Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 May	8 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktoria Gąsiewska[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Cannot find any evidence of notability on Google, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines DocumentError (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 14 May 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hankey Group[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to meet notability requirements. Coverage is sparse even for routine coverage. Does little more than promote the subject. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there an article here? Poorly written lacking significant detail about the company with outdated info in regards to assets/revenue/number of employees it's 2018, not 2013 or 2014. Improve or delete. Freetheangels (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage in article is limited to routine business announcements or press releases. A search for better sources came up empty, although there's a lot of PR and directory listings to wade through. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 15 May 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.Waggers has summarized the condition of the debate aptly in his !vote.(non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Beedle[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability. As well as a number of other issues. ~~This may even be a hoax.~~ Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not a complete hoax: [1]. But I've removed some unsourced claims. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Slatersteven, I urge you to return and strike the assertion about this looking like a hoax. I searched the book title and instantly saw that it was a real book, although it appeared to be a textbook designed to teach computer skills related to the fact that author had founded a small company also called "Scrum". Then I searched his name, and found this Chicago Tribume article 29 March 2018 Public's help sought as police investigate stabbing death of software CEO in River North.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was referring to some of the very odd information (they were born at the age of 55) And unsourced claims like they were murdered. There is just something very odd about this. As if someone is tying to create an article with as many iffy "facts" as they can.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (I suspect that this page was created by a mourner, and it seemed cruel to call a page a "hoax," at a moment when mourners are likely to visit the page.) That aside, there was coverage of him in reputable news media for several years, coverage unrelated to the he was murder (he walked out a bar with cash in his hand, and stepped into an alley with the alleged murderer - [http://cltv.com/2018/04/06/man-56-charged-in-river-north-fatal-stabbing-of-software-ceo/ who has been denied bail.) The killing does not appear likely to be notable, but I do hope that someone who follows the Computing-related deletion will weigh in on his notability as a tech entrepreneur. He seems to have created more than one tech venture.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and we need proactive evidence of notability which is clearly lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Like John Pack Lambert, I note NOTMEMORIAL and see no basis for notability, but feel free to ping me to revisit if someone familiar with Beedle's career, his tech innovations, or roles in corporations comes up with notability that I cannot see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL
Do not delete This page is not intended as a memorial one, I have added more details about his contribution, and I think that this page should exists from many time ago, as he was one of the Agile Manifesto signators. Of course will respect your decision. Daniel Ceillan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Mike Beedle has publications with in excess of 3602, 2802, 680, 171 cites respectively (the actual number of cites is higher because they have listed some of these as several papers rather than one). These very highly cited works satisfy WP:PROF. Multiple papers with thousands of cites is notability in any field. James500 (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Significant edit made please review your positions. Thanks. Daniel Ceillan (talk) 16 April 2018, at 09:50 (UTC)

Daniel, The article looks much better with your improvements. However, the thing that is required with an author or creator of technological innovations is secondary, published work discussing his innovations, things like review of the book. Articles discussion his company and his work. Articles in which his contributions are discussed. Articles and books that his work. Since you are familiar with his work, you may be able to find such material. The point is that writing a book does not confer notability according to Wikipedia standards. There have to be book reviews, articles that discuss the book, other writers have to cite it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just pointed out, according to Google Scholar, Beedle's books have received in excess of seven thousand citations. That is a clear pass of WP:PROF. Daniel does not need to do anything because I have just proved notability beyond argument. James500 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "seven thousand citations" figure isn't exactly correct (Google scholar tends to inflate citation counts) and the second and third result is actually the agile manifesto (not one of his books). You can see my comment below for a detailed explanation.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:James500 and Daniel Ceillan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge) to Scrum (software development) - This is a sightly difficult case. WP:PROF doesn't apply here as the person wasn't an academic. The argument that "Beedle's books have received in excess of seven thousand citations. That is a clear pass of WP:PROF" is not exactly correct. If you look at Google Scholar, the first book "Agile software development with Scrum" is notable (coincidentally I am reading it right now). However, the figure of "Cited by 3615"seems to be inflated. A look at citation count on ACM digital library gives 364 citations. The second and third items on google scholar are actually the same document: "Agile Manifesto" which was signed by 17 people including Beedle. I wouldn't count this as an academic publication and the citation count is inflated as Google takes into account various unpublished technical reports. Overall, the subject's claim to notability is for being one of people involved in describing "Scrum" along with Ken Schwaber in the book "Agile software development with Scrum" (mentioned above). The subject is notable for one contribution WP:BLP1E and it seems fitting to redirect this to Scrum (software development).--DreamLinker (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm. @James500, Codigodaniel, and Daniel Ceillan: to revisit their analysis of scholarly impact. Also noting that the murder continues to draw regional attention Stabbing Suspect Previously Arrested 98 Times; This Could Have Been Prevented and more similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A theoretical physicist is not an "Academic"? To be the second Scrum adopter, and the one that introduced the name "Agile" is not enough relevance? Agile and Scrum is improving the work-life of millions of people around the world. If you prefer, we can delete the "murder" part (actually, I didn't added it), as it is very fresh news and keep the life history. From an Encyclopedy perspective he was a remarkable person in the Software Industry and the new way to organize work in the Knowledge Society age. I can add more info, and would like to know from your perspective what kind of proof is needed to keep this page. A redirection to Scrum or a merge, for me don't have too much sense. One thing is the framework, and other the person. Additionally, many of the Agile Manifesto Signors already have a page in Wikipedia. Thanks Daniel Ceillan (talk) 24 April 2018, at 07:25 (UTC)

I had a look again after your reply. However my perspective on whether this deserves an independent article remains the same. I will explain why I think so

A theoretical physicist is not an "Academic"? - I am using the term academic in the context of the notability guideline. The criterion WP:ACADEMIC generally applies to someone who is engaged in scholarly research (typically at an institution) and is known for being engaged in such research. In this case, although Mike Beedle has a degree in theoretical physics, he would be considered an academic only if he had been actively researching in this field. I will add this page to the academic list for more opinions though, in case I am wrong.
To be the second Scrum adopter, and the one that introduced the name "Agile" is not enough relevance? - I searched but I wasn't able to find a citation stating that he was the "second Scrum adopter" and that he "introduced the name Agile".
Agile and Scrum is improving the work-life of millions of people around the world. - I agree, but this adds to the notability of agile and scrum
If you prefer, we can delete the "murder" part (actually, I didn't added it), as it is very fresh news and keep the life history. - A lot of the info in the article as of the current version (if we exclude the murder part) is actually about "Scrum". Ideally, this should be there in the scrum article. There bio information is not backed up by independent citations either.
One thing is the framework, and other the person. Additionally, many of the Agile Manifesto Signors already have a page in Wikipedia. - Yes, I have noticed that some of them have Wikipedia articles about them. However, that generally happens when the subject is known for multiple contributions apart from scrum. Not every person who signed the manifesto will be independently notable enough to have their own article.

My opinion still remains the same. There is not much bio information available from independent sources. While I value Mike Beedle's contributions, the proper place to mention this is the scrum article. --DreamLinker (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly research: I'm searching sources.
He was the second scrum adopter: sources added
He was who introduced the name Agile: sources added
The article is about his personal contributions to the Scrum and Agile World. Will expand this later. Also we are considering how he contributed to the first conceptions of Scrum, and more over about Enterprise Scrum. Unfortunately, he had a very low profile, and shared all his methods all around the world and never claimed notability.
Other's Agile manifesto signors has simple pages, without more info than that.
There is another way to proof notability?

Daniel Ceillan (talk) 29 April 2018, at 22:43 (UTC).

Almost every source you have added is somehow affiliated to the subject (for example, either the books of his co-authors or the website of agile manifesto or his company enterprise scrum). What we require are reliable and independent sources which discuss the subject. In general a subject is notable enough to have a separate article when multiple independent sources have discussed the subject and the coverage is not passing mentions.--

Keep ~~Comment~~ Abstract for Teams That Finish Early Accelerate Faster: A Pattern Language for High Performing Scrum Teams (System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on Conference Date(s): 6-9 Jan. 2014 Waikoloa, pp 4722 - 4728 ( https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=6759182 ) seems to have a useful reference to acclaiming Scrum: A Pattern Language for Hyperproductive Software Development as a groundbreaking work ... while he was co-author the abstract notes Mike Beedle's contribution specifically. Any significant merge into Scrum (Software Development) would would be WP:UNDUE and disrupt it so opposed to that.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC). For example. I also note isbn 978-1937538392 P.13 cites his joint work for some reason or other. Arguably may (or may not) fit WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1. I'm actually quite interested in how it end up here. A new user creates his first page and a reviewer gets at it almost immediately. Now the page probably wasn't fit for article space at this time and the newbie has mentioned this. In hindsight (hihndsights easy) a welcome and a draftification would likely be a good option. Instead we are at AfD within 9 minutes with minimal dilligence to BEFORE, though that is perhaps understandable as a number of possible vandalism indicators could have been judged to be present and also just possibly as the Beadle surname is associated with a late well known UK TV joker. Anyway the newbie has improved the article, probably beyond the point at which it would have been dragged to AfD, and I'm not sure he has been given adequate support. Instead we maybe have had WP:BITE. I'm assumming good faith here ... its possible he is a sockpuppet and the initial article showed a high standard of editing for a first edit ... but the guy claims to be a Softie (Software engineer) so thats not impossible. Its also fair to comment new page reviewers have limited time and there is a lot of vandalism they need to deal with quickly.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the subject was a low profile individual. We keep separate BLP pages only if multiple independent sources have covered the subject. The other issue that almost all references are either by co-authors or from the scrum website, neither of which is independent. I agree that Beedle's book has been cited by many (although in this case the paper is written by his co-author]. Apart from the book he co-wrote, I am not able to find reliable independent references.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou to DreamLinker (talk · contribs) for pointing out at least one of the authors making the Beedle contribution claim was a co-author on the Teams That Finish Early Accelerate Faster: A Pattern Language for High Performing Scrum Teams paper in calling it groundbreaking. Also for generally appropriate article edits. This is probably heading for a No-concensus AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the fact that he was one of the original signatories of the Agile Manifesto, a cursory glance at the Google search links show that he has received more than adequate coverage in both academic and news sources. The article could probably do with some improved referencing, but deletion is not warranted here. Molpies! (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - let's see if a consensus can be reached?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is one of those tricky borderline cases where you can start quibbling over what constitutes sufficiently significant coverage and whether too many of the sources listed could be considered primary sources. But overall I'd say there's just about enough justification to merit having an article on this person, and I'm not seeing a compelling reason to delete. If I were closing this now I'd most likely close it either as a keep or, more likely, no consensus (which of course means keep by default). Waggers TALK 15:30, 11 May 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. Enigma^msg 05:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Multi-Turf[edit]

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

It's always a bad sign when the first 5 search results about a subject are mirrors of its Wikipedia entry - there's almost no coverage about this at all, anywhere. This article is blatant advertising and is everything Wikipedia is not. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - all hits are either: the store itself, secondary stores, blatant adverts elsewhere and wiki duplicates. The article itself is WP:PROMO. The article is actually eligible for speedy Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a football, and probably a very good one, but there's no discussion in reliable sources which elevates it above other footballs in terms of notability. Neiltonks (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nike, Inc.#Products There is also a range of football boots classed as Multi-Turf which are boots that can be used both on astro and grass. So delete and redirect as a possible search term. Govvy (talk) 22:45, 8 May 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)} 15:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Božidar Djurica[edit]

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

Delete as blatant advertising (WP:DEL4) violating WP:NOTPROMOTION ("must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery") in almost all of its content. The entire article is written from the topic's point of view and lacks any independent sources. In its current form the article only promotes the author's esoterical views and his books. The topic is also likely not notable (no promising Google hits). GermanJoe (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page is mere PROMO for the originator of "LIFE-COSMIC ENERGY", a "theory" that is so far out there that it may not even merit being called WP:FRINGE. I cannot find anyone else writing about this "theory."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , as the page in its current form (latest edit) appears to conform to the Neutral Point of View policy WP:NPOV and does not seem to violate in any way WP:NOTPROMOTION ("must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery") or contain any blatant advertising or PROMO:
1)The page in its current form does not promote in any way the supposed 'views', 'opinions', 'claims' or 'theories' of the author, or seem to promote the author himself in any way, but simply to state that such author in fact HAD such and such 'view', 'theory' or MADE such and such 'claim', without in any way trying to promote such views and claims or to prove them as true;
2)In it's current form the article seem to merely and solely provide biographical information about the author and the subject of his writings.
3)Further or other writings about this 'theory' seem to exceed the scope of this page and discussion as the only statements made in regard is that the author wrote about such subject or had any such 'theory';
4)The statements that the author MADE such claims or HAD such 'views' (wether true or not) are further backed with the relevant sources and citations (namely his own published written accounts), as are information about the person's life, hoewver part of these appear in foreign languages.
5)I agree that ANY PREVIOUS VERSION of this page was not in conformity with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMOTION, as well as lacking appropriate sources, however I repeat that in its latest version the content and purpose of the page clearly appears of esclusively biographical nature and neutral, and invite those so far in favour of deletion to revisit the page and its content and perhaps point out any still existing irregularity. In its current form I seem to only detect some revision of grammar and style, easily fixable without any need for deletion. Musashi1993 —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Nuke-able non-notable spamcruft.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:29, 15 May 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. Enigma^msg 05:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Sparrow[edit]

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

The subject of this article is an actor and works for an Actors/Performer's union. They have run for office but have not been successful. The condition of the article is awful, and has been for a long time, and a WP:BEFORE search has turned up nothing except run-of-the-mill quotes from him working as a spokesperson for ACTRA. The GNG requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and there's nothing out there to help this article meet this standard. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So properly assessing him is going to be a right nuisance, given how many performances, since general searches can get lost. I've done the major shows (clearly biased to the ones I know) and his film. His ACTRA position has him doing tons of few paragraph interviews. These are unlikely to be suitable, though WP:IV#Notability is a little unhelpful, since it slightly portrays the interviews (if more than WP:MENTION) as providing a general notability, even if they provide almost nothing that is suitably sourced inside the actual article. More likely, these interviews might give the best chance of notability, since there are major publications, and it would only take 1 or 2 with a decent amount of interviewer participation/bio to back the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear (I thought I already was) - I already carried out a WP:BEFORE search. If any suitable sources existed, I wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my point is that it is a general nuisance - I expect (not that my wish is satisfied!) that everyone who !votes in an AfD to carry out their own WP:BEFORE - if we just accepted the proposer's analysis, the process would be rather pointless! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also expect voters to do their own due diligence. AfD nominations are notoriously unreliable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly notable. Almost certainly not possible - for now - to assert notability for Wikipedia, unless DrWho42 can shake some sources out of his Tardis.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even on a ProQuest search, I was unable to find any substantive coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG — I get a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things where his ACTRA role made him a natural person to go to for a soundbite, a couple of glancing namechecks of his existence in election results when he ran for political office, and some unrelated textmatches on other people, but literally the only source that I could find that was about him in any non-trivial way is a primary source press release from ACTRA. And nothing here is so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to cite much better sourcing than I was actually able to find, either. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 15 May 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 List of Martha Speaks characters#Adults. There is not sufficient reason provided by the keep !voters to indicate why this two-sentence stub should not be redirected to the two-sentence mention at List_of_Martha_Speaks_characters#Adults. Should the character expand to a length significant enough for his own article (like the other characters mentioned) there is no prejudice against that, but anything less than a paragraph and it can just be added to the main series' article. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lorraine[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable character. Could be redirected to List of Martha Speaks characters#Adults, but IP editors appear to believe this character should have a separate article. There's not much more to be said in this article than there is in the list of Martha Speaks characters. PK T(alk) 20:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 20:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, it has been said that it needs more than one source, and I have added another one. Secondly, I know that Eric Cartman and a deleted Danny Lorraine fulfills WP:N, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored, and any child can be exposed to inappropriate content on Wikipedia. Eric Cartman does a lot of horrible things, but Danny is from an educational children's show about vocabulary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:817C:1764:E094:F0F:12EC:3D7B (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC) — 2407:7000:817C:1764:E094:F0F:12EC:3D7B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The new reference is to IMDB, which is not considered a Wikipedia:Reliable source, and it was added for more text about the voice actor, not the character. PK T(alk) 11:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PKT: I removed the unreliable source and added a new reliable one. 2407:7000:817C:1799:B1FE:7099:6656:4B92 (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)— 2407:7000:817C:1799:B1FE:7099:6656:4B92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nice try, but simple text is not a reliable source. PK T(alk) 19:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with 2407:7000:817C:1764:E094:F0F:12EC:3D7B. I would say the same thing. Noxiposc (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)— Noxiposc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and/or redirect. The 2407-IP's WP:NOTCENSORED argument doesn’t even make sense. (I think it's a reference to the original creator, who started this as a redirect.) Protection may be necessary per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @LaundryPizza03:

Keep. I agree with the two who want this article kept. Ignafedgjujp (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)— Ignafedgjujp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hmmmm. That's your one and only contribution to Wikipedia? PK T(alk) 21:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: South Park is bad for children. The 2407 IP's WP:NOTCENSORED argument is correct. Do keep and all hail Danny Lorraine! --MarthaSpeaksYESSouthParkNO (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)— MarthaSpeaksYESSouthParkNO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article....PK T(alk) 15:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with everyone who wants it kept. 2407:7000:817C:1776:80A4:FDBB:4B03:898A (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)— 2407:7000:817C:1776:80A4:FDBB:4B03:898A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect - I don't have to say anymore things. This is the first time I see a picture on Afd and this is not an April Fool Joke. This will be one of the best Afd for April Fool 2019 (so for record purposes we shall keep the entire conversation somewhere above my contribution and use it elsewhere). Touching on GNG issues, the show may be notable, but clearly not characters. Winnie-the-Pooh is one of the rare exception. If we are going to allow this, how many fictional characters will be there. I don't even have to go to talk about sources. This is clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:NOT. --Quek157 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Quek157: and everyone:

The article and this debate are NOT an April Fools joke. Just because one thing has a lot of reliable sources about it and is very popular does NOT mean it deserves to be notable. Winnie the Pooh was banned in a Polish city for not having any pants (I am not saying Winnie the Pooh is bad/inappropriate), but Butters is from a TV show banned in the Indian subcontinent and Russia and not only that, Butters sold his semen to other people, touched Paris Hilton's vagina, and attempted to flood the entire world with his garden hose. Just because one thing is popular does NOT mean it is a good thing, and we should always do what is right, even when it seems that everyone else we know is doing something wrong. If everyone you knew jumped into a pool of Danny Lorraine's feces for money, would you do the same? Of course not! Considering that Wikipedia is not censored, children on this site would have a major chance of being exposed to South Park because even the characters have their own articles. Look at the picture above comparing South Park character Eric Cartman with Danny Lorraine. Furthermore, on Greek Wikipedia, VV Cephei (one of the largest known stars) lacked a Wikipedia article until 2017 (it was even deleted but was then restored), but Eric Cartman had one since 2011. That is an example on how the bad stuff are getting more popular than the amazing and/or good stuff. What side are you on, the side of a character who killed his own parents or a character from a show that both Christian and Muslim children can watch? I choose NOT to be in the majority. We know what is right and wrong, but it is sad that most people on Earth choose to do the wrong things. So I ultimately say that Danny will have to be part of the exceptions of not having an article and South Park characters, if we don't have articles on the fictional characters of many other shows, will have to be non-exceptions. and I hope that you will understand what I am saying. I also hope that what I said will touch you. Thank you. --2407:7000:817C:1701:4CBC:971A:D513:333B (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)— 2407:7000:817C:1701:4CBC:971A:D513:333B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

delete per nom or redirect Insufficient rs to meet notability.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom: totally insufficient news coverage or in the literature to pass any kind of basic notability guideline.
On a lighter note, this AfD is basically getting trolled by SPAs (now tagged as such). It's strictly only got a few hours to run; if it gets relisted, can we get some e/c protection? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 09:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pending changes enough already Quek157 (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom or redirect Not independently notable, and not a lot here anyway, not enough for a stand alone.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell has South Park got to do with anything?Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Martha Speaks characters#Adults. If the IP editors recreate the article again, it can always be protected. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 10:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any keep vote not from an SPA?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nope, at this moment. Quek157 (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Basically what Dlohcierekim said. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 15:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per nom/above. Definitely no reason to relist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with that there. Exclude the spas, in fact, and it's tuned rather polar around here. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is not notable by GNG and notability is NOTINHERITED from the source material. The page can be redirected to the subsection linked in the nom. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and addendum to above !vote that I posted earlier-- The moral virtues of a (fictional or otherwise) subject nor the lack thereof are criteria listed in notability guidelines. A subject can be wholesome, good and endorsed by all morally upright people that know about him as a good and wholesome example, and still not have sufficient in depth coverage in reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and that are independent of the subject to meet notability guidelines. Sourcing in this page is wholly connected with the subject, including OR "seen in the episode "Martha Treads the Boards".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Danny deserves an article and NOT Eric Cartman. If you want this article deleted, then delete Cartman and Butters's articles. 2407:7000:817C:1775:11A5:5958:9B1E:96D5 (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC) — 2407:7000:817C:1775:11A5:5958:9B1E:96D5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Waht about Kenny?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Kenny('s Wikipedia article) can die. Permanently. 2407:7000:817C:1775:1DB9:2611:967E:A454 (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC) — 2407:7000:817C:1775:1DB9:2611:967E:A454 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and redirect, fails WP:NFICT and WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. Sam Sailor 08:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
on a side note if this is relisted 3 times I'm sure it will end up with 100+ people supporting something. and to the spa this is not all or nothing Quek157 (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think an SPI may be needed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I check geolocation, all Vodafone in Auckland, new ZealandQuek157 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT- for closing admin. see how similar the keep arguments are per article creator unblock requests at talkpage [2]. need rangeblock imo Quek157 (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closing admin will be able to figger this all out. They'd kill Kenny! (blink, blink) The --- Southpark-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burn southpark down! Make Martha God!!!

this thread is displaying a distinct tendency to become SILLY. Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do. --montypython'sflyingcircus Right!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:44, 15 May 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. Enigma^msg 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Parag[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a person notable only as a non-winning contestant in a male beauty pageant. This is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie in and of itself, but the referencing here isn't getting him over WP:GNG for it -- it's referenced to one 200-word blurb in a newspaper's fashion section, and one article on a user-generated citizen journalism project. This is not enough sourcing to make a person notable for this. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not proven, and I don't see how the asserted circumstances would make him notable per WP:GNG.... PK T(alk) 22:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. FITINDIA 12:17, 8 May 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 userified to User:Nicknikio/sandbox by User:KingAndGod. Redirect now deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Joong[edit]

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

Fails notability, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The article is awfully nonspecific as to exactly what his role is with S.M. It seems like he sings in groups. The article claims a New Star award from the 2016 SBS Drama Awards, but the article on 2016 SBS Drama Awards shows that, first, this award doesn't single out one winner and, second that he wasn't one of the ten people who received it. Finally:

a Google search for "닉 중성" yields 23 results;
I don't know how many of the hits for the search "닉 중" relate to him, but even in that case Google returns only 120 hits, which is very few for a celebrity; and
a Google search for "Nick Joong" yields 50 hits, pretty much all social media. Largoplazo (talk) 19:57, 7 May 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 Lakewood, Washington. A selective merge may be carried out from history. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clare Hospital[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. This is part of a group of articles created by a SPA on hospitals owned by CHI Franciscan Health. DocumentError (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a long-established hospital, with scads of RS sourcing potential, and what it is right now is a stub. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per NOTDIRECTORY and PROMO. The length of time something has existed is not a criterion.Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - unless someone can give sources to meet criteria, WP:NHOSPITALS which currently there's none. "A single author or publisher counts as only one source, regardless of the number of publications by this person. Routine coverage and passing mentions (such as "The victim was taken to E. Normous Medical Center" or "Dr Smith of Smallville Hospital, said...") do not count. Nearly all hospitals, regardless of size, and most medical clinics and related organizations will have been the subject of at least one in-depth article in their local newspaper. In practice, large, regional hospitals will almost always meet all of these standards, but some smaller hospitals and many clinics will not. Hospitals that do not meet all parts of this standard do not qualify for a stand-alone article, and should instead be described in a section on healthcare or emergency services in their hometown articles or parent organization, with suitable redirects from the hospital's name. Additionally, if the independent sources available to you would not permit you to write more than one or two paragraphs, then it may be preferable to add that information to a larger article, with appropriate redirects." Hence, fails WP:GNG also. For this I concur with Jytdog also unless proven otherwise --Quek157 (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lakewood, Washington. The subject matter is still notable but would be better covered in the Health care section of the city's article. Sounder Bruce 00:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

subject is still not notable unless some sources can be given to meet the criteria above ~~but will be keen to see a merge~~. what sections you propose to merge or can you expand first the relevant article with info from this page then we do a redirect instead. Quek157 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC) clarified --Quek157 (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment, per WP:ORGCRIT, there are no any notability established at all. If there are no substantial content added, I will hope that the page to be deleted and a redirect to be to the county / city (but there must be a mention there at least in passing), failing which is a striaght delete. Will change my vote to merge if it's marginal or keep if the guideline (established after a good Rfc) is being met. WP:GNG / WP:NHOSPITALS / WP:ORGCRIT must be met to mean notability. We need sources. Just two good sources this can change. --Quek157 (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC) updated for clarity --Quek157 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still no one cares, redirect stands --Quek157 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 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. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bo (surname)[edit]

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

Set index with only one link to an article. Also has a "See also" for the surname in itself. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've scraped together more entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added five more. Sam Sailor 15:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C'est beau. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boh, so three more added. Sam Sailor 14:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- a proper list after the addition --Quek157 (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added one myself Quek157 (talk) 11:53, 13 May 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. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Rachel Levy[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a writer, whose only stated claim to passing WP:AUTHOR is that she and her work existed. As always, a writer does not get an automatic free pass over WP:AUTHOR just because her works have directory entries on WorldCat -- but there's no reliable source coverage about her or her work being shown here at all, with the only listed reference being a single glancing namecheck of her existence, as a personal influence on the speaker's ideas, in an interview with a different writer that's primarily about something otherwise unrelated to her. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can locate more reliable sourcing about her than I've been able to (I can only deep-database Canadian topics as a rule, while for everybody else I'm strictly at the mercy of the Google) -- but neither the substance nor the sourcing here are enough to deem her notable as written. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had no trouble expanding the article from Google Books, and showing the influence of Levy's works. A Google Books search is one of the minimum requirements under WP:BEFORE. It turns out, also, that she was an associate of Henri Frankfort in his archaeological work in Iraq, referenced as G. Rachel Levy or just Rachel Levy, in the 1930s. In the post-war period she was in London, working for an Institute, usually as G. R. Levy. She was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London. According to one reference her brother had a ranch in British Columbia. There is no reason to be deleting the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a dab page at Rachel Levy, as well as the range of redirects, to make that version of her name usable - previously it redirected to a bomb victim of that name. PamD 16:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Bearcat:, it was only necessary to click "JSTOR" on the tool bar to see reviews of and citations to her book The Gate of Horn: A Study of the Religious Conceptions of the Stone Age, and Their Influence Upon European Thought that make it clear that she passes AUTHOR had an impact on scholarship in her field. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. With thanks to User:Charles Matthews for the WP:HEYMANN, I suggest that you withdraw this nomination.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough reviews in JSTOR to pass WP:AUTHOR and, I'd say, WP:PROF#C1. (For a pre-Internet scholar in the humanities, GS is going to be useless.) Fellowship in the Society of Antiquaries of London counts toward WP:PROF#C3 as well. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article now contains enough reviews for WP:AUTHOR, per improvements by XOR'easter. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:AUTHOR. Thank you Charles Matthews. Hmlarson (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, piling on the snow here, meets WP:NAUTHOR with The Gate of Horn and The Sword from the Rock receiving plenty of reviews (each meet WP:NBOOK and could have standalone articles), let alone her other publications. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 15 May 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. leaning towards delete, but neither side is very compelling, so defaulting to no consensus after it has been relisted twice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DAV foundation[edit]

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

This is yet another non-notable blockchain company. My searches for "DAV foundation" and "DAV network" do not turn up any coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted this on my talk page in reply to a question about the sources used in the article: "Forbes/sites are not under editorial control of Forbes and are not considered reliable. Techbullion "offers digital marketing services for Financial Technology companies" so is also not reliable. The Blockchain news source is obviously copied from a press release." SmartSE (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree about the questionable legitimacy of the Techbullion articles. However, I do think that the Forbes article, as well as the article posted in Vice about the DAV Foundation which I added as a citation are a different story. Disclaimer, I work at the DAV Foundation, and am quite familiar with the work being done there. The fact that its technology is based on blockchain shouldn't necessary lump it in the same group as the endless other "blockchain companies" out there. The Foundation does truly unique things in its role as a consortium bringing together some of the biggest companies in the world in an effort to create open standards for autonomous transportation. I agree the article itself can use some improvements to be more in line with Wikipedia's quality standards; I will be happy to help improve it. ZzzrByte —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— ZzzrByte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Promo 'cruft. Wikipedia is not a replacement for a corporate website. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Meets the requirements of WP:NCORP for having significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. This includes an independent feature in Vice, and extensive coverage and interviews about the foundation in Next: Blockchain a documentary series about the history and future effects of blockchain technology (beyond a paywall unfortunately but can see this in credits on amazon page and in the trailer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzzrByte (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

striking duplicate !vote. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keeo: Has significant coverage in industry publications. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 15 May 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. Consensus is that sources available for the topic indicate it is not notable. As a non-notable topic, moving to draft space would not be productive. That said, if additional sources become available which do indicate notability, this can be restored to userspace/draftspace. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sassafras Software[edit]

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

References contain either passing mentions or write-ups in non-reliable sources. A preliminary WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:A7. I'm finding some information on the company, however the article does not explain the importance. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc) 01:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Coverage in GBooks and elsewhere satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: If you want to keep, please directly specify that. If you are meaning to reply to me, use Template:Ping and/or use the : character at the start of the line to signify an indent. startTerminal (haha wow talk page | startTerminal on irc)

Keep -- This company's products are consistently reviewed in just for instance Network World and Infoworld, RSs for this sort of thing, see e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. This is in addition to various networking textbooks and licensing exam guides, e.g. [8], [9], [10]. So really, a clear-cut pass of the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources appear ok for creating an article on the product (Keyserver) however for creating an article on the company they aren't useful, as they only merely mention the company in passing, and thus don't help write an article on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and generally WP:TOOSOON, or maybe never. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion or an extension of a corporate web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:11, 7 May 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)} 15:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nakkertok nordic[edit]

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

Article about a ski club, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself with no evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media shown at all. As always, a sports organization does not get an automatic notability freebie just because its own website technically verifies that it exists -- it has to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH, on the back of coverage about it in sources it didn't publish itself, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I found a number of articles about the club. E.g. http://www.oua.ca/sports/nordicski/2015-16/releases/20160218ee80oh http://fasterskier.com/fsarticle/nakkertok-nordic-wins-250000-grand-prize-making-snowmaking-a-reality/ http://rotaryottawa.com/speakers/e727f104-4061-4beb-ab25-a0b8f1380474 Ross-c (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now try finding some articles about the club in reliable sources — exactly none of those three are any such thing at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having revised the definition of reliable sources, my sources meet the requirements. Hence my vote stays Keep. Ross-c (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I did find a couple of CBC sources, I could find nothing that was not routine. Those CBC articles also lacked depth, like most of the other articles available. Gargleafg (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The RS news articles I looked at where this club was mentioned, it was only mentioned trivially, routinely or it was not the real subject of the article, like the one Gargleafg linked to where it was really about the poor snow conditions people were going to race in. Air.light (talk) 03:53, 15 May 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. Consensus is that there is not enough coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MC Primo[edit]

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

There were simultaneous AfD in September 2017 and it was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese, but it was kept here per lack of consensus. In fact there were very few participants here discussing the notability. Now there's another AfD in Portuguese because the article was recreated, but the article is basically the same (there are some new sources that don't mention the subject, i. e. original research). The reasons for deletion are essentially the same: As a musician he does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and the rest is essentiallly run-of-the-mill news because his death received very little coverage from the media. Bolhones (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bolhones (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bolhones (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bolhones (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in reliable sources such as here and also released his music betwwen 2005 and 2012 on a major Brazilian label Som Livre. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are sources, but most of them are regional. In portuguese it was deleted because it was only some trivial news about his death. BTW do you understand what do the sources say about him? Anyway, there are no sources about the label (the website of Som Livre does not confirm that information) and only because he released music on a label it does not mean that he was going to be a successful artist. Compared to other artists he was basically a regional singer that received little coverage because of his death. Bolhones (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That source is not about him, but merely mentions his name a couple of times in the process of being fundamentally about something else. So it's not a source that contributes anything toward establishing his notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When it comes to his musical career two of the three sources for that are unreliable and the third is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in coverage of something other than him, which means none of those sources count as notability-supporting ones for the purposes of getting him over WP:NMUSIC — and running as a city council candidate but not winning does not get him over WP:NPOL. There may be a valid notability claim if somebody can properly reference an article about his musical career to something more than just blogs and glancing namechecks in coverage of other things, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have the correct type and volume and depth of coverage that it would take to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well referenced and in a great state of content I would like to say what is the interest of the Bolhones (talk) to put the article for exclusion –Leonardo.G G (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to answer the WP:ADHOM argument. According to you "The article is well referenced", but it seems to me that the article has some parts where there are WP:OR and WP:MASK. For instance, according to the article:

"He started his career at age 18 with the hit Diretoria (2005), he released his first 20-year album, where he sold more than 120,000 copies." The source [11] does not mention anything about that.

"And it remained in the stops of success and like recognition of all his work was invited and was present in several television programs between them "Cauldron of the Huck", "Central of the Periphery" in the Globe Network and "Show of Tom" by RecordTV." According to the source [12] Jadielson da Silva Almeida, MC Primo, was killed with five shots in front of his wife and two kids while he was at home, in Baixada Santista. Bolhones (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is not well-referenced. Of the four footnotes here, the ones that are about him are unreliable sources that cannot support notability, and the ones that are reliable sources that can support notability are not about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fail in WP:MUSICBIO. He was a singer of "Funk ostentação" an ephemeral genre of regional recognition. It only became notorious for his death, that characterizes WP: BLP1E.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was deleted once again from Wikipedia in Portuguese. Bolhones (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the sourcing present to meet the WP:GNG. I don't know Portugese, so I'd have a hard time navigating those, but if the Portugese Wikipedia article was deleted, that's probably not a good sign for those sources either, especially considering the English Wikipedia has historically been known as the more strict of the various projects when it comes to notability and reliable source enforcement. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 9 May 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) 06:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kill The Buzz[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability. ~~Still unsourced after a CSD~~. Slatersteven (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I've added a BLPPROD to the page as it's an unsourced BLP. Iffy★Chat -- 10:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)~~ No longer unsourced. Iffy★Chat -- 11:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate reliable sources other than primary source interview. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be leaning towards delete but not enough opinions to show consensus clearly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:MUSICBIO & generally WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 12 May 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Sindhu[edit]

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

This newspaper fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers and also fails to meet basic GNG. Never produced award winning work and no significant history either. Saqib (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:01, 7 May 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) 06:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navdeep Kaler[edit]

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

Film actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORBIO. Apparently the subject has worked in some films but with minor roles thus fails WP:ACTORBIO.. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG. It's too soon to have a standalone bio. Saqib (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Sources are few and unreliable. The article is heavily biased, and reads like a promotion, when it can be read at all. Formatting and style is horrendous. There's really nothing noteworthy enough about the individual to warrant work towards turning this mash of words into a page. Norcaes (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There might be some notability, but it hasn't been clearly established. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:00, 12 May 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. WP:NPASR applies. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kande movie[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM KylieTastic (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NFO says if "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." As per this RS, the director Kavi Raz is notable (at least by WP standards). --Saqib (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a "a major part of his/her career"? KylieTastic (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFO also states "one of the most important roles in the making of the film" That being said, I think movie by a notable director does qualify for a standalone entry. While the actors in the leading roles (Preet Baath, Kamal Virk) are not notable yet but being the first movie of both actors, this movie will play a major part in their career. Also there is some press coverage about the movie so GNG met though remotely. Movie is set to release next month and I'm expecting more coverage upon its release. --Saqib (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Kavi Raz, there are other prominent celebrities from Punjab that are part of this movie in great capacity namely - Yograj Singh, Sunita Dhir, B.N. Sharma, Baaz and Jeet Rudka. The movie is having press coverage in newspapers and in television media though not much of the local news platforms from Punjab are present online to provide a link to their work. Moreover, the movie is prominent for VRV Production, as it is the first movie that was produced by this production house, hopefully first of many, and the first time plays a prominent role in people's perception of the production house. Arpit cyberframe (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arpit cyberframe If there are offline news stories about this film, could you provide publication details: title of story, name of paper or magazine, date, page number, and a short summery of the story? Those could then be cited in the article, which might help. Additional sources are definitely required if this is to remain in Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DESIegel there are newspaper clippings about the coverage on the movie however they are in regional languages as these are local newspapers of Punjab. If these clippings are admissible I would be more than happy to upload them or provide the necessary details about the same.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:00, 7 May 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) 06:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Singapore[edit]

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

When this article was created in 2008, it was listed as 'unencyclopaedic' and 'unreferenced', and lacking notability. This holds true today: The vast majority of content on here is either unsourced, unverified, or obsolete; removing all unsourced content would make this article a stub or completely blank. Most of the content on this article is Original Research. Several editors, over the course of the last few years, have had to repeatedly remove OR and dubious information. I would like to list some examples of OR that currently exist on this article:

1. "Pakistanis living in Johor Bahru also use Singapore for their transit route for international travel, because of cheaper travel cost and shorter travel time duration travelling from the Singapore Changi Airport, as opposed to the nearest major Malaysian international airport in Kuala Lumpur, the Kuala Lumpur International Airport."

2. "Pakistanis in Singapore generally come from a middle-class background, with the majority working in engineering and business fields. Most Pakistani groceries, foodstuff, and restaurants can be found in Little India."

Furthermore, the existence of the article is dubious. The article documents an expatriate/foreign worker demographic in Singapore, yet this particular group is dwarfed by larger and more established groups, like the Bangladeshis (who number in the tens of thousands), the British and Australians, the Americans, etc - yet no articles exist for these groups, nor have they been added to the 'Ethnicity in Singapore' sidebar box. The simple reason for this is that the 'Ethnicity in Singapore' sidebar box generally documents Singaporean (citizen) ethnic groups, not expatriate or foreign worker demographics. There are no articles documenting the 'French in Singapore', 'Americans in Singapore' et al. even though these foreigners are more established.

I would like to request that this article be deleted - even if someone can come up with a premise for its existence, there is still not enough verified information to turn this article into anything more than a stub. Tiger7253 (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATD. If article contain OR, it should be either removed or cited but deleting an entire article does not make sense. There's a community of Pakistani expatriates living in Singapore and some of the community members are notable (even by WP standards). This is a valid encyclopedic topic, I believe. WP:BlowUpTNT. --Saqib (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: If I were to remove the OR, the article would be a stub. There would be very little content. As a matter of fact, I shall remove OR right now to prove my point. There are no articles for Bangladeshi migrant workers, American, British, or several Western expatriates in Singapore - these communities outnumber the Pakistani expatriate community. It does not feel notable enough. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - A couple of additional potential sources: 50 years of Indians in Singapore - Pakistanis in Singapore; Living in Singapore. Bluntly, if the primary authors wanted to add something I'd suggest the blurring of Indian/Pakistani populations within Singapore.

An interesting distinct point here is masses of books and journal articles talk about "Indians in Singapore", before lengthy footnotes point out they actually mean India, Pakistan & Bangladesh. Now this may or may not support this bit (vs being a section in the Indians in Singapore article), I couldn't make up my mind on it. However the top bit might well suffice on its own. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other users. M A A Z T A L K 19:32, 9 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Guingona[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only at the municipal level of political office. Daly City is not a large enough city to hand its city councillors an automatic pass of WP:NPOL #2, and it's a council-manager city where the mayors are selected on a yearly rotation among the city council, not elected by the general public, thereby serving as ceremonial rather than executive mayors and thus not getting an automatic WP:NPOL #2 pass either. But the article is not sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu: the article is far too dependent on primary sources, and there aren't enough reliable ones to deem him notable. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator: fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- clearly does not pass WP:NPOL. I almost changed my mind on him because of his role as a television host, but after reading more about the network he works for, I've come to the conclusion that it has such low viewership that it doesn't matter.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to serious discussion of this Filipino-American politician in the scholarly literature. I added material from Barbara Mercedes (1999), The Filipino Americans. Greenwood Publishing. p. 91. to the article, but there is more in a far more detailed discussion about his career and campaign strategy (appealing to voters on the issues, not as a member-of-an-ethnic-group. Electoral Politics in Daly City, begins on page 68 of Pinoy Capital: The Filipino Nation in Daly City, Benito Vergara, Temple University Press, 2009. Also: Growing Up Brown: Memoirs of a Filipino American, Peter M. Jamero, Sr., University of Washington Press, 2011, beginning on p. 309.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new references by E.M.Gregory. --RAN (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These have to be added, but he has press on both sides of the Pacific. The Philippine Daily Inquirer (Fil-Am Mike Guingona in tough battle for San Mateo County seat) and The Philippine Star (Ex-Mayor finds new calling) are national publications, in addition to his positions in Daly City and San Mateo County government. Scanlan (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Scanlan (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - per WP:POLOUTCOMES - widespread coverage, as noted, on the penultimate point. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:19, 8 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nevin[edit]

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

Poorly sourced ~~WP:BLP~~ biography of a person notable only at the municipal level of political office. Daly City is not a large enough city to hand its city councillors an automatic pass of WP:NPOL #2, and it's a council-manager city where the mayors are selected on a yearly rotation among the city council, not elected by the general public, thereby serving as ceremonial rather than executive mayors and thus not getting an automatic WP:NPOL #2 pass either. But the article is not sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu: there are just three footnotes here, of which one is the self-published website of his own alma mater, and the other two are just the routine local media coverage that's simply expected to exist. This is not enough coverage to make a person notable for this. (Note that first discussion had a keep result, but was conducted in 2005 — and 13 years later, our notability and reliable sourcing standards are much tighter and stricter than the "flying by the seat of our pants" approach that pertained back then. Consensus can change, so the fact that it was kept in 2005 is not in and of itself a valid reason why it would still have to be kept today.) Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP doesn't apply as he unfortunately appears to have passed away recently, but the rest of your point stands: fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I copied and pasted the first part of this nomination statement from the related discussion on Mike Guingona that I initiated shortly before this, and forgot to change BLP to biography after pasting it. I've made that adjustment now. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable figure. Article poorly done though needs much work. Karl Twist (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable on what basis and what sourcing? Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- local politicians need to do something really extraordinary to meets the notability standards.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like legalizing marijuana?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he were directly notable for this, wouldn't it be in the article already? SportingFlyer talk 05:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being elected to the San Mateo Board of supervisors is like being elected to the city council of a major city. (we're talking the large swath of industrial, high tech, and residential sprawl on the East side of San Francisco Bay, including SFO and the northern part of Silicon Valley. San Francisco itself is quite a small city. ) In addition to the several major daily papers that ran obits, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a long profile of him in 2001 (now added to article). And this gScholar search [13], which shows impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criterion for city councillors is not "major city" — it's "internationally prominent metropolitan global city", and there's no county in the United States which can claim that serving on its county council is inherently equivalent to that. And obituaries are not notability clinchers all by themselves, either, especially when they're all from the local newspapers that would simply be expected to obituary local political figures. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, the question at AfD is not whether the sources on the page validate the subject, but whether sources exist that can validate the subject. In this case the first 3 or four pages of a search on "Mike Nevin" + marijuana [14] show, in the text of the multiple obits, and in the coverage of his role in sponsoring early marijuana legalization legislation, show that he is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So he supports marijuana legalization. The only problem with this is its irrelevant to his notability since as a county politician he does not have the authority to pass any meaningful marijuana legalization legislation.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Intro seems focused on sourcing in the article. That's not what we examine at AFDs. gidonb (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which other sources should be considered? SportingFlyer talk 06:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although incomplete, sources in the articles have by now been improved. The point I made is that improving the references in the article should NOT be the purpose of a nomination. If the sources are "out there" but not in the article yet (situation at intro write-up), then the appropriate templates of {{references}} or {{refimprove}} should be used. In this particular case {{refimprove}}. gidonb (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except they haven't been improved. The only good source in my book right now is #2 and I can't access that one. #1 is about his dad's birthday, #3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are obituaries (9 is a dead link), 7 is a three-sentence article in which he is quoted without saying anything, he's quoted in 8, and 10 is a run of the mill article about replacing the board of directors. #2 is the best source and I don't have access to it! We've been placing a lot of weight on obituaries to create notability in a couple AfDs recently and I just don't think what's there after improvement is significant enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Coverage is typical and local, what you would expect of any small city mayor. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the San Francisco Bay Area is an internationally prominent metropolitan global city, except that it's not a city. It's a cluster of county councils, more like the Holy Roman Empire than it is like Hong Kong, London or New York. The Bay Area has no central city. Palo Alto outweighs San Francisco in terms of financial and political heft. Oakland is in Oakland. Berkley is on a separate planet, but, nevertheless, governed as part of Alameda County. And San Mateo County (the territory between San Fran and Palo Alto) has close to a million people governed by 5 county supervisors, each of whom holds more actual power than city councilors in American cities with a strong mayor system; Nevin held more power than, for example, any of the 51 individual city Councillors in New York City to whom our rules give an automatic notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If kept, it might be noted in the article that Nevin ran for state senate in 2006, losing in the primary to Leland Yee. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Nevin was a regular city council member it would be different, but becoming mayor and Board of Supervisors member elevates him. If anything the article could be expanded, but coverage, sources and office are sufficient. Aside from that, I'm also unsettled by the nomination and possible deletion of an article with a past nomination that already resulted in "Keep". It makes no difference if the original keep was last month, 13 years ago or 100 years ago, it sets an uneasy precedent. Scanlan (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standards for keeping articles are completely different than they were in 2005, though. It's not normal, but it's not uncommon either. SportingFlyer talk 05:01, 15 May 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)} 15:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anqui[edit]

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

Can't find any in-depth media coverage for the singer. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Zanhe (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can not find non-trivial independent reliable sources. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus due to there only being 2 votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just for any closing admin to note, please disregard the above relisting as it is a clear disregard for the 7 days relisting. Reported at ANI and user was warned by TonyBallioni not to do so anymore. [15], [16]. I hope this will not make the Afd process so draggy. Quek157 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage to show passage of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 8 May 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. WP:G11, admin has deleted. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Print2Flash[edit]

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

(sigh) This article contains the following references: 3 to the subject's own site, a review from the publisher themselves, a forum post?, and 6 places to download it, leaving 0 reliable sources. Quite surprised this made it through AfC, but.. here we are.. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -unambiguous advertising or promotion, it seems. Going to add speedy delete request under WP:G11 in case an admin agrees. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:52, 7 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Stavseth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO due to sources not providing notability. Deletion probable. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, member of Parliament. Geschichte (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears Gunnar was a parliamentarian, but I cannot verify the Norwegian source. It says here: [17] he was a "substitute representative." I lean delete as someone who appeared in parliament but was not necessarily a parliamentarian does not necessarily pass WP:NPOL, in my opinion. I can't find anything WP:GNG related either. Still, I have no firm vote. SportingFlyer talk 04:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I may not have this exactly right, but my understanding is that the Norwegian government uses a process whereby if a regular Stortingsrepresentant is unable to attend a sitting for some reason, a "substitute representative" attends in their place to ensure that the Storting is fully populated at all times — so even if he's not the official representative for his district, he still has sat in the Storting. Personally, I lean toward the belief that we should keep such articles, because if the sub has actually sat in the parliament then there are likely to be instances where a reader is actually looking for information about them because they had a role in debates or votes that took place on the days they were attending — but I can see valid arguments on both sides, and I can recall only one prior case of such an article showing up at AFD for discussion that I know of, so I'm not prepared to say there's a clear consensus one way or the other about this. I'd be more convinced of its keepability if there were more sources than just his profile on the Storting's own website, though, because even for a regular representative the "inherent" notability is because they get media coverage, not just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that he was a substitute, or deputy as the article days, who met in Parliament to cover for a "regular" representative is correct. It's not possible to meet (and vote) in Parliament without being a parlamentarian. Geschichte (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as a deputy rep of the Storting Staveseth meets WP:NPOL but, apart from the cites already in the article, i have been unable to find much else about him (a gsearch brings up lots of mirror of the wikiarticle only). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I added some more about his work in the press. I don't know if that will help on the notability. Regards, GAD (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [[WP:NPOL]] as a former member of Stortinget, length of tenure regardless. We presume that such a biography can be sourced to meet GNG/BASIC. And further sourcing is needed here. Sam Sailor 11:12, 15 May 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)} 15:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Creek Harbour[edit]

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

Brochure article that fails the new WP:NCORP standard. Absolute advertising that asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creep (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a corporation, it's a HUGE property development that's received a lot of substantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All property developments everywhere have a company of one kind or another that controls the money. This one is no different. scope_creep (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page was a merged page from The Lagoons, because the development name has changed. This isn't a brochure of interest, merely stating facts about what the development is. This is a large development in Dubai, so therefore deserves to be recognized by having a page for itself. the page is likely to grow and develop by others once the development is completed and more information is available. This shouldn't be deleted, as It's all factual with cited sources, and also from a previous live page. AETEST (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be factual but Wikipedia is not a web host, nor an advertising platform. The articles asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING and it wholly advertising. scope_creep (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there is no easy answer to these plausible spammers. I would suggest we delete the present article with the proviso that someone with no discernible COI shall be encouraged to re-start from scratch. Deb (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin User:AETEST is a WP:SPA with obvious WP:COI. scope_creep (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't notable by GNG standards, no matter the amount of effort the PR people have put into it. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise things, it's an encyclopaedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 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)} 21:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Vinicio[edit]

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

Minor league prospects are not notable in the absence of significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should not have been created. Sourcing does not establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. This way if he is called up the basis of a page can be restored. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have had trouble using the D-Backs minor league players page and I am a rookie on this site so some leverage would be appreciated. However, I would be willing to have it moved to the minor league players page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delllatituded630 (talk • contribs)

@Delllatituded630: First, you're not the "owner", you're the creator. As a collaborative project, Wikipedia pages are "owned" by the entire user community and may be edited by anyone. Second, the nomination of this page is not a reflection on you or your editing prowess; it is an assessment that Jose Vincio has not yet reached a level of notability where he merits inclusion at Wikipedia. If the page were merely poorly written, we would improve it, but it could be the best-written page at Wikipedia and still be subject to deletion if the subject does not merit inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 8 May 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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandragiri (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. Prod removed by the author, with no addition of sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFF as it is due to be released on 11 May 2018, though this could be worked around. My major concern is that the film has obviously not achieved the success and influence needed to pass WP:NFILM, which also constitutes a WP:TOOSOON as for the foreseeable future we will not know what the long term, encyclopedic notability of the film will be.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFF. FITINDIA 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could not find any reviews so it looks like this is on the way out. However, if after it is released, it receives at least 2 reviews, preferably more, in reliable sources such as press it can be recreated and G4 will not apply in that case, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 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. A lengthy discussion including good faith efforts by experienced editors to find satisfactory sources has not resulted in such sources being found, and consensus is to delete. Steve Smith (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DataMelt[edit]

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

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

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

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

I do not believe this subject meets notability guidelines as outlined in WP:NSOFT. As far as I can tell, all the sources in the article are written by the creator of the software, Sergei Chekanov, or at least people closely related to its development. I have been unable to find more than a handful of papers published using this software [18], and no independent books/webpages written about it. There is also a history of COI editing on the page. BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I also do not see notability. Just look at the empty "bug tracker": http://jwork.org/dmelt/issue/ and similarly dead forums. This is all sales pitching. Consider e.g. the "predictive analytics review" they linked. The user review is copy and paste from http://jwork.org/dmelt/#readme ... HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am looking for msources. It seems as if ther should be some. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief review at https://www.cwi.it/cio/migliori-strumenti-gratuiti-di-data-analytics_42112516, in Italian but Google translate is enough to see it is a classic short software review from a reliable source. Not enough for notability on its own, but a start. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
http://computerworld.com.br/7-ferramentas-gratuitas-e-eficazes-para-analise-de-dados seems to be a slightly edited version of the same review. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.datamation.com/data-center/slideshows/8-open-source-big-data-mining-tools.html is another compare&contrast review, but with less detail about DataMelt. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.predictiveanalyticstoday.com/datamelt/ is a review with some detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note As mentioned above, this is copy/pasted from http://jwork.org/dmelt/#readme BubbleEngineer (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.softwaretestinghelp.com/data-mining-tools/ is another multi-item listing of tools in the same space, and its coverage of DataMelt is rather brief. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: the sources you mention are not reliable. They are just translations from the Datamelt front page, and/or the Wikipedia article at that time, and the authors clearly never actually used the software. You also see the same author names again and again: "Matt Kapko" ('freelance writer') who churns out top-10 clickbaits for everything ("The 14 best Firefox addons", "10 must-have Safari extensions", "top 10 social media stories fo 2014", ...), "Cynthia Harvey" ("8 Open Source Big Data Mining Tools" - dmelt cannot do big data, "16 Open Source Big Data Databases", "5 Open Source Big Data Filesystems", ...). The predictiveanalyticstoday.com is either copy and paste, or even posted by datamelt themselves - the 'review' in the bottom is again a copy&paste from the dmelt homepage; and that entire website is a big clickbait, not a reliable source. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting what I found, HelpUsStopSpam, although i think that the computerworld and datamation articles are in fact reliable, although not in sufficient depth to establish notability. Notice that I have not (as yet) expressed a "keep" view, which you can be sure I would not hesitate to do had I been convinced of the notability of this software. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Just pointing out that these are copy&paste summaries from the Dmelt front page, and not reviews of the actual software. So they are secondary, but not independent sources, just like a press release reproduced with editing elsewhere is not an independent reliable source. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DataMelt is a new development of jHepWork and Scavis. There are a number of reviews written about it:

http://blog.dreamcss.com/frameworks/jhepwork-multiplatform-data-analysis-framework/
http://nihlibrary.campusguides.com/c.php?g=102650&p=672758
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Science-CAD/jHepWork.shtml
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Other-Programming-Files/DataMelt.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsma73 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The dreamcss page is a brief review from a site that calls itself a blog, and whose reliability as a source i am not clear on. (Some "blogs" are actually reliable online columns, but most are not.) I could not find any info about who write or publishes this site. The nihlibrary page is a brief usage guide to an earlier version of the software, perhaps 1 paragraph long. Softpedia is based on user-generated content, and is not considered reliable as a source here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The overwhelming majority of independent sources mentioning this software (including those in the rather excessive lists that have recently been added to the article) are merely lists of software that, at best, describe briefly what the software does, without mentioning its significance and broader impact on the field. These certainly confirm the software exists (that was never in dispute), but existence is not the same as notability. From WP:NSOFT: "Coverage of the software in passing, such as being part of a how-to document, do not normally constitute significant coverage but should be evaluated. Inclusion of software in lists of similar software generally does not count as deep coverage." There are many, many pieces of independent/academic software produced each year that have some online presence, but have nowhere near enough impact to warrant an entire WP article. BubbleEngineer (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is a revolutionary idea! If you would apply it in practice, your criteria would kill 90% of such articles. Just go over these programs here and I will see this:

[19] [20] [21]

or should I give you a list of programs that need to be removed from Wikipedia? You you will figure this out yourself? I'll be happy to produce such a list or mark all these articles. There will be only a few left (which are likely written by paid authors - for MONEY!). Is this where User talk:BubbleEngineer going? (Personal attack removed)

Related to this DataMelt article - one can scrub a few reviews and comparisons, indeed. But the fact about the notability is very clear - it is notable.

Comment

Hi all,

Let's me jump here. I've heard about this wikipedia mess related to this article. I've started this DataMelt article a long time ago, first it was called jHepWork (~10 years ago?). Since then it has been changed lot. And not by me, or anybody who had any commercial interest in it. It would be unfair to many to remove it.

Concerning software reviews: When people write such software reviews and blogs, they usually group similar software in a single article. This is totally normal in this industry. People write "big" reviews when they profit from it, financially or professionally. From what I've heard, DataMelt was hit by blackmail from editors who wanted money, jwork.org refused, then they have spilled their anger on this wikipedia article.

If BubbleEngineer wants to apply the proposed "high standard" to internet reviews on software, the internet will be very small place to thrive. This would start a major cleansing of the Wikipedia content.

Just one example (since I'm familiar with this program). According to BubbleEngineer, one should remove this program:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROOT

The only review I see is from CERN, which financially supports it. But, this program exists for 20 years, was used for the major discovery of this century - the discovery of the Higgs boson, with millions invested to experiments that use it (no reviews!). Thousands of people in academia use it.

It would be totally insane to remove similar programs from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schekanov (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'd very much prefer if you didn't start throwing rather unpleasant accusations around about people being paid editors. Regarding ROOT: under WP:NSOFT, "It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction." [22], [23], [24]. If you can show there are similar courses taught about DataMelt at multiple universities then this is also a way to prove notability. BubbleEngineer (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Ok, BubbleEngineer. And now you are inventing a new criteria for software "being used in universities"! How this can be proven? This leaves Wikipedia with a few closed-source software - Maple, Mathematica and few more. Is this what you want?

Wikipedia:Notability (software) is not new. It provides alternate routes to notability, of which being used in university instruction is only one. Please read this page, which was linked by its shortcut above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not observe in this thread any accusations. But I did notice something. You joined to Wikipedia in April 2018, and the first thing you tried to do is to remove somebody's article. See User_talk:BubbleEngineer. You have joined to Wikipedia with the goal of removing something / someone you did not like! You tried to remove [Chris William Martin (sociologist)] and failed. Maybe you need first to gain more experience as an author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.55.212.99 (talk) 7:19 am, Today (UTC−4)

Please do not engage in Casting aspersions, IP editor. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack people, but provide reliable sources. In contrast to Datamelt, you can easily find plenty of courses and usage instructions on CERN ROOT at various universities, despite this being a highly specialized software for high-energy physics. You can also easily find independent coverage mentioning ROOT, e.g. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/22/cern_coverity/ and this guide at Duke University calls it "ROOT: The industry standard for High Energy Physics analysis." Chicago University also finds little software worth mentioning for HEP besides root: https://hep.uchicago.edu/hep_links.php University of Victoria HEP: also root users https://particle.phys.uvic.ca/hep/computing/cernscripts.html - and these are the kind of references we are yet missing for Datamelt. The frequent renaming, license mixtures, and the walled garden requiring registration certainly do not help popularity either. I think it should be deleted for now, although it may become notable later on, once it has a substantial user base e.g. at universities. Like ROOT. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't make our life harder by just spamming us with google search results. References like this [25] that you linked certainly do not support your point. That author just copied from some random list of software that happened to include datamelt. This is neither a review, nor a user. They obviously used Orange instead. And it is a horrible "paper" from a typical predatory publisher, useless. Don't include such sh_t. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is cool to read. All there universities you have mentioned use ROOT since then HAVE to use ROOT. It was developed at CERN, and they are part of CERN experiments. This is not their free choice. DataMelt is a Python interface to more then 100 java libraries many of which have been developed at universities. If you want to find, just pick up a library name and google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schekanov (talk • contribs) 02:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Schekanov: It is also notable if several universities have to use it involuntarily... CERN is big, and having to use it to participate in CERN makes it notable, doesn't it? Guantanamo Bay detention camp is notable, although people don't "live" there voluntarily... So where is Datamelt mandatory or actually used? Because this is about Datamelt, not about ROOT. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not agree with the decision to delete the article. The discussion opened by the user does not make sense, this is a good informative article that refers to a piece of software with relevance. I don't see COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.118.78 (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not WP:SOCKPUPPET us. We have seen this before frequently, you know, in all variants. It is not a particularly "new" idea to use different IPs and accounts to try to push your opinion. We even have many shortlinks for this, e.g WP:BADSOCK and WP:MEAT. We also frequently see WP:PERSONAL attacks, like you tried against BubbleEngineer above. We have also seen reference Wikipedia:Bombardment, as you did to your article. Stop these child games, please. The question at hand here is whether the Datamelt software is notable, or not. No matter of who raised the question. Find 3 quality references that show notable, successful, and independent users of Datamelt, not just some pseudo-reviews that never downloaded the software. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

@DESiegel and Maproom: This page and discussion to be sorted out by experienced editors, it's just getting ridiculous now... BubbleEngineer (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also [26]BubbleEngineer (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-comment I have removed several personal attacks above. I have not tried to remove uncivil comments, or off-topic comments, biut can we please have a polite, rational discussion going forward? Thank you. Further personal attacks may have consequences. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Standards The ultimate question here is whether this article should remain part of Wikipedia, in accord with the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The primary issue which has been raised is that of notability. If DataMelt is not a notable topic, then there should not be an article about it. If it is notable, then there quite probably should be, although that is not a forgone conclusion. There are several ways to establish that a topic is notable:

Perhaps the most common is the General Notability Guideline, which says that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. WP:BASIC is the variant of this for biographies.

Then there are several alternate criteria derived from Wikipedia:Notability (software) These are:

It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. Note that as long as reliable sources are saying that the software is significant, those sources do not need to be written by people who have used the software.
It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction. So if multiple schools teach how to use a piece of software, it is notable.
It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. (Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations without synthesis of published material) So if people not connected with the software have written extensively about how or when to use it, it is probably notable.
It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability.

Could future comments be directed to why DataMelt does, or does not, meet any or all of these criteria, please? Or other reasons relevant to Wikipedia policy. The motives of any of the editors who have worked on the article, or commented here, are really beside the point. If the topic is notable but the article is currently promotional, then it should be rewritten, not deleted. Contra-wise, if the topic is not notable, it makes no difference how neutral the article is. In my view, no one in this discussion has yet made a clear case for this topic meeting any of the above criteria. But that does not mean that no one can make such a case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Why "the usage in university" is even a question? Who is suppose to scan ~150,000 google links related to the SCaVis/DataMelt/jHepWork project to figure this out? I've scanned this link with Wikipedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Numerical_software

After 10 min of looking, it is impossible to establish "University" usage > 90% of these programs. Most of these articles do not come even close to the number of references on the DataMelt article. Remove them all?! BubbleEngineer "revolutionises" Wikipedia ?!

I do not think it should be removed, nor any of the Wikipedia articles in the link above and:

[27]

[28]

The DataMelt article was on Wikipedia for ~10 years (converted from JHepWork/ScaVis). So, what is special about this particular time? This article uses a neutral language (thanks for all editors), and has a significant number of links showing its usage. DataMelt is well promoted by books and many other resources, not by this Wikipedia article.

And I should say I'm biased since I support many open source programs, and removal of this article would set a nasty precedent for >90% of software articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsma73 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have had literally thousands such "nasty precedents" already over the years. That is daily business for deletion discussions. You are literally just doing everything in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. See: WP:OLDARTICLE and WP:ALLORNOTHING. And >90% of software articles here do establish notability, e.g., CERN ROOT. So stop this, stop personal attacks, and instead focus on the notability of Datamelt here, not of other stuff. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User talk:HelpUsStopSpam

How many citations do you need to establish notability? 33 citations listed in this article is no good? You need 50, 100? How many users should use a scientific program in order to make it "notable". Where is your red line for deletions of articles on software programs in these "computer science" categories? I could not get any of these answers in your posts. Ok, let's look at just one article:

IntegrationsSpektrum: SCaVis – Werkbank für technisch-wissenschaftliche Berechnungen und Visualisierungen mit Java und Jython JavaSPEKTRUM - Ausgabe 05/2013 by Klaus Rohe

This article is specifically about DataMelt ("Scavis" was older version name). Is JavaSPEKTRUM a notable?? YES. The article is in German, and written by an independent reviewer - Klaus Rohe. We wrote many reviews in this German magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsma73 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8100:7f90:e44f:/3416:9701:39d7 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2018‎[reply]

While I can't read it, that seems so far the only article that should be appropriate as reference and help your cause. Because, seriously, some "references" you added are abyssal... bring more like that article. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks like a reliable source. Another one like this and you may get my weak keep "vote". ~~However, your statement "We wrote many reviews in this German magazine" casts shadow over intellectual independence of said magazine.~~ Quantity of sources will not help there, quite the opposite as nobody will browse through another wall of garbage references. Pavlor (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Sorry, "We" should be "He"! I've misspelled it. You should read "He wrote many reviews in this German magazine". Yes, one article but this seems enough according to this thread:

 If DataMelt is not a notable topic, then there should not be an article about it.

This sounds a singular to me. Ok, persons are no good. How about this "dedicated" [28] article by a company:

http://www.miritech.com/products/aws/datamelt.aspx

Click on the deployment instruction tab, how it works. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsma73 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your quote "not be an article about it", this means "if Datamelt is not notable, then there should not be a Wikipedia article". It is not about the number of reliable sources.

As for miritech, I do not consider this to be a reliable source. Most of the datamelt description is just copy & paste from the datamelt homepage, so it clearly is not independent. It is not even spell checked ("nteworks"). This is just cheap advertisement material; you can see below they created such screenshots for any easy to run program. They do not even load a data set... Find something that not just copy and pasted the marketing blurbs like "more than 4000 classes come with Java API" and "Not to mention modules of Groovy and Ruby." even the "proceed to its amazing features" is just copy and paste from your self-praise. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not correct. They have developed their own content on miritech web page. There is a detailed instruction on how to use datamelt on Amazone clounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsma73 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, learn how to sign, format, and comment. You create an unreadable mess here...

Also you are wrong. The miritech does not show usage of Datamelt. Only how to SSH to their VM and invoke "java". They just mass-produce such instructions for everything without actually using any of it. That Miritech site a worthless SEO spam. And as I explained in detail, all their text is just copy & paste of your web site. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same holds for the "Assignment Help Service for Hadoop Tool" site that Schekanov just added. That is an essay mill SEO page, borderline illegal. Again, useless. They never used datamelt. They just advertise they could copy&paste a homework assignment for you if you pay them money. These are not links that we want to have in Wikipedia! HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentLet's me clarify this. In the academic word, there is no culture of hiring freelances to write "independent" reviews on software. In my field, thousands and thousands of scientific articles are written without mentioning what program is used for final results and figures. Even if you find a few articles about such programs, it will certainty be written by developers - this cannot fall under the Wikipedia category of "independent". This is why it is almost impossible to find "independent" citations in all these articles:

[29] and [30]

But all such articles, without doubt, should stay to increase public awareness in science. In the case of jHepWork (2015, old DataMelt), we used this program with students for many publications at the DESY lab and for the International Linear Collider work. The complexity of this program is not for a typical undergraduate level at universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schekanov (talk • contribs) 22:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schekanov, arguing that independent sources cannot be found is not helpful -- most articles do manage to find them, and others will no doubt be deleted in time. Arguing that the article has been here a long time is not helpful, There is no deadline. If someone only noticed flaws in the article recently, that does not mean it should not be deleted if those flaws cannot be fixed. Arguing about the standards applied to other articles is not helpful, see other stuff exists. Moreover, many such articles have in fact established notability by one or another of the available criteria. Proposing as independent sources articles which largely copy from the DataMelt web site is also not helpful, and merely inclines editors to ignore your claims altogether. You are not helping you case here. What is needed is a few moe detailed, independent reviews, if such exist. HelpUsStopSpam there is no requirement that a reviewer be a user of a product. If a review is independent and discusses the product in some detail, it might be based on an anlysis of the documentations, or on reports from other people who have used the product. However, a review that is largely a copy of the product web site is clearly not independent. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC) @Schekanov: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there is a lot of droning on about this article (and DES, I respect what you are trying to do here, btw), the fact remains that after searching around, and looking at some extensive information given herein, I do not see WP:GNG as being satisfied, vis-à-vis having multiple, reliable sources which are independent of the subject matter offer significant coverage of the topic. As such, it doesn't pass the criteria for inclusion. Nothing else matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:25, 15 May 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. I would re-list this to give time for an evaluation of the additional sources, but it's been re-listed thrice already, so I'm not doing that. WP:TOOSOON doesn't seem to apply to a career lasting this long. My recommendation would be to discuss the additional sources on the article's talk page and giving some time for wider community participation before bringing this to AfD again. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Hus[edit]

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

Notability: insufficient references to establish notability RJFJR (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick Google search turns up this very Wikipedia article followed by Vimeo, Facebook, Youtube, and IMDb. The French Wikipedia has an article but it, too, has no references, like the Russian (?) one. Found this result in Dutch which looks like it might be the right kind of coverage, though all of this makes me wonder why there is no article in the Dutch Wikipedia about him. A loose noose (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search for "Walter Hus" in the Belgian Gopress newspaper archive, and found over 400 articles: 66 in De Morgen, 57 in De Standaard, 56 in Het Nieuwsblad, 38 in De Tijd, 37 in La libre Belgique, 32 in Le Soir, etc. The Wikipedia article as it stands has not been kept up to date, but Hus has done a number of noteworthy things in the last couple of years, amongst others a Comic Strip Opera with Chris Ware ('Opera met strips verbinden is subversief', De Morgen, 2 March 2012, http://gpr.me/tq1xy00h1s/, account needed), and lots of work with the Decap Dance organ (see a.o. 'Un violoncelle, un accordéon et un orchestre mécanique', Le Soir, 2 November 2017, http://gpr.me/ffx4zt081x/, account needed). -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this before recommending "delete." If you add 2 or 3 articles of the quality that you're implying exist—as references—I'd change my vote. Tapered (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of sources. - Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's only listed ref is a mention in what appears to be a fairly exhaustive listing of contemporary composers. The only nearly significant mention from the search tools is a dedicated section of a list of composer/performers in a blog. Nowhere near the threshold for WP:NM. Delete. Tapered (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a number of sources, but even so, the above is incorrect. See e.g. http://muziekcentrum.kunsten.be/identity.php?ID=133974, with a list of printed references. :) - Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, two of the articles added as references require a GoPress account, whatever that is. One is from BruzzOut, which has no Wikipedia page. One is from an 11 year old film festival. Not this editor's idea of WP:RS. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Piękniewska, for the kinds of sources editor Puncinus produced to substantiate notability. Tapered (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of walkback. The self-published biography from the Arts Point contains promising looking sources. Tapered (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the "self-published" -- do you mean that Hus wrote this article himself? Or do you mean self-published in the sense that it has no "traditional publisher"? As to that: the Flanders Music Centre is an official publication of the Flemish government. Bruzz has a Wikipedia page at https://www.wikiwand.com/nl/BRUZZ_(krant) which I'm sure you can run through Google translate - tl;dr: it's sort of Brussels' BBC. And GoPress is the online database of just about all Belgian media. Hey, you know what? It has no Wikipedia page, but there's an About page you could also quickly run through Google translate here: https://www.gopress.be/info/nl/about. This is all very disheartening, and not a great way to make people feel welcome. I sort of remember from a long time ago there used to be something like WP:AGF, so when I said I "found over 400 articles" (by which I meant *print* articles, in Belgium's leading newspapers and magazine ("66 in De Morgen, 57 in De Standaard, 56 in Het Nieuwsblad, 38 in De Tijd, 37 in La libre Belgique, 32 in Le Soir, etc") I didn't expect to be half-treated like a liar. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:MUSICBIO & generally WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a musician, both solo and as a member of Maximalist!, at the very least (1) is covered -- see this article, as well as (10) (amongst others Rosas danst Rosas). As a composer, at the very least (1) (see previous) and (2) are covered (amongst others an opera with Chris Ware), as well as (3) "appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music": Delaere & Compeers, Contemporary Music in Flanders I, Flemish String Quartets since 1950, Muziekcentrum Vlaanderen / MATRIX, Brussels, 2004, ISBN 90-77717-013 (downloadable from here). In general, Hus is "cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre", for his work with the Dance organ. As for the WP:TOOSOON, I don't see how that applies someone who's been in reliable independent sources for his music since at least the late 1980s. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now contains the following sources:
- For Hus in general: 'Walter Hus over het hoe en waarom van componeren', De Morgen, 17 January 2005, http://gpr.me/vgsnk4kzw9/. The intro of that article (in one of Belgium's leading daily newspapers): 'Het komt niet vaak voor dat de naam van een hedendaagse componist door redelijk wat mensen wordt herkend. Bij ons is Walter Hus misschien een uitzondering. De afgelopen jaren oogstte hij ook bij theaterliefhebbers succes met zijn vier opera's op tekst van Jan Decorte: diens ver- en hertalingen van stukken van Shakespeare.' (translation)
- For film music in general: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0403818/
- For work with Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker: 'Het stuk dat maar niet verouderd raakt', De Morgen, 16 May 2015, http://gpr.me/hy3kgsd5c0/
- For work with Needcompany: 'Met de deurklink in de hand', De Tijd, 23 April 2003, http://gpr.me/kbex1g4anj/
- For work with Wim Vandekeybus: 'Met geluid wil ik de stille film eren', Gazet van Antwerpen, 14 January 1999, http://gpr.me/kphv2cqs1a/
- For his string quartets: Delaere & Compeers, Contemporary Music in Flanders I, Flemish String Quartets since 1950, Muziekcentrum Vlaanderen / MATRIX, Brussels, 2004, ISBN 90-77717-013, http://muziekcentrum.kunsten.be/document.php?ID=1769
- For his opera Orfeo: Stalpaert, C. and Roy, F.L. and Bousset, S., No Beauty for Me There where Human Life is Rare: On Jan Lauwers' Theatre with Needcompany, Studies in performing arts and film, ISBN 9789038210575, Academia Press and International Theatre and Film Books, 2007
- For his opera "Meneer, de zot & tkint": 'Kernachtig collectief muziekdrama van Walter Hus', De Standaard, 25 September 2000, http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dst25092000_037
- For his opera "Bloetwollefduivel": 'Driemaal Shakespeares "Macbeth" in Brussel en Rotterdam', De Standaard, 11 April 2001, http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dst11042001_065
- For his opera "Titus Andonderonikustmijnklote": 'Doe-het-zelfopera van Walter Hus', 13 September 2002, http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dst13092002_056
- For these last three operas in general: 'Not so damned human(istic): Muziektheater volgens vier heren van het gewezen Maximalist!', ETCETERA. Tijdschrift voor podiumkunsten, December 2004, http://theater.uantwerpen.be/etc_pdf/2004-12_jg22_nr94_24-29.pdf
- For his cooperation with Chris Ware: 'Opera met strips verbinden is subversief', De Morgen, 2 March 2012, http://gpr.me/tq1xy00h1s/
- For his innovative use of the Decap organ: 'Un violoncelle, un accordéon et un orchestre mécanique', Le Soir, 2 November 2017, http://gpr.me/ffx4zt081x/ and 'Belem & the Mekanics bring alive the sound of Decap', Bruzz, 14 November 2017, https://www.bruzz.be/node/106287 and 'Walter Hus pour le projet Belem & The Mekanics', RTBF interview, https://www.rtbf.be/auvio/detail_walter-hus-pour-le-projet-belem-the-mekanics?id=2280981
- For his winning an award for a recent soundtrack: '“Waste Land” en “N – The Madness of Reason” grote winnaars van de Ensors', https://www.filmfestivaloostende.be/geen-categorie/waste-land-en-n-the-madness-of-reason-grote-winnaars-van-de-ensors/

I'm not sure how much more I need to do to persuade you to keep this article. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 22:37, 14 May 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyani Vallath[edit]

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

The subject has received some coverage in indepdent RS such as this one and this but still does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines. She is author of a book - Contemporary Encyclopaedia of British Literature - which is not notable (at least by WP standards). The subject fails to meet both WP:AUTHOR and basic GNG IMO. Perhaps Wikipedia:NotJustYet. Saqib (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So it's a self-published encyclopedia according to this source, which also has all of the hallmarks of sponsored content (what's the story here -- a person is self-publishing an encyclopedia of English literature, deferring to that person's words/descriptions for nearly all of the piece). There's also this one in addition to those linked in the nomination above. The publications themselves seem fairly legit, but I can't get past the promotional feel of some of the content to keep (nor do I have evidence of that promotional quality to justify !voting delete). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment There is no doubt that she has been in many news and has been well known among literature student in India. I've searched the sources about this figure and found that she qualifies to be in wiki. ( vote - Keep)AntiHeroAnkit (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antites.

Weak delete. The Menon Hindu piece goes a long way towards meeting WP:GNG. But all the other sources I can find are either also non-independent of the subject or the Hindu sources, only mention her briefly (as the Deccan Chronicle source in the article does), or are too promotionally written for me to consider them reliable (as the fwdlife.in source and the Aswin Hindu sources are). The pattern of promotional editing here is also unhelpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 12 May 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. It appears the tightening of NCORP suggests this topic no longer meets notability guidelines. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Tips[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous discussion closed without consensus and I think it's time to revisit this. After reading through the previous discussion and performing my own WP:BEFORE searches I'm not convinced that coverage other than run-of-the-mill, day-to-day stuff exists. The sources in the previous discussion do not appear to make this subject worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not the place to write articles that say "Here is a company. This is what it does" and there's nothing out there to flesh out this article into anything more. The company simply isn't notable enough to pass the GNG threshold. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I will reassert my 2017 argument: "there are a lot of search results that could be used to source a decent article" The following three examples are again from 2017:
- For starters, this says what the company does
- here is something about the history of their production process.
- here is something about their modern production process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--I don't have sufficient enthusiasm to conduct a search of sources or a review of the ones mentioned above but it might be prudential to remind discussants that the standards of NCORP sourcing has been tightened by quite a few notches, in the very recent past.Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: too minor to have garnered significant coverage. Does not meet WP:NCORP & no improvement since the last nom. It's been plenty of chances, time to let this article go. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial in coverage and does not meet WP:CORP standard for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 13 May 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, default to keep. Contrary to some suggestion otherwise below, I think that both sides have made coherent, policy-based arguments here. It does appear to me that the difference of opinion over this list is likely grounded in difference of opinion on more fundamental questions as to what Wikipedia should or should not include. In this particular debate, the deleters have the numbers by a bit, but it cannot truly be said that there is any consensus one way or another. Steve Smith (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags by number of colors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to be an indiscriminate list. OR and synthesis. No rules for inclusion, either - not every country's flag is listed, and yet there are some naval ensigns and flags from lighthouses and the rainbow flag. Unclear how this list would be helpful. Also one of the entries is just 'green flag'. Yes, green flags ARE green. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Umm, if you click on "Green flag" it goes to Green flag, which informs you that a simple green flag has been the flag of the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", and the flag of Saudi Arabia, and the Flag of Mauritania, and more. It is a reasonable editorial decision to show just one, rather than three or more copies of the same. If you disagree with that editorial decision, bring it up at the Talk page. Offhand, I do agree that some short explanatory text "The all-green flag has been used by X, Y, and Z" could be helpful. This is not anything like a reason for deletion. --Doncram (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unneeded list. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. Question: how many colors does the typical US state flag have? Answer: one: blue. The state seal does not count as a color in heraldry. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, wp:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply to this case, AFAICT. Please see "Comment about INDISCRIMINATE USE OF WP:INDISCRIMINATE" below. --Doncram (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and christ above we'd never get anywhere near representing the the actual pool Nosebagbear (talk), not to mention unsourced, mix of individually notable and not 13:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging - seems good form to ping the previous AfD participants given it was both large and NC then: @Ad Orientem:, @Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:, @Haruo:, @JFG:, @RoCo:, @Rollingcontributor:, @Ajf773:, @PhantomSteve:, @Narky Blert:, @Onel5969:, @Ritchie333:, @Bojo:, @RoySmith:, @Lugnuts: Nosebagbear (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last one failed - didn't want to edit the above in case it re-pinged everyone else @Bojo1498: Nosebagbear (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the previous AFD I said, "Per WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOT". I stand by that. Narky Blert (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I said the last time. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the above. NOR INDISCRIMINATE. It's a good example of WP:LISTCRUFT. FTR I respectfully disagree with the previous close. IMO the weight of argument based on WP:PAG should have resulted in a delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfD. This is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented elsewhere here that INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. Nor does LISTCRUFT (an essay) apply. LISTCRUFT includes a list of 12 "reasons", none of which apply. For example, that "The list cannot be expanded beyond a handful of terms" (not true), that "The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable" (not true), that "The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopedia" (not true), that "Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available" (not true), that "The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable" (not true), and "The list attracts the addition of little that is of clear importance or even relevance in the context of the topic" (not true).

The Delete arguments here seem, to me, to be mere assertions of "I don't like it" with invocations of essays, guidelines that do not apply. --Doncram (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that the numbers of colors in a flag is a notable way to conceptualize the material - or that those with the same numbers inherently have something in common to distill meaning (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list of flags by color is a valuable asset to Wikipedia, and has no reason to be removed. The article may need some work, but this is a valuable article that has a place in Wikipedia. For example, if someone was making a presentation on flags, and they needed to put flags but wanted them to fit the style that they wanted to use, this tool would help them find minimalistic flags that would give the presentation an international mindset. SuperChris (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CLT. Might be useful at Commons. wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, how does this fail wp:CLT? CLT is about useful correspondence between categories, lists, and navigation templates. This list certainly usefully complements Category:Flags by presenting images of many flags, which a category cannot do. Do you want to complain that this list-article does not cover every member of Category:Flags? If so, that could be remedied by expanding this list. I understand no reason for deletion here; the point about CLT would be to argue for Keeping and/or expanding this list. --Doncram (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures? Then WP:NOTGALLERY. wumbolo ^^^ 22:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a gallery of random flag pictures, it is a reference source about numbers of colors. As other list-articles about flags are references about other matters. --Doncram (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a basic kind of reference list, child-accessible basic encyclopedia item, which Wikipedia is great at. Relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flags by color combination, which closed "Keep". --Doncram (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- From previous AFD: "As a child, I enjoyed looking at the colour plates of flags in the Children's Encyclopedia. This page seems better than the nomination's suggested alternative because this page contains pictures of the flags while the alternative doesn't. Arriving at the best way of organising this information seems to be a matter of ordinary editing rather than deletion, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Andrew D. (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)" which other participants agreed with.[reply]
- Ping previous AFD participants: User:SiBr4, User:Georgia guy, NorthAmerica, Philosopher, Prelogger, WeHaveTwelveFeet, Andrew D.. --Doncram (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal. For all future AFDs on each of these, could we all please agree to ping everyone. Hopefully the number of participants will grow and grow and we will have hundreds or thousands of Wikipedia editors involved in defending simple basic content for Wikipedia. And the AFD nominators will become famous and appreciated for involving everyone again and again in reassertion of obvious stuff, so that everyone is mutually reminded that basic stuff belongs in Wikipedia and yet that should be discussed again and again. We should celebrate AFD all the time, please. --Doncram (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about INDISCRIMINATE USE OF WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Maybe an essay is needed, wp:INDISCRIMINATEINDISCRIMATE. The above invocations are nonsensical. WTF is intended. Please go read. The core relevant is probably that Wikipedia doesn't want "Summary-only descriptions of works", which this list is not. The list is not a "Lyrics databases", nor is it an "Exhaustive logs of software updates", nor other bad things covered in the policy/guideline. --Doncram (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTSTATS applies since it is a collection of data with no encyclopedic background. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing more encyclopedic than flags! Go to any nation's article, and you are presented with its flag, because that is so basic. Go visit the United Nations; it is all about the flags. Go to a first or second grade class in a school, it is all about the flags. The encyclopedia covers basic stuff, about letters, numbers, flags, maps, etc. I don't read "wp:NOTSTATS" as conveying anything relevant here.
  - Also, I removed three negative tags at the article, leaving only the "notability" tag (to be removed after this AFD). The "original research" negative tag was unjustified because there was/is nothing questioned or even questionable in the article. You don't have to have a citation to support something obvious and undisputed; here the information is conveyed by the flag images which no one disputes. The "no lede" was addressed by my adding a one-sentence summary about the article. The "multiple issues" was just the usual pile-on negative, no longer applies. --Doncram (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: - how was the issue of OR/synthesis addressed? Please point me to a reliable source which lists flags by the number of colors, or discusses the significance of the number of colors. You can't simply remove a template because you think it looks bad. I re-added it because none of the concerns were addressed. Please discuss on the ARTICLE's talk page if you wish to re-add it‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 23:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I determined that there is no dispute, no question at all, about how many colors are in the flag of France. Do you think there is an issue? Do you think a citation is needed? It would probably be possible to provide citations, eventually, for how many colors are in any and all of the flags, if there were any disagreement possible. But we don't need citations for non-disputed assertions. What in the article do you think is personal opinion? --Doncram (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many colors are in the flag of Virginia? How about Mexico? And Apure? Hela Province? The flag of Minnesota? Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great questions, which prove the value of this Wikipedia list-article. Are they meant to be "trick questions"? I see that they are informed by the list-article: the questioner went to the bottom, the section of "10 or more colors", and picked out four of those. Yep, it is encyclopedic and interesting to know that there are some flags with a lot of colors, unlike most in the world, including a few with color blending/shading that are hard to quantify, so the excellent past editors of this article chose, sensibly, to put them into a "10 or more" section. Very diplomatic, factual, encyclopedic. And about the other flag, is that one chosen because its numbers have changed (and the change is covered in its article)? I do suppose that could be used to bring up a question whether the list-article should include past versions of flags for entities whose current version is different. That could be discussed at the Talk page, though I would think it is reasonable to include just one version for each entity. Oh, you could argue about which are entities to be covered, and whether a governing entity in the past is the same as a current governing entity, sure those are fine topics for discussion at the Talk page.

I do note that the five flags are mentioned as questions, and I suppose that means that the questioner is not actually asserting that there is any factual issue in the article. Those are simply questions which can be posed, trivia competition style, using the article, and likewise can be answered using the article. Like this Quora trivia question and answer which cites the definitive Wikipedia article No one has yet put themself on the line to assert that there is any real question about anything. --Doncram (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already did assert factual problems. When you start talking about these seals and insignia, and you see the landscape heraldry that a lot of them use, talking about how many becomes meaningless— and as I already said, the true answer for most US states could just as well be "one" as "many" for all the "azure, the state seal proper" cases. There als0o doesn't seem to be any limit to the inclusion of flags here, so that once we get the entire collection of county and city flags, we could be talking tens of thousands of entries. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but refine the inclusion, per my comments at the previous AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the deletion nominator gripes about inclusion criteria not being clear, too. Inclusion criteria can/should be discussed at the Talk page; certainly it should include flags of all State (polity)s but I don't see why it can't cover flags of every province/state and city/municipality and all other governmental entities. It could naturally cover every flag covered in List of flags. For discussion there. --Doncram (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ready to be closed. Every DYK !vote here which amounts to "I don't like it" plus a random link to an essay or guideline which does not apply, should be entirely disregarded in the closing here. Basically I think there are a few valid Keep !votes and no valid Delete !votes, so this is ready to be closed "Keep" or even "Snow Keep", IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's your opinion. Thank you for sharing it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook example of WP:BLUDGEON here.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:- the amount of comments are you are making in this AfD is patently disruptive and you are certainly not going to help the 'keep' argument when an admin closes this AfD. I guess we know how you got 200k edits, though. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as WP:INDISCRIMINATE & trivial. Also WP:OR as per Mangoe, this is an issue with the of the flags that are not just solid colors.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, I sort of agree with you that there should not be so many comments from just one editor, but it happens that there are a lot of what-I-think-are-lame !votes here, with citations to essays and policies which I think do not at all apply, and no one else has replied to those. I don't often comment so much in any one AFD, but it just seems to be needed here. --Doncram (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since WP isn't a case study and the information otherwise falls per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Doncram above might think that they are upholding policy by saying everybody is "not liking it", but WP works by consensus, not by moot calls to "but the other side's arguments aren't right"... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, another essay or guideline cited. wp:NOTCASE does not at all apply. It states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook" and goes on to list types of manuals, guidebooks, textbooks, which this is not. People should read the essays/guidelines first before citing. And since the applicability of wp:NONDISCRIMINATE has already been questioned, why not explain how on earth you think that applies? It doesn't say what you think it says, I bet. --Doncram (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That edges on being tendentious. Read further than the top sentence of the guideline: "9. Case studies. Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X [Flags] to factor Y [Number of colours]". And no, it is not a culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest (otherwise, one could reasonably expect to find more on google than WP mirrors...) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a valid list of an encyclopedic topic, disagreements about inclusion can be resolved on the talk page, page views average 173 a day so it is a useful learning tool for youngsters without browbeating them with technical prose, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POPULARPAGE & WP:ITSUSEFUL--Rusf10 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The latter states "If reasons are given, 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." I'm sorry, but the invocations of essays/guidelines in this AFD seem mostly nonsensical. --Doncram (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is that any more nonsensical then non-policy based arguments such as "page views average 173 a day"?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable tool for users to be able to locate the government of a flag while only knowing basic information about it; in this case, the color. This is an aid to navigation, particularly for younger readers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 15 May 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 noted below, this should have been closed as delete to begin with. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dolby Cinema venues[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. None of the cinemas have articles and should be considered non notable until proven otherwhise. Dolby accreditation is hardly a distinct criteria for a list of cinemas Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what the difference is with the List of IMAX venues article?

The main difference I see is that some of the IMAX theaters have a wiki page. Also, most of the towns have a link.

Why should there be a "directory" of IMAX theaters and not one of Dolby cinema?

--Wvdp (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'd agree that the List of IMAX venues should be nominated for deletion as well. It survived an AfD back in 2005, but if nominated again today it probably wouldn't survive. Ajf773 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is not really a list but a linkfarm. --Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This whole debate seems nonsensical. What is the ultimate purpose of wikipedia if not to provide information people are looking for? Dolby Cinema and IMAX are both venues that are only important when they list locations and films. Without either, one won't know how the product exists in real life. Apple's Wikipedia lists all it's products and history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California Lists all of its locations for schools, including sports team information, capacity, etc. A page on UC Schools without a list of schools and links to information would be pointless. It would only discuss the concept of the school. People go to Wikipedia to find specific information, not just vague ideas. Seriously, IMAX has had this information for years and it has been good with users and editors for more than a DECADE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defaultfresh (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Defaultfresh has not edited any articles beyond Dolby Cinema. There are policies that need to be adhered to, in this instance WP:NOT, and that topics or content are presented in an encyclopedic format. Ajf773 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that because I have mostly only contributed to one page is like comparing someone writing a research paper about marine biology. I have valid information and concerns about a particular top and do in fact follow reddit guidelines. At this point you should call a moderator to arbitrate the situation because there is not even an idea put fourth of compromise which is also within the guideline of consensus (again following reddit's guidelines for dispute). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defaultfresh (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One does not consult and automobile association about a failing engine in a specific car, they consult a car mechanic, who is better researched in fixing cars. They both might have an understanding of rules, but only the mechanic can solve the car problem with respect to the association's laws. That is why greater bodies of people wouldn't waste their time on one persons engine. The editors of this article are like several car mechanics. Again call the mods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defaultfresh (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't how your reasoning is of any relevance to this discussion, but this recent edit by a single purpose user (and possible sockpuppet), [31] , certainly isn't going to help your cause. Ajf773 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's a sockpuppet? An insult?

By the way, I don't know how to sign

Is it Defaultfresh (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)defaultfresh[reply]

Delete as a linkfarm and a directory (they're not mutually exclusive). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This list serves solely as a directory of theaters that utilize or feature elements of Dolby Cinema. While that may be useful in some respects, it doesn't need to exist in an encyclopedia. And although it's not a primary factor in this decision, the list does duplicate information already listed at Dolby Cinema Locations on the main Dolby website. Consider posting a link instead to that web page in the "External links" section of the Dolby Cinema article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this should have been closed as "delete", not re-listed. Linkfarm as noted above. If this were a list of notable theaters whose notability had something to do with Dolby capabilities the outcome could be different. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Kirbanzo, could you enlighten us on why you relisted this? --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could only re-list as I'm not an admin. I relisted in order to get the attention of an admin. Kirbanzo (talk)

Thank you Kirbanzo. If an AfD discussion is not closed for a lengthy period of time, it will be conspicuous at WP:AFD. I came here to close the discussion as "delete", but was prevented from doing so because you had just re-listed it. Non-admins can re-list a discussion where consensus is still developing, but where consensus is clearly "delete" you can just wait a bit and an admin will close. No harm, no foul, there's no great harm in this list existing for another week. I truly hope this comes across as helpful advice, and not grumpy criticism. Your contributions here are indeed appreciated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:49, 7 May 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)} 21:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Conrad[edit]

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

Wholly non-notable; old redirect of Canadian politician changed to current article of obscure author GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:40, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable under Wikipedia's general and author-specific guidelines. No independent reliable sources are provided, and I found nothing in my own searches except for promotional content making references to dubious credentials like the "National Academy of Best-Selling Authors". --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of the most non-notable writers I have ever come across.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mere PROMO. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 9 May 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Ketchum (actor)[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 00:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs expansion not deletion. Kethcum starred in Camp Runamuck as well as his popular rple as Agent 13 on Get Smart. He had lots of other roles as an actor and also has writing credits. Covered very substantially in reliavle independent sources as "David+Ketchum"+actor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpvIuK283aAhURbq0KHbQSAj0Q6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q="David%20Ketchum"%20actor&f=false here. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sub-standard sourcing. The roles do not rise to the level of substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least two highly substantial roles on major American television network, back in the days you had 3 choices to choose from, not 2000 choices. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the two keep !votes above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a career spanning four decades, 52 acting credits, and 40 writing credits - clearly passes WP:NACTOR Successful comedy career as well. Scr★pIron^IV 19:49, 7 May 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)} 21:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Crawford (activist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only for coordinating a local history project. This is not an "inherently" notable distinction that would entitle him to a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but the article is not referenced to coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG: it's referenced to purely local media coverage in which he's not the subject of the pieces, but is either glancingly namechecked or soundbited as a speaker in coverage of events. The CBC citations are to the CBC's local news bureau in Ottawa, not to the national news division, so they do not constitute evidence of nationalized coverage -- and the Ottawa Sun citation is merely a repetition of the same article as the Ottawa Citizen citation (they're both owned by the same company, so they do reaggregate some of each other's content), so those do not represent two separate data points toward establishing a WP:GNG pass. And other than those, the only other citation here is a neighbourhood pennysaver which isn't GNG-assisting at all. There simply isn't enough substance, or enough sourcing about him, present here to deem him notable for this. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree only somewhat notable in a local sense. Legacypac (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBIO per Bearcat. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local political activist, fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than local significance, nothing even close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:22, 14 May 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/userfy. I have moved the page to User:Kjklingenstein/Internet identity in research and education. Steve Smith (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet identity in research and education[edit]

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

While the article does have some minimal sourcing, this appears to be a case of WP:OR. There are tons of uncited assertions, and most of the article seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a fork of Online identity. Any difference is as the nominator suggests grossly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.PRehse (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The author of the article is a distinguished academic and this could have the makings of a good article but it would need to be fundamentally rewritten. At the moment it is the personal essay of the author and fails WP:NOTESSAY. I have looked hard to see if it is published elsewhere but I cannot find anything. This is the editor's first contribution to Wikipedia and their future contributions are welcome; it would be a shame to deter them. I suggest it is draftified so that the author and potentially others can improve it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments and am most willing to improve the article, as suggested in the draftify note above. I am unsure, as a new participant, how that improvement process happens. I would note that part of the challenge in improving it are the existence of related Wikipedia articles that are, imho, not appropriately titled. For example the online identity article references as a possible fork point is focused solely on social identity, not the other forms of online identity, such as the Wikipedia articles on federated identity and PKI. The use cases in the online identity article are a small subset of the may used of Internet identity. If a broader restructuring of this content in Wikipedia is warranted, I would be glad to participate and am somewhat knowledgeable, as noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjklingenstein (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjklingenstein: I think digital Identity and federated identity are probably better articles to expand with some of your content. They need a good clean up too, though. The key things you'll need to do are to provide citations for more of your content, and to remove anything that is opinion, original research, or based on your personal experiences, since those things aren't verifiable, one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. You can start making those changes now, you don't have to await the outcome of this review. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the direction. I have started to add more citations to the article. Are citations to other articles in Wikipedia more or less valuable than citations to sources outside Wikipedia? I agree that much of this material could go in the federated identity article, but as curb safe charmer noted, it needs lots of cleanup. Can I just begin working on that article or is there a protocol to follow. Thanks. - kjklingenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjklingenstein (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjklingenstein: I've reverted the citations you added that were based on other Wikipedia articles, as they aren't considered to be a reliable source. That's because anyone may have edited them and added incorrect information. Please see WP:NOTSOURCE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjklingenstein: you can work on the federated identity article now. Don't forget to add citations to statements you add to it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per author's request. Note to discussion participants: this venue is about deletion, and not about sourcing improvements and whatnot. wumbolo ^^^ 13:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- reading this, my first though was, this is an essay. so WP:NOTESSAY applies here.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:31, 16 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Col Anderson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO as the sources provided are only passing mentions. As such, any claims of notability in the article are questionable. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep meets WP:NAFL by playing more than one Victorian Football League match. Flickerd (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 matches should not be enough to show notability. We need to move away from ludicrously low sports notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a separate discussion that's needed at WT:NSPORTS, this article currently meets a sports notability guideline. This AfD is not the appropriate place to say the guidelines should be changed and thus making this article an example. Flickerd (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ Completely fails WP:GNG. Yes does meet WP:NAFL #2, but this is rediculously low. NSUBJECT does not trump GNG so fails according to current guidelines anyway. If the VFL related sources where more than just very basic routine match and game statistics reporting I might accept, but there seems to be none. Just compare NAFL to NBADMINTON just below it - badminton needs Olympic or national equivalent to be presumed notable. Aoziwe (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per my above comment re further references, I am changing my !vote to a weakish keep as per Flickerd's article improvement work below. (AfD might not be the place to resolve notability guideline issues but it is certainly a place to raise them.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I have added more information regarding his VFL career and life after his VFL career (where he played a significant amount of games in the SANFL and was a player-coach at Wagga) and there are independent sources about him that aren't just passing mentions, but articles written about him. Remember specific guidelines are there because sources aren't always as accessible as they are for people who compete today, and there is a presumed notability. In addition, although the requirement for badminton is the Olympics or national equivalent, that is because that is the pinnacle of the sport, whereas the VFL/AFL is the pinnacle of Australian rules football and that is why the guideline is at that level. As I said previously, issues with the level of notability required for WP:NAFL is a separate discussion needed at WT:NSPORTS (for which there was a discussion about a year ago, and the decision was to leave it as is), not an AfD. Flickerd (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAFL, having played in the VFL, real football:) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the expanding and sourcing done by Flickerd. Sam Sailor 00:17, 12 May 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 Brown University. In theory a perfectly reasonable content fork (it's been pointed out that a wholesale merge of this would be vastly too large for the parent article) consensus here appears to be that there is insufficient independent, reliable-source coverage to warrant most of the content here. There is no consensus to particularly delete this content in its entirety - the likely way forward is to incorporate the few reliably sourced parts of this into the parent article. For these purposes, the history of the article has been left intact for merging purposes. ~ mazca ^talk 17:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brown University traditions[edit]

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

Nothing on this list of traditions gives any sense of notability to the topic as a stand-alone article, and it is all extremely poorly referenced as almost all references given are primary. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as child of Brown University parent article. In that sense, it's like a WP:CSC, which has grown too large for the parent, and where the according to the examples given, the specific set being listed does not appear to require notability "for the set". At least two of these appear to have mention in independent sources. Some of the entries I can see being scrapped as unencyclopediac/transient local interest/in-joke things. Note that Category:Traditions by university or college in the United States has about 25 "[School name] traditions" style articles, which (by spot-check) do not have stated or cited notability for the specific subtopic of "traditions of the school". I'll ping WP:COLLEGE as it's of general relevance. DMacks (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: From what I see, only one third party source is present in the article, regarding their naked parties. All the other topics on the page are either unsourced or only primary sources can be found. While the set may not need to be notable as a whole, I would expect, for this type of article, that there would be available third party sources for at least a few more of the individual topics showing notability (or that they even exist at all) to give justification for there to be an entire stand-alone article on their traditions. Regarding the category, for other universities that also have traditions pages with little encyclopedic content, they should also be considered for merge or deletion. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 00:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brown University - probably better off as a section instead of an independent article. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brown University - agree with User: Kirbanzo. Vorbee (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Query - I don't think a merge is wise, since it either is too big and disruptive violating WP:UNDUE or has to lose content. However, if you guys can help me out - is Brown University 2012 They were once a publisher, specifically for print guides on colleges, but I've no idea if there was any quality congtrol. If it is reliable, then it would back up some traditions. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Nosebagbear regarding merging.. there's a lot in this article if it were all to be merged. The reason I nominated it for deletion instead is because, when looking to see what material there is that could be merged, I really can't find anything that has reliable sources with it to back up the statements. If there was material in the article that had reliable sources then that material could be merged, and if the article had so much that keeping all of it upon merging would violate WP:UNDUE then the article should be kept and I would not have nominated it. Regarding the source provided, looking at it and comparing it to WP:SOURCE, books should be published by "respected publishing houses". I'm admittedly not an expert in publishing houses, but normally College Prowler doesn't seem like it'd be on the top of my list for fact checking and evidence. Curious as to what other wikipedians think... - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 05:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanstrat: - I had a look at the reliable sources noticeboard archives - one appreciable comment in favour, others merely using, so I've dropped it as a specific request for a few more opinions on College Prowler/Niche to see if we can get a rough and ready consensus on the source.Nosebagbear (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the source, even if it's deemed reliable at WP:RSN... I don't think there's enough available sourced content on the subject matter to warrant this separate page. The contents of the College Prowler source combined with the content from the one other reliable source present can be easily summarized on the main Brown University page without violating WP:UNDUE. For example, the Van Wickle Gates already have an entire article of their own, and there's already a Student life section on the page containing a Spring weekend subsection. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brown University, unless anyone can identify any independently-sourced encyclopaedic content at all in the page (I can't), in which case some of that could be merged with due regard for WP:WEIGHT. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:53, 11 May 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.

Kentucky Route 342[edit]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Imzadi 1979 → 05:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to only having one source, which is a passing mention. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to see how a state DOT route log that lists every intersection and bridge for the entire Kentucky state highway system in Mercer County is just a passing mention. Does it need more sources? Yes, definitely. Does not having more sources mean the article should be deleted? Absolutely not. –Fredddie ™ 11:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Time and again, articles about state highways have been proven notable at AFD. Just because this article has only one source does not mean it should be deleted, more information can be added to the article. Dough4872 11:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Most highways with much to say about them are automatically notable; in this case, WP:USRD/NT takes priority over WP:GNG. ToThAc (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has more than one source, confirming its existence. Precedents have shown these types of articles have been kept. Nova Chrysalia (Talk) 16:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, generally described. This will eventually end up keeping as sources clearly collaborate ~~(unless it's a hoax).~~ --Quek157 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a hoax, Google Maps is in on it. [32] –Fredddie ™ 22:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~hope those pictures aren't an April fool joke.~~ anyway since this is clearly a freeway page, no reason to delete as it's clearly notable.Quek157 (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Note - I did not meant that I deem this as a hoax, what I meant is to express that unless it is a hoax, this will be surely kept (i.e. WP:SNOW). I apologize for this in this Afd, and not an excuse, but this nominator can label such articles a hoax [33], very sorry for the ad hominem.Quek157 (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:USRD/NT and long standing precedence reflected in WP:ROADOUTCOMES. A {{cite book}} was added. Sam Sailor 00:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-held roads precedent at AfD. Sounder Bruce 05:08, 12 May 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. ~ GB fan 19:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DHS media monitoring services[edit]

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

This borders on a conspiracy theory, ref-bombed with the same news story being reported in many sources. The database mentioned doesn't appear to exist yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On what grounds is this being nominated for deletion? There is extensive, continued coverage (what you describe as "ref-bomb") since the initial announcement by most major media outlets, with most coverage being critical. If you had read any of the sources, the coverage is for a contract to build the media monitoring service...so it is going to be built. As this is one of the largest monitoring solutions to be built, it is notable in that light alone.MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of WP:CRYSTAL speculation, and a lot of the same news article ([34] [35] [36] are all basically the same and based on a single Bloomberg report), and coverage of DHS denials, but nothing more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL refers to unsourced material. Per your nomination, the article was "ref-bombed" by a number of sources, covering the topic. A number of source have their own opinions/view on the topic. The topic has received extensive global coverage in part due to it's timing near the Facebook Zuckerberg hearing. While there is currently limited material for the topic, it is properly sourced, and being a stub is not a valid cause for deletion.

Coverage:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dhs-compile-database-journalists-bloggers/, Snopes
"Homeland Security to Compile Database of Journalists, Bloggers". Bloomberg. April 5, 2018.
Fabio, Michelle (April 6, 2018). "Department Of Homeland Security Compiling Database Of Journalists And 'Media Influencers'". Forbes.
"DHS defends media-monitoring database, calls critics "conspiracy theorists"". Ars Technica. April 6, 2018.
Fussell, Sidney (April 6, 2018). "Homeland Security Wants to Build an Online 'Media Influence Database' to Track Journalists". Gizmodo.
"Trump's Homeland Security will begin tracking news outlets, journalists and 'social media influencers': report". Raw Story. 7 April 2018.
Herreria, Carla (6 April 2018). "Homeland Security To Compile A Database Of Journalists, Bloggers And Influencers". Huffington Post.
"Homeland Security will start collecting data on hundreds of thousands of journalists". The Week. 6 April 2018.
"'Conspiracy theory'? US Homeland Security wants to track journalists & analyze media 'sentiment'". RT International. April 7, 2018.
"Trump administration planning to 'monitor' journalists and bloggers". ThinkProgress. April 7, 2018.
"Homeland Security database would track bloggers, social media - The proposal could curb fake news, but there's also potential for abuse". Engadget. April 7, 2018.
"US Homeland Security Planning Database to Track Journalists, Monitor 'Sentiment'". Sputnik (news agency). April 7, 2018.
"Department of Homeland Security's Plans for Journalist Database Must be Quashed Immediately - PEN America". PEN America. April 8, 2018.
"Homeland Security wants to track 'media influencers' worldwide". ABA Journal. April 9, 2018.
"The US Department of Homeland Security looks for building a media". thetechnews.com. The TechNews. April 10, 2018.
Laslo, Matt (April 16, 2018). "Commentary: A bigger data threat than Facebook?". U.S. Reuters.
"US government developing database to monitor thousands of newsrooms worldwide". www.pakistantoday.com.pk. Pakistan Today. April 17, 2018.
"Memo to DHS: Track terrorists, not journalists". USA TODAY. April 18, 2018.
"Monitoring the press crosses the line, Big Brother — why journalism matters". AlestleLive. April 17, 2018.
"Is government database a bigger threat than Facebook?". Irish Examiner. 18 April 2018.
"Buffington: Trump vs. the press - Barrow Journal". The Barrow Journal. April 21, 2018.
Rosman, David (Apr 25, 2018). "DAVID ROSMAN: The DHS cannot be allowed to tie the hands of the American press". Columbia Missourian.

There is sufficient coverage to establish topic notability and coverage of the current media sentiment on the media sentiment tracking database. @Power~enwiki:MagnaFerrum1 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so WP:CBALL point 5 is closest in relevance, in effect the monitoring being a "product". Thus the key aspect is "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate.". Number of sources & standard notability are irrelevant - the question is "is there sufficient encyclopedic information?", otherwise we should merge it to the DHS (or related) article. On that, I am unsure - the actual detail on the project is 5 or 6 lines, duplicated source to source, just with some differing viewpoints. Nosebagbear (talk)

Comment However even if I come down in favour of a CRYSTAL violation, this shouldn't have come to AfD, since the content is clearly there - if it can't self-support, yet, then it should be merged with another. There are no grounds for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 7 May 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)} 21:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clockify[edit]

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

Non-notable software/app with no evidence of coverage other than insider/trade source. Written as a promotion by an editor with a clear WP:COI. May simply be WP:TOOSOON? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When googleing time tracking this software appears to come on the first page. Also, if you lookup it's name, there is quite a number of publications and discussions covering it. I vote stay given it's relevance. Not every product needs paid news advertising. Nicecream (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing consists of a number of blog posts, advertorials and other PR activities, none of which establishes notability. While the topic seems to get some attention, the coverage in reliable and independent sources is still lacking. I agree with the nominator's assessment: this seems WP:TOOSOON. Note: the original article creator now disclosed their connection to the topic at their user page (thank you). GermanJoe (talk) 23:48, 12 May 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 Courcelles (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bike Tours[edit]

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

References are either non-RS or don't actually include company's name. Delete per WP:NOT-YELP. Chetsford (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Bangkok Post reference is directly about the subject. Appears to be the only one though. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have removed irrelevant references.TreeDancer3 (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:All references check out. I vote that the deletion notice be removed.TheBeefofWellington (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I also think the deletion notice should be removed as the page clearly meets Wikipedia's standard for notability. Charlesthe9th (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:In my opinion think the deletion notice should be removed. As a rule of thumb, notability is established when the topic has “significant coverage” in “reliable sources” that are “independent” of the topic. This is sometimes referred to as Wikipedia’s “Golden Rule.” There are three authority references. One is leading to TAT (The official site of Tourism Authority of Thailand ), the 2nd one to Bangkok Post and the third one is leading to TripAdvisor. Nipha (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer: Comments from three confirmed sockpuppet accounts stricken per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Please check edit history of other !voters before closing. Chetsford (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G5 and so tagged. Sam Sailor 16:54, 14 May 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)} 15:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karine Hannah[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, whose sole notability claim (charting hits in Billboard) is explicitly not verified by its own supporting source: the reference is to Billboard, but lists zero chart appearances for her and no content suggesting that the magazine's writers have paid her any editorial attention. As always, a musician does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because it claims passage of an WP:NMUSIC criterion -- the claim has to be verified as true by a reliable source before it actually passes NMUSIC. I can't find any other reliable source coverage about her on a Google News search -- except for a single Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself (which would be fine for some verification of stray facts in an article that had already cleared WP:GNG on stronger sources, but does not confer a GNG pass by itself as an article's best source), all I can find otherwise is a few glancing namechecks of her existence in articles about other things. And finally, even musicians who do clear our notability standards still don't get to have their articles written this advertorially -- Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not a free publicity platform. Also possible WP:COI, as the creator's username was "Karine Grauer". Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well explained. Legacypac (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of adequate sources to verify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She does have one song on the chart at Billboard; I’ve corrected the URL in the citation. NotARabbit (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "corrected" link still just takes me to a page that has her name at the top, immediately followed by the masthead footer bar with no chart positions listed in between those two things. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. The link takes me to a page where I can see the song listed (screenshot here). Try purging the page? Or your browser cache? NotARabbit (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a moot point. Billboard says that she had one song that peaked at #33 in March 2016, not “two pop/dance songs that entered the billboard charts in the top 5” as claimed in the article. I know zip about singer/entertainer notability, so I am neutral here. NotARabbit (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (again) Most of the text of the article was copied straight from here; I’ve removed it. NotARabbit (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can also confirm that I'm seeing here one song "I'm Burning Up" peaking at position 33 on the "Hot Dance/Electronic Songs" chart. I am also seeing "I'm Burning Up" and another song, "Victory", peaking at positions 6 and 14, respectively, on the "Dance Club Songs" chart. Neither of these are the United States' national music chart, however, which is the Billboard Hot 100, so these have little effect on notability. My web searches are finding the same things that Bearcat mentioned in his analysis. I'm assuming this is the interview he was talking about. Absent additional sources, I'm also leaning delete, unfortunately. Mz7 (talk) 05:01, 15 May 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)} 16:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billel Aggab[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page created by subject who has removed a speedy delete notice 3 times contrary to policies Lyndaship (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious self-promotion. Deb (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion and no notability. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, merely self promotion. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 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. by Bbb23 per G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban and per the consensus here. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 14:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soubhik Das[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Same rational as last nomination Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soubhik_Das. This person does not meet notability guidelines. Creator returned this to mainspace and left the AfC tags on. Legacypac (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has moved this back to draft for the second time. It is at AfD now and a move back to draft is not acceptable. Legacypac (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signs of any notability here. A few patents. Nomination (but not selection) to a Forbes "People to Know" list, not enough for an encyclopedia article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per previous nomination (which was disrupted), Wikipedia is not Facebook. Google search reveals that its subject exists and uses social media. Duh. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable "nominee" to Forbes India's 30 under 30 list. Also lacking notability as an inventor. Salt should be considered given the attempts to circumvent AfD.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete Wiki department Soubhik Das is student but his invention like rail line bullet camera is being used by Government of India and he will be awarded by Government of India on Indian Independence Day 2018. I am collecting the reference from Ministry of Science and Technology, India. Please Drafty the article so that I can update and publish the content when I will collect journals and notices from Government.--122.176.41.206 --Securityreligion (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 05:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the creator to ANi [37]for their strange behavior. Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of notability and even if he is given recognition on India's independence day there is no guarantee that the recognition will make him notable. That is by no means an automatic thing. So rather than keeping as a draft just in case he should receive a notable award in three month's time, delete the article now (most of it would not be kept in any case). --bonadea contributions talk 06:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An award by Ministry is not notable? He is having 11 patents being at 21 years, so many research papers, big companies like Google, Intel, Infosys, Salesforce is calling a student at its event as an influencer for AI subjects is not notable? Strange, I am agreeing that he is not being covered by Indian media as such. Soon my references will include references from Government sites, Doordarshan news, Infosys site, Google Corporate websites, Facebook corporate etc. so draftying the article is appropriate and fair enough.--Securityreligion (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Securityreligion is this page about you or someone you know personally? Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No He is not me at all I am from Delhi, he is Pune based guy, well I am a professional from Haryana Govt. We have no relationship with each other far away or through any means--Securityreligion (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any notability, we need third party RS having noticed him.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

note Creator is moving to draft space. One might suspect ignorance or malfeasance. In any event, the AfD needs to run to a conclusion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again?Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 8 May 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)} 16:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pustak[edit]

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

No persistent significant/non-trivial coverage in reliable sources post-launch.Quasi-A7 stuff.Fails WP:NWEB and/or WP:NCORP and/or WP:GNG. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional material, reads like a press release. Norcaes (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:48, 9 May 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. J04n(talk page) 14:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canaan Union Academy[edit]

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

Try also Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, perhaps with quoting "Canaan Museum" and "New Hampshire". --Doncram (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De-prodded without explanation, and without any significant improvement to show notability. Other than existing, nothing to indicate the notability of this school. It gets lots of trivial mentions in Books, of the kind, "so and so was the principal" or "so and so attended", but not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a museum. Museums are public attractions, and almost always have coverage, besides and including routine mentions in events guides, travel literature, etc. It is a help for Wikipedia to provide reference information, like it is to cover concert halls and arenas and other event venues. The article needs development, coverage of the museum itself, but there are plenty of sources, including this. It could be tagged for further development, or someone could just develop it. The current edgy spin is fine if accurate, which I assume it is.--Doncram (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful information for expansion at https://books.google.com/books?id=A8MMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA297 and https://books.google.com/books?id=TIklvz7XKUQC&pg=PA88. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep small historical museum with an interesting building: "late Federal-era structure, it has an unusual two-story porch and..." (New Hampshire Architecture: An Illustrated Guide - Page 281), according to book I just cited, In use as a school until 1892, then became a library, now a museum. But the really interesting back story is in The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison - Volume 6 - Page 112. Who knew they had a Segregation academy - a deliberate breakaway from an integrated school - in New Hampshire in the 1830s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This will close as a keep, but we might consider merging with Canaan Street Historic District, so I'm adding that as a merger proposal on the talk page. We'll see how it goes. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that, with this AFD open. It seems like a "sore loser" proposal, to delete the article a different way. You could contribute by using the sources mentioned here to actually develop the article. Calling for everyone to consider a repeat deletion proposal does not help. What's needed is for someone to actually develop the article. --Doncram (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A merger proposal is a different matter to AfD. Please don't conflate them. Also, please consider WP:PA. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:12, 13 May 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. Enigma^msg 05:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source-code compatibility[edit]

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

The term doesn't make sense. If I have to recompile code for a new machine, it is not compatible, it means a compiler exists. To me, this looks someone's WP:NEO / WP:OR, or possibly a non-notable marketing term that attempts to hide the fact that system "Y" requires a substantial migration effort in order to use legacy software from system "X". Paradoctor (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I don't understand it" is not a good reason for nomination. Nor is then cruising other articles and removing [38][39][40][41][42] inbound links to this article. Particularly not when that involves a change from "is source-compatible (not binary compatible) " to "is not binary compatible", which shifts the whole implied meaning of a sentence from "quite compatible" to "not very compatible". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the terms source and binary compatibility are of long standing (e.g. from 2002) and clearly opposed definition. I do hope the deleted links will be restored promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term goes back to at least the 1970s, just from the mentions we already have, in relation to new generations of microprocessor.

I suspect that the term might go back as far as the 1950s, and Tony Brooker's very first uses of Autocode, this being one of the justifications for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly not WP:NEO or WP:OR as a few basic searches in GBooks and GScholar should have shown. Three cite books have been added. Sam Sailor 17:35, 9 May 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. —SpacemanSpiff 14:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Mirror[edit]

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

Someone please point me towards one iota of decent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources....... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Times of India which produces the news website. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what?! The website folded up days after it's launch and it has made precisely nil impact anywhere.~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The key details. What it was. When it was established. And when it folded. Dp you have a source for that? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed one blogger who is interested in the news-arena and as far as he remember(s)/recall(s), it was a joint effort by ABP and TOI to launch a website along the patterns of Mumbai Mirror with more space for citizen-reporting.(At that time, several more domains Punemirror.com, Hyderabadmirror.com et al were also registered by the same company for future utilization along the same lines).But, the site failed to make any minimal impact and was pulled weeks post-launch.Basically, it appeared and vanished without any foot-marks.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per nom. Deb (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely nothing noteworthy about the publication is mentioned in the article. Plenty of irrelevant content, including info about its sister newspapers for some reason. Norcaes (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:50, 9 May 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. —SpacemanSpiff 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dowry Calculator[edit]

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

All the coverage of the website died out post the initial brouhaha that coincided with the launch of the website.We aren't a repository of one-day wonders......And now, the entire coverage has shifted to something similar, founded by Shaadi.com.Huh!! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand woth follow on site. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and appears to be a case of WP:NEWSBRIEF. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a short-lived joke without any permanent impact. Norcaes (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS; no sustained coverage over a period of time - the website isn't even live anymore and appears to have been created as a one-off publicity stunt with a one-year domain registration Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 9 May 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 08:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dare2compete[edit]

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

I was half-tempted to tag this as an admixture of A7 and G11.But, that I'm here, I fail to see any non-trivial and non-PR coverage of the website in reliable source.Fails WP:NWEB as well as the rigor of WP:NCORP. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an assertion of notability and the referncing starts with Linkedin. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:51, 9 May 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. Enigma^msg 05:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curejoy[edit]

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

Typical PR-Spam.Fails the rigorous sourcing requirements per WP:NCORP and the criterion of WP:NWEB.News solely restricted to events of received funding.I see no in-depth coverage of the activities of the site, otherwise.TOOSOON. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator's comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:53, 9 May 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 08:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buildabazaar[edit]

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

PR-PROMO-SPAM.Fails WP:NCORP and/or WP:NWEB.Give me some non-PR piece(s)/non-interviews, which covers the subject non-trivially.Could be merged/redirected somewhere but better to have the discussion at an AfD. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article that fails WP:NCORP. FITINDIA 18:09, 7 May 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. Enigma^msg 05:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticook[edit]

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

TOOSOON.Fails WP:NCORP and/or WP:NWEB.Nothing except news of funding(s).Spammy PR sourcing. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article that fails WP:NCORP. FITINDIA 18:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom that it's WP:TOOSOON. RS coverage is not significant enough, just announcements. Cesdeva ^(talk) 20:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:53, 9 May 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 08:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abasar[edit]

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

Fails our general notability guideline as well as our our subject-specific guideline.I fail to see how this website passes the specific set of criterion for web-content.A remnant of our bygone days...........Frankly, all hits in vernacular sources are about a Durga-Puja venue, which is quite popular:)The article was near-certainly created by the website-founder. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:56, 9 May 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 08:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy 2.1[edit]

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

Delete. Original research. Vanity. Buzzword-ish. This article is about a voting website. However, there are hundreds of voting websites, and none of them has its own Wikipedia article. The proposed election method has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The proposed election method is uninteresting from the scientific point of view. The links seem to be bogus; for example, one link refers to a 2015 article that claims that Tunisia was about to adopt this method. Markus Schulze 17:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I don't get the reason you want it to be deleted. If it is because of WP:GNG, then it's not valid because of the multiple coverage in independent sources. If it is because of the OR, it can just be removed without removing the article altogether. If it is because the method proposed by this website has not been widely used, it does not matter since it is a thing and is notable. "Uninteresting from the scientific point of view" is pretty much your opinion, since Wikipedia is not about "scientific" things alone (depends on your point of view of what is "scientific"), but things that are notable. The article contains multiple independent sources and should be kept, and any issues concerning OR or advertising can just be removed. Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 19:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The links are not trustworthy. When this or that institution has discussed this method, then it should be possible to provide a link to this institution's website saying that it has discussed this method. However, the provided links refer to articles by supporters of this method claiming that they have discussed this method with this or that institution. So if there was e.g. a link to an official website of the Tunisian government saying that it discussed this election method, then I would agree that this link is reliable; but a link to an article of a promoter of this election method simply claiming that he has discussed this method with representatives of the Tunisian government is, in my opinion, not reliable. Markus Schulze 20:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Still not a reason for deletion. Factual errors can just be removed (e.g. "the Tunisian government has adopted D21" if there is no reliable source). The subject of the article is notable because of the coverage in independent sources, and anything concerning factual issues within the article - once again - can just be removed without slaughtering the article itself. I keep my vote. Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 21:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing really concerns me. The only independent source that covers the topic seems to be the article about New York and possibly the Portuguese article. The Scotland one does not (passing mention), and other ones are marketing articles about the creator (Carnegie Mellon, Politico.eu) and are not actually about the voting system itself (for instance, discussing the voting system in an academic article, versus being about the creator and then discussing the voting system). It's a really odd article, since a voting system shouldn't in theory be tied in with marketing, but this reads and is sourced like an article that would fail WP:NCORP. Does not pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I read the Portuguese source and it offers independent coverage about D21. Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 18:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The links are from the years 2013-2016 and they are about attempts to get this method adopted. However, it seems that this method has actually nowhere got adopted. So obviously, despite of campaigning in the years 2013-2016, this method never caught on. Markus Schulze 15:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The method doesn't need to be adopted to have an article. Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 20:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, the method needs to be adopted (so that it is notable from the practical point of view) or to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (so that it is notable from the scientific point of view) to pass WP:GNG. Markus Schulze 04:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that the fact that a system is not currently or has never been implemented is not in itself a factor against inclusion in Wikipedia of an article about it. The foundational criterion is independent notability, even if the subject is some historical relic. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that the claim that "Janeček's and his team are currently working with the parliament of Tunisia to implement D21's system into the country's regional elections" is a hoax. Markus Schulze 18:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this claim is shaky despite its mention in a few of the sources. It has since been removed from the article, so I do not believe it is an issue any longer. JackRubenacker (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Schulze, most of your arguments are without substance. It does not matter whether or not the subject (i.e. the D21 system) is ever going to be used in Tunisia. The only thing that matters is whether or not this possibility is or had been reported in reliable sources. End of story. If it hasn't, out it goes! If it has, it stays, because this has nothing to do with "creating hoaxes." Articles about appearances of ghosts, crystal ball gazing, and psychics are all over Wikipedia. Why? Because their subject is (drum roll!) notable.

Same thing about the "claim that the proposed method minimizes corruption." We are not here to demonstrate whether or not that claim can be substantiated. We're here to pass judgement on the notability of the system and the notability of the claim. The rest of your comments ("buzzwordish," etc) are about the quality of the text. But this can easily be improved and has little if anything to do with the AfD, as you should know. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Are you going to address my concerns about a possible WP:COI, please? -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all throwing in Prezident 21 as well? Drmies (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should, appears to be a non-notable video game at first glance. SportingFlyer talk 04:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Prez21 article should probably be merged into "D21" (if the latter survives the AfD process, of course). On its own, Prez21 doesn't seem to have significant independent notability. BTW, it seems to me that it's not just a "video game," strictly speaking, but software that uses simulation and entertainment to familiarize users with a particular system of voting. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Corruption in the Czech Republic is so prevalent that it rightly enjoys its own separate article in Wikipedia. Accordingly, the system D21 has featured prominently in Czech media, on account both of its ostensible aims as well as its creator's general notability. The sources in the article, e.g. from Politico, provide adequate evidence for the subject's independent notability, even if western sources are scarcer than Czech ones. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disclocure Some days ago, I've been contacted by the article's creator and asked if I could offer some assistance to this article. As it happens, I'm the original creator of the Karel Janeček article. After offering general & specific suggestions, I was contacted again to participate, if I could, in this AfD as well as in improving the D21 article itself, which I did. Therefore, I participate in this AfD with as much caution as I can summon. Let it be said though that, if at any time, I'd thought the subject did not merit an article I'd certainly have put forward the case for its removal, request for help or no request. BTW, the creator is a student on a school project. He has been notified of WP:SUP and WP:CANVASS, though it's fair to assume the best of intentions on his part. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Politico article is about Janczek, though. If Janczek is notable, this at best should be merged with him as it hasn't been studied or researched independently, and none of the articles have significant mentions of the system without also significantly talking about Janczek. SportingFlyer talk 14:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Politico article is about Democracy 2.1. It features its creator, yes, and has him talking about it and explaining what D21 does, but would not exist if it wasn't about the system. The title is telling: "Recalculating democracy." Janeček is many things but whatever personal stuff is there ("mathematician", blah blah) is background to the information about D21 as a voting system intent on "recalculating democracy." The focus is on D21. It's an article about D21. -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with you. The tagline of the article is Czech ‘master of the universe’ uses his money and math skills to revamp how voting works. Janeček's name appears 23 times in the article. Democracy 2.1 appears thrice. The lede discusses Janeček, not his new voting system. The article is primarily about Janeček, as are most of the other non-trivial articles (like the Scottish review of possible voting systems). To me, that shows the problem with the article: the voting system itself is not independently notable from its creator. SportingFlyer talk 01:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because your count is incorrect. The correct count is not about "mentions of name" but about reference, i.e. how much of the text is about the system itself and how much about its creator. Do the count again; it's more difficult than a straight "word-find" but it'll show that out of the 37 subject-involved sentences, some 24 (65%) are strictly about the system, while 13 (35%) are about Janeček strictly as a person, which could be justified as background but let's ignore this. The rest of the text is about other things, i.e. corruption in the Czech Republic, D21 application in Tunisia, etc. (Formulas, image legends, titles are not counted even though that would increase the mentions of the system.) This is an article about Democracy 2.1. The Politico source is fully valid. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not swayed, meaning we're at an impasse. Almost every other sentence is a direct quote from the creator of the system. It is not independently notable as a political system from its creator based on the sources. (Please note since there are a couple AfDs we disagree on at the moment, I disagree with you respectfully.) SportingFlyer talk 21:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(It goes without saying that the respect is reciprocal. One of my ambitions in discussions is to conduct myself in a civil manner, which I'd aim for even if Wikipedia did not mandate it. I do not always succeed but I do try.)

On substance again: I understand your view point; I'm still not sure you understand mine. Suppose Dr Gyro is a film star, a scientist, and a professional gambler. One day, Gyro makes an invention (or claims he made a invention) that he names "Flying Burrito." A national newspaper sends over a reporter to interview Gyro about his so-called invention. When the reporter's piece is published we see that Gyro appears everywhere in it talking about the "Burrito." There is extensive background information about the inventor in the article, yet there is no talk about his film appearances, his gambling exploits, or his other scientific escapades beyond mere mentions; the report is all about the "Flying Burrito;" it if was about Gyro it'd have covered all aspects of his CV. So, I'm asking you, that newspaper piece is evidence of the notability of the already well known person of Dr Gyro or of his invention? -The Gnome (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I still do not think the article is independent enough of the creator to be non-promotional. Many voting systems are named after their creator(s), like Hare-Clark, so I admit who creates the system is important. However, in this instance, the majority of the press in the article, including the Politico article, is WP:PROMO: it is the creator promoting their own system and is not independent of the subject, even though it's written by a disinterested, apparently freelance journalist. All of the articles are "Janeček creates system to combat corruption", not "System, created by Janeček, being used." This, to me, is a very important distinction showing the article is meant for a promotional purpose. Even how the system works is a primary source in the article! I wouldn't mind a WP:TNT rewrite to focus on the system itself, but I can't find the sources (journals, etc) to do so. SportingFlyer talk 05:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you might think the article might be about the creator of the system rather than about the system itself, but if you think that the Politico article is promotional (which denotes intent to promote), then we're much further apart than I thought. I find it unbelievable that the article could be construed as promotional so I'll comment here no more. -The Gnome (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede the article isn't promotional in the sense of, say, a paid promotion, but you see articles about this frequently: a person creates something and promotes it through industry press, which typically doesn't fly for WP:NCORP articles. The other articles aren't very good about this either. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The claim that the proposed method minimizes corruption is not substantiatable. The sections "Background" and "Incentives" of the article are completely buzzword-ish. Markus Schulze 18:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the source in question claims the system is intended to minimize corruption rather than stating it does do so, and we can edit the article to better reflect that. Do you have any specific examples of what you find to be buzzword-ish? I get a slight sense of it under "Incentives" but not so much under "Background." I was also unclear about your initial argument about original research; do you still feel OR exists even after the recent edits, and if so, could you please specify? JackRubenacker (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the issue of corruption: I do recall seeing at least one Czech source regarding a D21 experiment that was run parallel to the official Czech elections a few years ago. That comparison might give insight on how the method deals with corrupt candidates, but my knowledge of Czech political parties and candidates is not particularly strong. JackRubenacker (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed that the nominator for this AfD is a creator him/herself of an alternative electoral system, the "Schulze method," and working in Wikipedia mostly on on "electoral systems" (see history). Can we be at least assured, please, that there is no conflict of interest in this nomination? And that there is no other issue, e.g. personal animosity, involved? We're supposed to assume good faith but also to be vigilant. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @The Gnome: Thank you! You said pretty much all I tried to say (about Marck Schulze's arguments back there). Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 21:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is sufficient secondary sourcing, more than enough to provide notability outweighing the OR. It is significant enough as it stands to not be a buzzword (or at least not to globally such, since I feel buzzword-status can be split globally). It more than justifies a keep.

I do feel obliged to say that a COI concern from inventing your own electoral system is the most unique version of such I've seen thus far. The threat of clear cut demonstration of COI or animosity etc was concisely pointed out by The Gnome Nosebagbear (talk) 13:50, 8 May 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. Article very similar to the prior one that was deleted. Account that has recreated it is without any doubt a sock. Thus G5 applies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maragathakkaadu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable upcoming film created by SPA/COI, no significant coverage in reliable sources (except this published back in October 2017) and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. This article has previously been deleted after a previous AfD discussion. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has enough sources to make WP:N. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjjjjjdddddd: Enough? are you serious? and can you provide some? GSS (talk|c|em) 08:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: I mean, the sources in the reference section. They seem to be just enough to put the film into the realm of notability, but I may be wrong, as some of the sources are in a language I don't understand. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjjjjjdddddd: FYI those sources are not reliable except Deccan Chronicle which was published back in 2017 and is insufficient to support notability also can you please explain your reason for declining G4? GSS (talk|c|em) 08:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the G4, the deletion discussion before this one seemed to describe totally different content, and as for the sources, I don't see why they wouldn't be at least somewhat reliable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an administrator and thus lack the ability to view deleted revisions.Please don't decline G4s except in cases, where you are very certain of a mistach between the two versions. Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair bit of overlap between the version created by User:Filmbluedeer Sept 2th 2017 and User:Chetanbathija on Sept 27th 2017. Obviously the later account is a sock of the first. Blocking and deleting per G5. Not sure if a formal SPI may still be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 7 May 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. Enigma^msg 05:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Al Habtoor[edit]

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

Non notable subject/puff piece gone sour. Only coverage is collateral. None in depth about subject. More coverage about his son than him. Was heavily edited by the subject or his agent, depending on the day of the week. See User_talk:Rashidalhabtoor#page_break. The rest of the talk page is also interesting. The bit about his son was removed, but the article about the son is used to source the article. He is now unhappy with the whole page and wants it corrected or deleted. What remains doesn't say much for notability and is a little promotional. I'm all for deletion. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find significant coverage in WP:RS online in English or Arabic (using "راشد الحبتور") to show notability per WP:BIO. There's some coverage of his 2003 custody dispute with the mother of his son, but only passing mentions about his career, mostly in connection with his clearly notable father, and WP: Notability is not inherited. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there isn't anything I can add to the nominator's excellent analysis. It seems that the article exists only because the subject wants it to exist, not because of any notability criteria Wikipedia has. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:32, 7 May 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mumble-Jumble[edit]

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

Not a notable board game. Self-published, and the coverage is all exceedingly local in nature (of the form "Local man creates game") power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Sources are as the nom claims, but one of them is the Baltimore Sun. The game is hardly known, but there are enough WP:RS that are independent of the author to meet WP:N. It's an interesting case of where we claim sources are too local to have value. IMO, the Baltimore Sun is enough to overcome the "smalltown press" arguments. Hobit (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, source given by Hobit may still be local coverage since Lutherville is less than 15 miles away. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points. #1 Baltimore is pretty darn big as is that newspaper. One of the largest in the US I'd guess. Might be in the top 100 in the world. #2 I don't think "local" is a part of WP:N or any relevant SNGs. So, from a policy-based viewpoint, I don't know that it matters either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 04:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:ONESOURCE. wumbolo ^^^ 13:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are quite a few sources in the article actually. Hobit (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. I'll acknowledge that part of the sourcing challenge is that the game was launched pre-Internet, but non-existent current coverage suggests any temporary notability was not sustained. I also noticed there are other games with the same name, which could confuse people looking to determine notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are old and non-clickable and hence cannot be verified. There are no recent references, so hence it is not notable IMO. Peter303x (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 15 May 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.