad referenced and not straight-forward articles? Wikipedia would lose and important entry if that happened. Just use reason, not your "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" opinion. IPCL (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)— IPCL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Striking comments by IPCL, confirmed sockpuppet of Sir Thiago. -The Gnome (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there's any content which can be saved, it should be merged to Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations, which is on the same topic, at a better title, and doesn't have the various content problems. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as article creator has been involved in puppetry shouldn't this article be deleted as a matter of course? i've seen wp be purged of other puppet editor work, why is this different? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5 states that articles can be deleted if they have been created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. The rule further clarifies that the article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion. The creator was only banned yesterday. -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations or just delete. Much of this is an WP:ESSAY about conflicts between the Portuguese and Muslim states that may have owed nominal allegiance to the caliph, but were in practice independent. The Ottoman Empire did not rule in India or Aceh, so that they (together with much of the conflict in the Indian Ocean) do not belong. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per below. ~~Merge all into Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations.~~ —Srnec (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this discussion gained some traction, I'd just like to take the chance to point out a few issues one last time. As mentioned above, everything in this article falls within the already existing Conquest of Tunis (1535), Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538-1559), Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1580-1589) or Ottoman naval expeditions in the Indian Ocean (WP:CFORK). It's an article about a war, in which no battles are actually detailed or contextualized, only that according to some people, the Portuguese fought them really well (WP:POVFORK WP:IMPARTIAL). There's actually no clear structure or sucession of events, only a collection of concepts (WP:NOTESSAY). Also, if we take a look at the "declaration of war" section, we find not who declared war, when or why, but that such information can apparently be found at the National Archives of Lisbon... Somewhere (WP:NOR). Though numerous, most sources are actually completely unhelpful since they consist of nothing more than a title. So while I think it's fine to try and pin down the exact single major issue with the article, the whole thing just seems like a dumpster fire. Crenelator (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A10. This edit of Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations with the edit summary "Due to criticisms about my edits in the original article, I'm removing all my contributions from this page to a new one, to encompass the whole period of war and battles between the Portuguese and the Ottomans" which shows absolutely clearly that not only is this a POVFORK, but it is deliberately intended to be a POV fork in a flagrant disregard for our guidelines. Since the entire content of this article is already in the history of Ottoman-Portuguese confrontations a merge is entirely unnecessary. If editors feel this material has merit, they can simply roll back to the pre-deletion version and start cleaning it up from there. SpinningSpark 22:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Shuttleworth, Kate (May 23, 2018). "Impact metrics: Scholarly publishing". Simon Frasier University Library. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

[4] Journal of the Indian Potato Association. 28 (1). July 2001 http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/2054433/1/CPRI273L.pdf#page=177. Retrieved 6 June 2018. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]